Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3913
1000 East Rd,., Cutghogue /7 (at the end) a$. -SEC GUS WADE FILED__ lOf1184 Appealed by Fleet's Neck Property Owne~ts F.s/ZIBs Association, Inc. New Dwelling. #3302 Reinstatement of Bldg. Permitp~-5dik FILED: 10/26/84 RUN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION: OF BUILDING INSPECTOR L I TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. PP... C 1, (We) of Nome of A eilont Street and Number l ' .x i 17 34 .i .........HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO DATED .....f ..Q. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of Applicant for Permit e of y l e~\avc(~~ivy Q~~~. e b)~ 1 Lq ~r t ' Street and Number Murncrpof State ( ) PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY l f Ck' Ma.....p Z ..oning...... Street /Hamlet / Use District.. on . District 1000 Sectionjilb Block-/ Lot Z~g ~av ...............current Owner Mqp No. Lot No. Prior Owner Lk a(aka-,t 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sob- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article Section 4qo A " -g~ 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map (A A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chop, 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) as not been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No .................................Dated REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that K07;. W , ) ( ~b Form zat (Continue on other side) * FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date.. ca.~ ? 19 9 D, . To G~av4...W.Sa? . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . Q-^A& 9........, 19 . c1.4. for permit to a... E e...&X .2W'4• 1 . > .q at Location of Property ~r ? l... . House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 11.0 Block ....0.7....... Lot . Ax Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds S~ nq Building Inspector RV 1/80 30,---,) OF HEALTH - . w 3 S OF PLANS FORMNO.1 SURVEY' TOWN OFSOUTHOLD CHECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEPTIC FORM TOWN HALL ~OUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 NOTIFY TEL.. 765-1802 CALL ..............t.....:. Examined . 19... MAIL T.O;:`4I tl Approved - , 19 Permit No Disapproved a/c IJ @ [R 0 5 LE t 1 911990 (Building Inspector) L _ y„ APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT p Date .~....C 15 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewri ter 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 demolition, as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, bu ding code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary insp kctiobs. oJY ~Iam L\ - - - (Signature of appli t, or name, if a corporation) (Mailing address of applicant...1131 State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name of owner of premises (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. _ fficer) (Name and title of corporate officer.). Builder's License No. . . . Plumber's License No. Electrician's License No . . . . Outer Trade's License No . 1, Location of land on which proposed work will be done. . ...........~....C~t......... House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section VG Block Lot Z . Subdivision . Filed Map No. - . Lot.............-: (Name) `State existing use and occupancv of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy f~~ b. Intended use and occupancy ....piC1 l 4~`^+C - • • . S'-E ~0 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Addition Alteration . Repair Removal Demolition Other Work...,........... (Description) 4. Estimated Cost 9. / { '1~ Fee . (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units 0........ Number of dwelling units on each floor 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 a. Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stones 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front sq' . . Rear Depth Height ....~L Number of Stories ' . 9. Size of lot Front Rear Depth 10. Date of Purchase . All N me of Former O ner . d o 4f ' L..~ ~a ...I.... . L~ . 11. Zone cruse district in whim premises are situated 4 S~!? . 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..lt;. i . 13. Will lot be regraded Will excess fill be removed from premises Yes No 14. Name of Owner of premises G4"~2' . Y Address Phone Name of Architect , . Address Phone No Name of Contractor S _ ~ . Address Phone I 15-Is this property located within300 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES .__NO *;f yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and.indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show; street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY OF . being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. fie 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 this;. application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the , work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Swom to before me this f~. • I.T day of 1 1,9 Notary Public, .......1?r ..I1 County HELEN IL DE VOE A. . NNARy SIk New Yak (Signature. of applicant) Tom Expires March 30, M ~ FOR f~,,1 V«? TOWN OF SOU HOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT i OWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11977 TEL.: 765.1802 C~ ixamined. 194- Received...-• 1. 19.~ kpproved ' u h+t ..3 P.... , 191. . Permit No. 9. disapproved a/c . r ~.x4dui t CL, G (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date : I..:....''.., 19F4y INSTRUCTIONS I a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in, ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with S' :ts 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 r areas; and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- ation. 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 `tail 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 nail 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 Wilding Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws; Ordinances or egulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition; as herein described-. 'lie -applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinancA, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to dmit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessa ns ctions.` t. (Signature ofilicant, or name if a corporation) U3tlo.:u{~t~.Avt ~n r+ ''oun Yu t i ?3i ................y........................ (Mailing address of applicant) itate whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Same of owner of premises ?tSS 3U>~ , i 1zke . (as on the tax roll or latest deed) f applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No . . Plumber's License No. v Electrician's License No.K _ ~ ~ LS fy~ ` gy- O ' Other Trade's License No. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. t1K u , . 0' . ` t. . rTz Uc~~UP un 1 House Number 1y Street Hamlet County Tax Mao No. 1000 Section ......11q......... Block Lot.. . Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot...............' (Name) State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy ~~L@ Vt~'~~ . . b. Intended use and occuninc Lac s-v - c t ~pa t ~aHe.~, y i . e 3. Nature of work (check which applivable): New Building x..... Additiun Alteration Repair' Removal Demolition Other Work . 0~!- (Description) 4. Estimated Cost , ~i Fee . (to be paid on filing this application). 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units . Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage; number of cars _ . 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each ty e of use 7. Dir:Yensions of existing structures, if any: Front . . Rear c Depth Hcioht , Number of Stories ~ . Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front , . t. , Rear . Depth Height y Number of Storics . . . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front . a , Rear Depth '4. . Height Numbex gf Stories : 9. Size of lot: Front Rear Depth f y~'- , 0. Dat° of Purchase ? l<<`o Name ^Ye of Former Owner jr>w. c t ~i 1.. Zone or use district in which premises are situated, t der ? aA . Z. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ati ` . 3. Will lot be regraded w'-4" . will expess fill > removed rom premises- Yes Nor 4. Name of Owner of premises - 0 t~~ e a _ Address a Phonne No.. c i Jay?f Name of Architect ya\ ] t ° Address i.¢ N Phone 10 Name of Contractor s3 tR~ V ? k Address s : ~1 ^ Phone No.. i . PLOT DIAGRAM, Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings; whether existing or proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions from rroperty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether. nterior or corner lot. ` I "i"ATE OF NEW YORK, S.S OUNTY OF . . being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant - (Name of individual signing contract) hove named -e is the.. . (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) F said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this pplication; that all statements contained iii this application are true to the best of his knowledge. and belief; and that the cork will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. ivorn to before me this C.... day of + ° w 19. otary Public '-C . ~f: r: ounty VOE NOTARY P,r +P v. h . - . a ~t o r e ..rx rlp u (Signature of applicar'' . inl $i (rule cn v Term Ex,;..es .,iarpr X 199 - REASON-3BOR PEAL Continued SiRI AP TION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce' practical difficulties or ul nneces- ecause j K. , ~ 'i r-'' : .~4~ue-. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all 'properties 'alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because g IY 1 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because 13; -4 1 STATE OF NEW YORK ss p........ COUNTY OF a ttire Sworn to this ...............6.. MLII:v................. day of....... 19 ~Id v1.'". Notar~Public i_1NDA?. COOPr i rs.Rryay ~ :nft Sasia 011 N-_er York z: ~ r LINDA J. COOPER Notary public, state of New Yoi k Xo. 4822563. Suffolk Ceunty Terre expires December 31, I~<- a m s v. u- ~ `c` D N f fA J ~ o - a 3 m m m ~ D Z ~ Z ~ CL N m t i 0 < r, n z + a- •y _ o, 1O] r 1 03 t ~ m ~ ZG~ r I ~ Z N-t m a r 97 z t E O D O C3 -n -n O r N o m O P G Z z 4 r" 2 rn 'u. :a ~a .vD G m 0~ z z m r v o 3 n 7r ~A; ` w J p N S I.` - T ~ ' a r ~ •ea~>. 's I ~ 1 r 0 3 - 8 a o N, F Z 1 't a ` g ? r a F i Q 066 }I 06 N, t ! y J1 1..~ y yf j { } Y *17 Ail 6 c>} } t p a , 3, * do f 3 0 0. X7 I z A~e ell , c ° ~ o 2 ~ 5 e 9 `gym` 'a"" ~4'Y ~ ~ h ~ ~ ; + i \ ux yk "h'-" ~ { ° o ,~t m.«m~~Tu 2~- .y .2.3 ~3$ loco} mn° mmtm~o'$ cUm t o o z a g a` It- E 's m.2 s mS"m ~mcagr5 a`.o w«, SFrtQe,A Y 1.4 `\1 t''" s 4ii m_ f a Y'° t . ma`NmPJmc °rK#1. 5 t CS aLn '+a. +mfw 17814 tan of _-,S, omen me ~N 99.8f Z E,ow a ,~~+m5','Gaa o.mny m72o Sf yr: , 5> to k i \ t - ff u~ a ~ . ~ ~ # air .R ~ ~ 4 3 ~ ~ , ~ lira ~ i~ ~ ? ws; ~ i rte.- y 1 ~ j a } ~ t 1 1 { 4 t { k, ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ ~f 4 t to W rr ox } V' i s ~ ~ s 5: s 11 ~ ti aa.a r ~js r ~ Vi gy; ~ vac ?~v nt, {'J x~`~ 4 141 ~ ,`t - - lhl RE: G. WADE • • ZBA FILE 1/29/90 Filed zba application 2/6/90 Survey amended 2/6/90 ZBA coordinated Lead Agency request letter to agencies d1,211g0 Tiu.<-aZee„ a~Co~ . a uw-. w ~4 -43 "-Ltz~ a- - 4/18/90 Filed 280-A amended application. 5/1/90 ZBA commenced coordination SEQRA and engaged Cramer & Voornis as consultants to review LEAF 5/4/90 Payment of $500 fee for review of LEAF by town consultant was requested. 6/7/90 $500 fee for review of LEAF paid by applicant 7/17/90 Review of LEAF completed with recommendations 7/27/90 Positive Declaration adopted as prepared 7/17/90 by Cramer& Voorhis, consultants to the town 8/6/90 Position Declaration filed with Albany DEC office under File No. P1-473800-00099 8/15/90 Scoping Session held and scoping report was adopted by the ZBA and coordinated 9/12/90 Written transcript of scoping session received from court stenographer. 10/2/90 Town requested $2,000 deposit for fees concerning scoping session and review of Draft EIS. 1/28/91 Telephone request from applicant concerning breakdown and basis for requiring payment of $2,000 fee for review Draft EIS, etc. Town transmitted copy of section applicable under SEQRA law and Town Board resolution concerning its town policy in this regard. ZBA confirmed by letter to Mr. Wade dated 1/28/91. 3/1/91 Letter received by Town Attorney's Office from applicant's consultant concerning limitation of fees, delay of filing Town Trustees' application, etc. 3/12/91 Memorandum from Town Attorney concerning the above letter received by his office on 3/1/91 3/15/91 Responses sent from ZBA and Town Trustees to Town Attorney concerning his memorandum of 3/12/91 3/15/91 Letter from ZBA to Enconsultants, Inc. furnishing letters received under coordination process from County Health, DEC, and Fleets Neck Property Owners. 3/29/91 Photostat of Bd. of Town Trustees Receipt for $650., rec'd of EnConsultant--Gus Wade for $650 consultant fee 10/1/91 Bd. Appeals letter to EN-Consultants re outstanding items. 12/10/91 HAJE to ZBA, request to calculate SEQR fees for review of DEIS, etc. 1/13/92 Inter-Department memo to Town Clerk from ZBA re Gustav Wade project at Fleet's Neck, $2,500. 1/13/92 Town Clerk Receipt #42261 for $2,500 paid by Gustav J. Wade for "SEQRA Reimbursement - ZBA" 1/28/92 ZBA letter to En-Consultants re transmittal DEIS 2/3/92 Cramer, Voorhis letter to ZBA Chairman re review of proposed Wade DEIS 2/3/92 ZBA Chmn's memo transmitting copy Cramer, Voorhis summary to ZBA members Grigonis, Doyen & Dinizio 2/4/92 Southold Bd. of Trustees memo to ZBA to transmit "comments & Mr. Haje in your role as Lead Agency". 2/6/92 ZBA letter to Haje (En-Consultants) enclosing "Comments & Critique" prepared by Bruce Anderson for Southold Bd. of Trustees dated 2/2/92 2/6/92 ZBA Chmn's letter to HAJE (EN-Consultants) re further instrux with cc: Wade Bredemyer Cramer & Voorhis Suffolk Cty Dept. of Health Svices. NYS Dept. of Environmentsl Conserv. 2/19/92 Kowalski of ZBA letter to Voorhis re cost estimate; 3/17/92 Letter of protest from Wade to ZBA 3/27/92 Letter from Bredemeyer for Town Trustees, to WADE 3/31/92 Letter from Bd. of Appeals to Bredemeyer as Pres. of Bd. of Trustees relinquishing role as lead agency, etc. 3/31/92 Voorhis letter to Linda Kowalski of ZBA re fee schedule 4/2/92 ZBA letter to Wade re application under ny Town Law, Sec. 280-A 9/28/92 ZBA memo to Supervisor enclosing Voorhis 3/31/92 list of fees 10/30/92 Memo to Haje from Linda of ZBA with cc: Town Atty offiuce 10/30/92 Haje (EN-Consultants) lttr of transmittal to ZBA of revised Draft Environmental Impace Statement. • 11/2/92 Letter of transmittal from ZBA Chmn to ZBA members of Draft Environmental Impact Statement w i ' is . w ?w.I!•.le'Yk y:^ ! J ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman a r°n s x Serge Doyen, Jr. p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road RobertAV llar~..',_s ti3p`c P.O. Box 1179 J 1 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold FROM: Board of Appeals DATE: July 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS, as amended May 5, 1993 Property of Gustave Wade at Cutchogue On June 11, 1993, a copy of the DEIS prepared by En-Consultants was received by the Board of Appeals for review and comments which will be accepted up until July 19, 1993. We offer the following comments and requests, which include some references also previously noted in our November 27, 1992 report (copy attached for your convenience and use). 1. The status of the applications pending before all agencies should be reported. Also, a request is made to correct this for the record, and the fact that no building permit may be issued until all agency approvals have been obtained including approval which is necessary by this Board under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for safe and adequate access by fire and emergency vehicles. 2. Effects by changes in weather conditions at flood high tides and moon and moon hitides, h/low /low storm tides, and the requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road will need to be addressed. 3. The preparer has not confirmed alternatives for service companies and fire departments to gain access to the proposed house during freezing of the creek and bay areas immediately surrounding this land. There is mention of a one-year lease with Cutchogue Harbor Marina which may be terminated at any time. This lease is noted to be non-assignable and is strictly for the owner's boat. Will covenants for such access to the applicant's property be furnished for perpetual use, and how does the property owner plan to transport equipment, delivery items and vehicles to the property for emergency services, construction purposes, and otherwise. 1 of 3 • Page 2 - July 13,3 • To: Town Trustees, Read Agency Re: Review of DEIS - Gustave Wade Property 4. The record needs to be corrected to show a distance from the applicant's land to East Road at 85 feet or more (not 65 feet as suggested). 5. Noise impacts need to be addressed. This is necessary at least concerning noise levels and disturbances made in the use of generators and pumping stations at the site utilized for propane, electricity, water, and other purposes. Confirmation as to the number and location of the pumps and their generators are requested in addition to information concerning noise impacts. 6. Minimal reference is made for possible access for backhoes and other equipment by barge. The points of location and proof of such authorization from property owners has not been provided and is necessary in order to access from upland areas for not only backhoes but also for maintenance and cleaning of cesspools, heating, etc. 7. other concerns with reference to statements made by the prepare, Dennis Corcoran, and others concerning proposals for fire safety, as well as questions about sufficient and safe access by emergency or fire vehicles will, of course, be continued at a public hearing before the Board of Appeals as required by Town Law, Section 280-A, and further considerations are mandated which are not a part of the SEQRA process. Further, an accurate map showing water routes for access by vehicles and for equipment will need to be submitted and considered. Questions are outstanding by this agency concerning time periods for fire and emergency responses for water emergencies, the depth of water and dock suitability at low tides during transports, etc. 8. As noted in our written comments of November 27, 1992 on the prior DEIS submission, this property is located in a "Critial Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, and also referred to as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland areas within 500 feet of the bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29-Year 1988, Suffolk County, and was enacted by the County Legislature. It is requested that all Notices of filing and procedural requirements be amended as a Type I Action. 9. Page 17 makes reference to a new, updated survey dated April 17, 1993 which has not been made a part of this DEIS. An original print is requested for coordination and use to all involved agencies. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject DEIS for final acceptance by the Town. 2 of 3' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman W r- x Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road p James Dinizio, Jr. p!r P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa ~lt 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 7/14/93 - Received surveys updated April 8, 1993 from Mr. Haje Propane tank area is not shown on this April 1993 survey. Mr. Haje indicates that it may not be legally permissible to store 100 lb. propane tanks at the premises, and in that case they would have to go for solar on the roof of the building. This question is presently outstanding. 3 of 3 4,`q It, vf L° T r, APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS ~ ; :c Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr K •;'•4"" per, P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa "a 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold Mr. Roy Haje, En-Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS of 11/2/92 APPLICANT: Gustave Wade SITE: Property near the End of East Road at Fleet's Neck Cutchogue, Town of Southold Based upon review, it is the opinion of the Board of Appeals that the document as submitted November 2, 1992, is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review. Included herein are specific comments pertaining to the document which outline deficiencies which are in need of additional discussion, clarification, documentation, and/or answers prior to circulation to outside governmental agencies and public comment. I. SUMMARY The summary should, of course, be amended to reflect changes in the text based upon the following: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Commencing at Page 4 - Background and History a) With regard to permits, permit and permit renewals were not attached. Expiration dates for each agency permit were not furnished. Building permits are renewable for dwellings under construction only; therefore, the building permits referenced could not be renewed and apparently had expired some time ago. Separate permit applications and reviews are subsequently required. b) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental permits were not listed of record prior to 1982. No mention is made of effect of building construction without N.Y.S. D.E.C. permits. Page' 2 - November 20 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck c) Background and history as well as the physical conditions of the site and the surrounding lands at the time of zoning (1957) and at the time of purchase, to the present time period, need to be addressed. d) Physical changes to the site and surrounding area during all specific time periods were not adequately described in detail, i.e. destruction and types of wetlands being replaced with the stone blend, gravel, and other materials onto the wetland area between East Road and the "island," and onto the island upland areas, etc. e) Reference is made to the claim that the island is no longer considered an island. This is questionable since the owner (Town) of the lands did not authorize the wetlands to be filled in and did not authorize the island to become a part of the mainland. Document should confirm ownership between the "island" and East Road to be other than the applicant's. Reference was made that this island is no longer being considered an island. Clarification of this statement is needed, substantiated by documentation as to how this was arrived at, which shall include the Town's anticipated re-opening of the channel at the end of East Road. Pages 6-8 Reference was made to certain "accusations in a court injunction" concerning a Town building permit in 1984 - 1985. Copies of all Court Determinations should be attached, and reference should be corrected to show that Court determined building permit was ineffective and construction could not begin. It should also be noted that a building permit could not again be issued unless all other agency permits were obtained and in full force and effect, as well as obtaining recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles to the island as provided under New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Status of all agency permits, including those now expired and not issued, must be listed. Copies of currently valid permits (if any) should be attached in Appendix. This document must confirm that there are currently no valid permits from any governmental agency concerning the construction of a dwelling, particularly since references mentioned are misleading. Commencing at Page 15 Effects by adverse changes in weather conditions, flood high tides, moon tides during storms, removal of unauthorized fill between island and East Road have not been addressed. Page 3 - November a 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Page 16 How will owner, service companies, etc. gain access to house during freezing of creek and bay areas around island? Will neighboring property be utilized? Page 17 To what depths and what methods are being used to clear 6900 sq. ft. of land as proposed (see December 15, 1988 survey)? Why is 6900 sq. ft. of land area needed to be cleared, rather than substantially lesser areas if the house is 1260 sq. ft. in floor area? Mitigation measures to reduce area of disturbance have not been addressed adequately. Page 19 Propane delivery is not adequately addressed - applicant may not pipe underground on lands other than his own without express written permission from the property owner. The distance. at its closest point from the island to East Road is 85 feet, or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Propane lines and servicing is therefore not feasible. Page 20 What alternative areas of sanitary system have had dye studies, and documents substantiating all studies of this island should be attached. Page 22 Contract between property owner and Cutchogue Harbor Marina for access is not attached for consideration. Also, information has not been submitted to show how, where and what time periods and seasons, contractors, back-hoe operators, and other building machinery or delivery trucks will be able to gain access by water. Will heavy equipment operators be using boat or barge access from and to the westerly section of East Creek, or other sections? Page 50 Noise levels of generator(s) with high and low time periods were not submitted. Effects of shutting down of generators has not been documented. Page 4 - November 20 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Commencing at Page 52 - System Impacts Recharge figures may not be calculated on current standard requirements for reverse osmosis system should be re-confirmed with Health Department. Page 54 Need to address effects caused by nitrates into salt water at different tide levels - particularly storm tides, etc. Page 56 No currently valid Health Department permits or substantiated dye studies were documented for alternative sanitary system locations. Also need to furnish report on dye study when tide level is more than median. Page 68 Reference is made that since the "lot" is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered by the applicant's consultant to be a buildable lot. A lot is not a buildable lot until all valid approvals and permits are obtained, and proof has been submitted as to its single-and-separate ownership as required by the Zoning Code, and compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. The lot cannot be guaranteed a buildable lot by merely complying with one or two provisions of law. It should be confirmed that at the present time, no permits are currently in effect from all town, state, and county agencies that would render the lot a buildable lot for purposes of a residence. It should be confirmed that the use of this island, or "lot", is presently for boating and docking enjoyment, which has permit approval, for the property owner and his guests. Page 74 It is noted that "...6400 sq. ft. will be cleared for house and septic system construction... 5140 sq. ft. will be revegetated...." 6400 less 5140 sq. ft. leaves 1260 sq. ft. The planting schedule submitted as Appendix P shows a gravel area and deck areas around the dwelling which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. These figures do not agree. The 1988 survey map shows that the house would be 1300 sq. ft. although other references are for a 1260 sq. ft. house. What is the square footage of gravel areas, patio areas, and deck areas in addition to the square footage of living area? Page 5 - November 0 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck OTHER Reference must be made to this property as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, also known as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of the Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland area within 500 feet of all bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29 Year 1988, Suffolk County and was enacted by the County Legislature. Reference should also be made to all areas under which variances are being requested, which should include: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees at less than 75 feet from the high water mark, from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles, and the Suffolk County Health Department. In, the event of new bulkheading with proper permits, other variances may be necessary (i.e. zoning code, Section 100-239.4B which requires a minimum setback at 75 feet from bulkheads or retaining walls). SURVEY - An up-to-date survey, with on-site surveying inspections, is requested in light of the hurricane damage and storm damages in the Town of Southold within the last two years. The survey map is shown that the property was lastly re-surveyed in December 1988, prior to the hurricane-storms. ACCESS - Additional information is required for decision-making to include: delineation of the points of access; water routes for access; the distances by water; ingress and egress of emergency vehicles; the time periods for fire and emergency vehicle response; the depth of water and dock suitability for sole access. These areas were not addressed as requested. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for acceptance by the Town (Town Trustees as lead agency). Based upon this review, the DEIS has not been accepted. Review of revisions by the applicant would be expedited in order to commence the public comment process for this project. Dated: November 27, 1992 BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN Table of Contents - ' Page 1. Summary ...........................................................................1 11. Description of Proposed Action I III. Analysis of Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 IV. References ........................................................................42 V. Appendices ......................................................................43 Appendix 1: Minutes of the Public Hearing dated June 24, 1993 Appendix 2: Correspondence from Shaw of Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated July 19, 1993 Appendix 3: Correspondence from Hunington dated July 17, 1993 Appendix 4: Correspondence from Vanderbeck dated July 16, 1993 Appendix 5: Correspondence from Killop dated July 14, 1993 Appendix 6: Correspondence from Walsh dated July 16, 1993 Appendix 7: Correspondence from Allen dated July 15, 1993 Appendix 8: Correspondence from Wetzel received July 19, 1993 Appendix 9: Correspondence from the Open Space Council dated July 18, 1993 Appendix 10: Correspondence from Schwartz received July 16, 1993 Appendix 11: Correspondence from Howard dated July 14, 1993 Appendix 12: Correspondence from Finerty dated July 10, 1993 Appendix 13: Correspondence from Latham dated July 14, 1993 Appendix 14: Correspondence from Lombardi dated July 13, 1993 Appendix 15: Correspondence from Thurber of NYSDEC dated July 9, 1993 Appendix 16: Correspondence from Cogen dated July 15, 1993 Appendix 17: Correspondence from Southold Board of Appeals dated July 13, 1993 Appendix 18: Correspondence from Hussey dated July 13, 1993 l Appendix 19: Correspondence from Buhler dated July 13, 1993 Appendix 20: Correspondence from Doroski of Southold Police Department dated June 29, 1993 Appendix 21: Correspondence from Nowacheck dated July 2, 1993 Appendix 22: Correspondence from Dempsey of Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association, Inc. dated July 1, 1993 Appendix 23: Correspondence from Zarzecki dated July 1, 1993 Appendix 24: Correspondence from Tetrault dated June 26, 1993 Appendix 25: Correspondence from North Fork Environmental Council dated June 24, 1993 Appendix 26: Correspondence from Martin of Cutchogue Fire District dated July 22, 1993 Appendix 27: Correspondence from Sledz dated July 17, 1993 Appendix 28: Correspondence from Karr dated August 3, 1993. Appendix 29: Correspondence from Krupski to Moran dated April 2, 1993. i I Appendix 30: Correspondence from Anderson to Bredemeyer dated May 26, 1993. Appendix 31: Map of Fleet's Neck: showing the boundaries of the Fleet's Neck Property Association as described by Bernard Dempsey on September 26, 1993. j i I I II , I i I 1. Summary This Final Envirorunental Impact Statement ("FEIS") is completed in satisfaction of 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (3) (e). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") was prepared as requested, was deemed complete, circulated among all involved agencies and was noticed for public comment. The objective of this HIS was to catalogue all comments received both in written and oral forms, provide a summary of all comments and to provide a reasoned response to each comment using the wealth of information already submitted in connection with this proposed project as supplemented by accepted scientific principle. The most frequently raised issues included: impacts to wetlands, sewage related impacts, access concerns and quality of life concerns. 11. Description of Proposed Action The proposed action includes the construction of a 1300 square foot single family dwelling, one 150 foot navy-type retaining wall, a second 70 foot navy-type retaining wall, 35 cubic yards of clean fill, five pool linear conventional septic system, reverse osmosis water supply well, two composting toilets on a 0.347 acre parcel. Also, a dock and catwalk were previously constructed on the parcel. The parcel is considered an island because it has no formal access to the mainland. Eugene's Creek, a tidal creek connected to Peconic Bay, boarders the parcel to the north. Lands owned by the Southold Town Trustees surround the parcel in all other directions. Trustee lands bordering the parcel to the west were once bottom lands which were filled using dredge spoil. The Trustees have stated their intentions to excavate these filled lands returning them to their original I condition in order to provide for a small boat mooring area. Beach lands owned by the Fleets Neck Property Owners Association are found adjacent to and south of Trustee Lands. A vegetated tidal wetland spans the northern edge of the property. The wetland is characterized as a tidal marsh dominated by Spartina alterniflora with Spartina patens occupying the high marsh. Upland areas are generally characterized as dune lands which are sparsely vegetated withDeschampsia flexuosa, Panicum, Ammophila brevigulata and Sohdago semprevirens. The proposed house is sited in these dune lands approximately 17 feet from the edge of wetlands. 1 l I Accordingly, the Applicant has applied for a Town Trustee Wetlands Permit and a DEIS was prepared by En-Consultants in support of the application. I III. Analysis of Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A public hearing was held on the DEIS on June 24, 1993. Eight speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed project at the public hearing. The minutes are attached hereto as Appendix 1. The following is an analysis of the comments put forth at the public hearing: Bernie Dempsey raised the following issues concerning the application: Comment # 1: There has been an admission that this property has been under water on a number of occasions. Response #1: It is true that the property is in a low lying area and may be subject to occasional flooding particularly during moderate to severe storms. The property lies within the 100 year flood plain and the area in which the proposed house is located ranges between 7 and 9 feet above mean sea level. Finally, the Applicant has proposed the construction of a navy type retaining wall extensively to provide additional protection to the proposed dwelling from flooding. Comment #2: While Mr. Wade does not have any children which will be using the school system, a future owner may have children. Accordingly, the transportation of these children will be problematic and expensive. Response #2: Transportation to and from the site except for emergency purposes is to be by boat. The Trustees have denied regular access across their lands and with i the advent of excavating these Trustee lands as well as the existing guard rail at the terminus of East Road, vehicular access may be impossible. Accordingly, any future homeowners with children will have to provide for water access for children 1 using the school system. Steve Pinzino raised the following issues concerning the application: Comment 43: The proposed propane fuel source to be transported in 100 pound tanks by boat is both illegal and dangerous. ' 2 1 i i Response 43: The proposed transport of propane by boat in 100 pound tanks is both legal and relatively safe. In fact, residents of Captree Island, Little Captree Island and Sexton Island in the Town of Babylon regularly transport propane from t the mainland by private vessel to power their homes. The 100 pound tanks are dragged behind the vessels and loaded on to the island by hand. Furthermore, inquiries were made to the U. S. Coast Guard which holds jurisdiction over the vessel transport of hazardous substances. Lieutenant Commander Karr writes that because transportation of propane is not commercial, it is not regulated (See Appendix 28). The safety issue regarding propane tanks is more closely related to the construction of the tank itself including its seals. Propane tanks are constructed of stainless steel and when properly sealed, the risk of explosion is minimized. Maryanne Huntington raised the following issue concerning the application: Comment 44: Hunington submitted photos and presented oral testimony showing the Wade property to undergo partial flooding during storm events. Response 44: The Wade property is clearly subject to partial flooding as most of the property is low lying. Mr. Mc Kilop and Ms Fletcher raised the following issue concerning the application: Comment/Question #5: Has Mr. Wade complied with the previously executed Consent Order with the NYSDEC? i Response #5: Mr. Wade's compliance with the previously executed Consent Order has no bearing on this application. However, Mr. Wade will most likely seek approval from the NYSDEC and it is within this regulatory process, that compliance with the previously executed Consent Order may be addressed. The following comments were raised by Ms. Levy representing the North Fork Environmental Council: Comment #6: Proposed water access is unworkable and unenforceable. Response #6: The proposed water access is the only alternative available to Mr. Wade. The existing dock provides for tie up of his boat. The enforcement issue 3 I I. regarding water access is best addressed from a practical standpoint, namely that I the Trustees' intention to excavate filled in lands adjacent to the site, will likely preclude direct access via four wheel vehicle. In addition, a 21 foot aluminum guard rail has been constructed at the terminus of East Road. Both sides of the guard rail is heavily vegetated and slopes adjacent to and south of the guard rail are quite steep. Comment #7: If there were no house (on the Wade Parcel) there would be no need to have emergency vehicles on that property at all. Response #7: The absence of a house on the Wade Property does not eliminate the need for emergency vehicles accessing the beach because injuries could arise on the property independent of the house. As explained in Response 46, direct vehicular access to the property will essentially be precluded. Nevertheless, in the absence of a house on the Wade Parcel, it is assumed the potential need for emergency vehicular access is reduced. Comment #8: Once the Town has authorized a habitation and water access to this property it will be legally obligated to maintain that access in the future. Response 48: The Town is not obligated to maintain access to the Wade Parcel. Rather, the Applicant has proposed water access at a cost born by the Applicant. Comment 49: This application should not be approved if the result is simply to cost Town taxpayers a higher amount for the purchase or trade of this parcel. Response 49: Any approval, approval with modification or denial must be based upon Trustee findings using the entire record before the Board. Such findings are solely arrived at through the SEQRA Process and application of Chapter 97 of the Town Code. The following issues comments were raised by Ben Swartz: Comment #10: The applicant has every right to pursue this application for residential use. The Trustees have a right and duty to deny it. Response # 10: It is clear that the applicant has a right to pursue his application. The Trustees decision to approve, approve with modification or deny is based 4 I', upon the record before it, as applied to procedures set forth in SEQRA and Chapter 97 of the Town Code. Comment 411: I think it would be appropriate for the environmental impact statement and the final environmental impact statement to contain a chart of the water depth and access route. Response # 11: The environmental impact statement provided a narrative describing the water access route (See page 15) and a map showing the water access route (See page 15b). Chris and Eileen Carb raised the following comment: Comment # 12: The proposed project may result in noise (from the generator) amplified over water. Response #12: The proposed generator is likely to cause a steady hum when operating. However, the noise levels generated from the generator are not expected to be great. It is believed that the potential for excessive or nuisance noise resulting from the generator is minimal and that enforcement of noise levels would be self policed because Mr. Wade would most likely be effected to the greatest degree. Even if, noise were to amplify to a significant degree across water, the Town of Southold has an enforcement recourse by virtue of Chapter 100-237 of the Town Code which could be applied in this case. The following comments were raised by Kimberly Shaw of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services by correspondence dated July 19, 1993 annexed hereto as Appendix 2: Comment #13: The proposed layout does not meet SCDHS standards. Inadequacies include the leaching pool setbacks, sewage disposal system/water supply well/water services line, the survey should depict the test boring and location; grading plans showing invert elevations of sewage disposal system, foundation and final grade. Response #13: It has been long recognized that the proposed septic and water supply well does not meet SCDHS standards. In fact, substandard septic setbacks 5 E formed one of the principle reasons supporting the positive declaration issued for this action. Survey requirements including test borings and invert elevations are not required in the application for Wetlands Permit from the Town Trustees. The lack of a separate grading plan indicates that the installation of the proposed septic system will be at grade. i Comment 414: The DEIS did not specify the applicants purpose to install the 70' long section of retaining wall to the south of the system regardless of the potential for the reopening of the creek. Response 414: The purpose of the 70' retaining wall was stated on page 18 of the DEIS. Comment #15: The retaining wall must setback 10 feet from the nearest part of the sewage disposal, 10' from the property line and must be waterproof. I Response 415: The above stated requirements are those of SCDHS. No I representative of SCDHS attended the Scoping Session and therefore, the applicant was not required to submit plans in accordance with SCDHS requirements. Rather, the DEIS was scoped to require analysis of environmental impacts resulting in part from substandard septic setbacks. In response to the issue that the retaining wall must be waterproof, the DEIS discloses that the retaining wall will be lined with a geotextile impervious 40 ml plastic membrane (See page 18). Comment 416: The sanitary system will include the installation of a composting toilet. SCDHS will require a double plumbed system including a conventional system so that the conventional system will act as a backup. The Board may require that the sanitary system be flood proof. The design of the composting system must take into account the minimum amount of use as the residence will be used seasonally. Most composting toilets require frequent and continual use in order to function properly. The report does not include sufficient detail of the proposed system. A more detailed description should be provided in a supplementary EIS. Response # 16: The purpose of the proposed composting toilet was to eliminate black water from entering the septic system. However, it is apparent that SCDHS will require the installation of a conventional septic system which may also be used by the Applicant. Accordingly, the impacts associated with the septic system it 6 Y may vary widely depending upon which system is used. The statement that most composting toilets require frequent use in order to function properly is not sufficiently qualified. However, if true, this statement would tend to lend credence to the possibility that the conventional back-up system may in practice become the primary system. Regardless of which system is used, the DEIS provided substantial information on septic related impacts and provided i alternatives covering both types of systems. Accordingly, the comments raised by SCDHS do not constitute new information, or an important change in i circumstance. Draft Environmental Impact Statements are not intended to be encyclopedic. Ij Comment 417: The retaining wall is both contiguous and within the tidal j wetlands. The construction of the retaining wall will directly effect the wetlands because of outside support members. Additionally, installation of the retaining wall will require clearing and grading which will directly effect wetlands. Response 417: The retaining wall is contiguous to tidal wetlands and by connecting the actual flags surveyed in the field by straight line, it is conceivable that the retaining wall may slightly impinge upon wetlands in a couple of localized areas. The impacts on wetlands brought about by outside support members can not be qualified with accuracy given the scale in which the survey is drawn. Impacts to wetlands pertaining to the clearing for construction of the proposed r retaining wall largely depend upon the workmanship and care in how the wall is ¦ constructed. It is possible that such impacts will be minimal if the wall is carefully constructed. However, careless workmanship could impact wetlands to a r noticeable extent. There is no grading per se in installing the retaining wall. However, the retaining wall will be backfilled with clean fill as disclosed in the DEIS. As pointed out later in SCDHS's correspondence, the retaining wall could be constructed closer to the proposed residence and further from the wetlands. Comment #18: The retaining wall will not prevent flood and storm waters from invading the parcel and may be undermined during severe storms. d Response 418: The retaining wall will prevent flood and storm waters from invading areas adjacent to the northern property boundaries as these areas are low lying. With the depositing of backfill behind the retaining walls, this portion of 7 the property will be significantly raised. However, to place into proper context, the retaining wall will not prevent flooding in other areas of the parcel as the retaining wall does not circle the property. During times of severe storm events. flooding is likely to occur on subject parcel as flood waters will enter the property from around the proposed retaining wall. Finally, it is clear that even the most sturdy of retaining walls are subject to failure (including being undermined) during severe storm events. Thus, it is possible that this retaining wall could fail during a severe storm event. Comment 419: Bulkheading ultimately leads to the loss of beach in front of the structure. Response # 19: Construction of retaining walls or bulkheads do not always lead to a loss of beach in front of the structure as a host of other natural and man made factors effect sand supply to beaches. In this case, lands adjacent to the bulkhead are not classified as beaches, but rather are classified as vegetated tidal wetlands. Loss of wetlands could potentially occur as a result of the bulkhead concentrating wave energy on the wetlands. However, strong northeastern winds generating significant waves would be required and generally, Eugene's Creek is a protected waterbody as disclosed in the DEIS (See page 50). i Comment 420: Another potentially significant impact will be the visual I impairment if a residence is constructed on this beach front parcel I Response 420: Visual impacts were identified in the Scoping Outline and it is clear that construction of the dwelling will result in significant visual impairment. However, the dwelling must be placed on top of piles in order to comply with FEMA Regulations. Limiting the dwelling to one floor would somewhat reduce visual impairments, but to a limited degree only. Clearly, it would prove extremely difficult to screen the proposed dwelling by means of vegetation given the severe environmental conditions which characterize this site. Visual impacts are regarded in this case as impacts which can not be avoided if the proposed structure is to be built. Comment #21: The proposed generator will significantly contribute to overall noise in the area. Response #21: The proposed generator is not expected to contribute to the overall noise in the area to a significant degree. Even if, noise levels increased to the 8 extent as to create a nuisance, the Town of Southold could exercise appropriate ! enforcement as provided in its Zoning Code. Comment #22: This Department has several concerns with the transport of ! propane gas for the purpose of energy supply to the residence. The DEIS should explore alternative sources of energy such as passive solar energy. ! Response #22: While SCDHS may have several concerns with the transport of propane gas, none were disclosed in the letter. This issue of propane transport is ' addressed herein under Steve Pinzino: Comment and Response and then again in Appendix 28. ! Comment 423: The board should consider first siring of the septic system in an acceptable location which maximizes the wetland setback and then site the ! residence. Response #23: The location of the septic system was designed to maximize setbacks from wetlands as they exist today. However, the location of the septic system may preclude the Trustees from excavating Trustee lands for the purposes of establishing a small boat mooring. An attempt was made to address the issue concerning septic location as it may preclude the Trustees' plans for re-opening Eugene's Creek. A letter was from the Trustees was directed to the Suffolk County Board of Review requesting an opinion on the likelihood of permit issuance for the composting toilet (See Appendix 29). I Comment 924: The septic system could be shifted to the to the east thereby establishing at least a 70' setback from wetlands. Response #24: It is impossible to obtain a 70 foot setback between wetlands and septic system (of shallow pool design as required by SCDHS) on subject parcel. Comment #25: As the system will be mounded the landscaping plan should include either substantial plantings around the perimeter of the system or plantings 1 of beach grass on the mound in order to screen it from view. Response #25: There is no disclosure in the DEIS that the system will be mounded. ! 9 1 ~ f t 1 Comment 426: All wetlands on site should be included within a legally protected buffer and protected from any clearing mowing or construction. Response 426: It is illegal to clear, mow or construct in a wetland without the necessary local and state permits. The establishment of a legally protected buffer can occur by permit condition if the Trustees render an approval for this proposed project. The rendering of a decision to deny a wetlands permit would result in the maximum buffer to wetlands. Comment #27: The DEIS included non indigenous plantings on site and use of top soil. High maintenance landscaping should be minimized. Response #27: The DEIS did disclose the use of non-indigenous plants and use of top soil. Additionally, an attempt has been made in project design as disclosed in the DEIS to avoid high maintenance landscaping. Comment 428: The EIS should explore acquisition as an alternative. Other involved agencies, conservation groups or neighborhood association should be contacted. Response #28: The DEIS disclosed that several attempts were made to avoid development of this parcel. These attempts included acquisition and land swap. By virtue of the SEQRA Process, all involved agencies have been contacted and none have provided the applicant nor the Town Trustees with an indication that there is interest on the part of involved agencies to acquire the parcel. The neighborhood association is aware of the proposed project as evidenced by their input in this SEQRA proceeding. Similarly, the North Fork Environmental Council is aware of the proposed project and has repeatedly expressed their support for acquisition while not stating their intention to purchase the property. Comment #29: This office believes that development of subject parcel as proposed would have an impact to natural resources, vegetation and wildlife habitat on site while reducing open space open space in the vicinity of the parcel. Response 929: Clearly, the proposed project will have such impacts. Comment 430: The benefit of the tidal wetland produced in one area of the marsh benefits nearby areas. Negative impacts in one area are transferred to adjacent 10 wetland areas. Therefore land use development in or adjacent to a tidal wetland may cause impacts on adjacent areas. Upland uses should be compatible with present and potential values of the tidal wetland. Response #30: The above statements are generally true and applicable to all tidal wetlands in the Town of Southold as supported by Chapter 97 of the Town Code. The following comments were raised by Mary Anne Hunington by correspondence dated July 17, 1993 annexed hereto as Appendix 3: Comment #31: Ms. Hunington asserts that the entire parcel was tidal wetlands (as supported by submitted photos) which was illegally filled in 1966. Response 43!: It is not possible to verify the exact extent of wetlands on the parcel using the submitted photos. However, the photos appear to show greater wetland coverage then found today. In 1966, neither the Town of Southold nor the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had promulgated rules and regulations regulating activities in or adjacent to wetlands. Therefore, even if wetlands were filled in 1966, such filling could not be regarded as illegal. The following comments were raised by Mr. and Mrs. Vanderbeck by correspondence dated July 16, 1993 annexed hereto as Appendix 4: Comment 432: The Vanderbecks are opposed to any construction on the Wade Parcel. Response #32: So noted. Comment 433: The parcel is a very fragile parcel subject to flooding and is not conducive to any habitation other than natural vegetation. Response 433: The parcel is subject to partial flooding and the construction of a house and related structures is physically possible. The following comments were raised by J.K. M. Killop by correspondence dated July 14, 1993 annexed hereto as Appendix 5: 11 i Comment #34: It is disputed that arrival of the Wade family will not impact community services and will revitalize sectors of the local economy. Response 434: The DEIS does not assert that the proposed project will not impact community services but rather that community services will not be over-burdened by the development of this parcel (See page 45 of the DEIS). As disclosed in the DEIS sectors of the local economy will benefit by the project as proposed. Comment 435: Isn't it dangerous to transport 100 pound tanks of propane by boat to the site? Response 435: This concern is addressed in Responses 3 and 22. Comment 436: Does the proposed septic system provide adequate protection to wetlands and adjoining waters? Brown Tide? What will the Trustees do if fuel storage and septic prove to be problems? Response 436: Septic related impacts are addressed on pages 50 through 60. The causes for the Brown Tide are unknown. Therefore, it is impossible to related the proposed project to the occurrence of Brown Tide. Future problems which arise with respect to fuel and septic can only be addressed by agencies having jurisdiction once the project is implemented. These agencies include the Coast Guard and Suffolk County Health Department, respectively. Comment 437: How much noise will emanate from the generator and how far will the sound be heard? What is the impact of noise on fish and bird populations? Response 437: The amount of noise emanating from the generator is addressed on page 48 of the DEIS. It is impossible to accurately assess the impact of noise to fish and bird populations at the decibels expected to occur as proposed in the DEIS as there is insufficient scientific information to base such an assessment. The following comment were raised by Janet A. Walsh by correspondence dated July 16, 1993 annexed hereto as Appendix 6: Comment 438: Why does the Wade matter continue in light of previous court decisions. 12 t it ,e om the significant chant, Response The fcant chproject anges undergone occurred as a result of earlier proposals. Significant prior litigation. The proposal as contained in this DEIS represents a new ' application, and as such, the Trustees are obligated to process the application in accordance with applicable local and state law. Comment 439: Ms. Walsh understands that there aretotb no. dwelli gs where 'Nade there is no public road access. Does this law not apply the Response 439: There is considerable confusion a in relation to building on islandsuch as the Wade Parcel. f Town Law Generally, Town Law 280-a addresses the question of the issuance of bov degfor permits on parcels which do can result in the is uance of a Buildi gdPermit. an appeal mechanism which However, Mr. Wade's Parcel is an island which is expected to be physically . Wade has severed by Trustee excavation of their ty of Town Law 280-a asrit elates to water proposed water access. The applicability access is uncertain, and is essentially a legal matter. Legal matters are beyond the scope of this EIS. Comment 440: What about fecal contaminates to humans (resulting from septic system)? a Response 440: The DEIS addresses septic system impacts on pages 50 through 60. However, the impacts related to the septic system are challenged in the written statements contained in Appendix 15. These concerns are addressed in f Responses 88, 11,112,113, 114, 115 and 116. Comment 941: Isn't there a law concerning a buffer around tidal wetlands? aroun Response 441: There are at least two laws that effect the size of buffers for Trustee tidal wetlands. The Chapter 97 of the Southold i; regulation of wetlands including the establishment of buffers. Trustee jurisdiction pursuant to this statute extends 75 feet from the landward limit of tidal wetlands. The second law regulating tidal wetlands is found in Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law which is enforced by the NYSDEC. Under most circumstances, Article 25 mandates a building setbacks of at least 75 feet for most 13 structures. It is under this statute that the NYSDEC will often mandate a buffer and this is generally accomplished through permit condition. Comment 442: The proposed generator would put an end to the quiet that has been an integral part of the area and an attraction to wildlife. Response 442: Comments pertaining to noise impacts are addressed in Responses 12, 21, 37 and 47. Comment 442: The proposed bulkhead could have a dramatic effect on shell life including horseshoe crabs (mating activity). impact adjacent wetlands and I Response 443: The proposed bulkhead may r Horseshoe crabs therefore all shellfish to tidal creeks such as found on the Wade Parcel. The proposed adjacent beaches bulkhead will likely preclude mating activity of horseshoe crabs along most of the boundary of the Wade Parcel. northern property Comment 443: Why has the Town offered Mr. Wade property in Orient? Response 443: The Town made such an offer to preserve the W at Parcel. The I issue of Buyers Beware in this casWhrelates to a ich is a leg jlassue ent o beyond the scope of this reasonable use of private property EIS. Continent 444: Expressed opinion that the project should be denied. Response 444: So noted. The following comment was raised by Marjorie and ApRoy pendix 7 en by correspondence dated July 15, 1993 annexed hereto as App Comment #45: The Aliens support rejection of the proposal. Response 945: So noted. . The following comments were raised by Mr. and Mrs. John Wetzel by correspondence received July 19, 1993: 14 i s` Comment 446: The proposed retaining wall if granted will set a precedent for retaining walls along the rest of the shoreline of Eugene's Creek. Response #46: If granted, the proposed retaining wall wi'.l not set a precedent for retaining walls lining the rest of the Eugene's Creek shoreline because the need and consequences of shoreline hardening structures are examined on a case by case basis. Comment #47: The generator will create a noise nuisance. Response 447: The DEIS maintains that the generator will not produce noise in excess of OSHA Standards. As previously pointed out, the Town is empowered through its zoning code to enforce noise levels which constitute a nuisance. Comment #48: How will Mr. Wade and his visitors access the property during times when the creek is frozen? Response #48: Mr. Wade will likely park at the end of East Road and access the property by walking across Trustee Lands. After these lands are excavated the only ambulatory access available to Mr. Wade may be across lands owned by the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association. Comment #49: Page 17 of the EIS it states that 6400 s. f. will be cleared. How will this be removed and where will it go? Response #49: Clearing will be accomplished by means of a bulldozer and the resultant organic debris will be removed from site and deposited at the Cutchogue Landfill. Comment 450: Does not existing ordinances require a buffer of 75 feet beyond the tidal wetlands line? Response #50: Chapter 97 of the Town Code sets forth the Trustees upland jurisdiction from wetlands which is 75 feet. The Trustees are empowered to establish buffers of 75 feet or less. Additionally, Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law provides for a 75 foot setback from wetlands for principle structures under most circumstances. 15 i 1 Comment #51: We are vehemently opposed to Mr. Wade's attempts to destroy the peace and quiet we enjoy with nature in Fleet's Neck and request that you deny him - his requests. Response #51: So noted. The following comments were raised by Daniel L. Morris on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Open Space Council by correspondence dated July 18, ' 1993 annexed hereto as Appendix 9: i Comment 952: Morris questions the DEIS conclusion that since no storm damage was incurred, future storm damage is unlikely. Moms requests assessment of potential storm damage including associated coastal processes. Response 452: The statement appearing on page 14 of the DEIS referred to above is reasonably arrived at. However, it is clear that much of the property would have been inundated as it is low lying. The potential damage resulting from wind effects from the southwest are minimal as the property boarders a wide beach of approximately 300 feet from subject property line to the shoreline at Peconic Bay. When eventually, the Trustees excavate previously filled lands, the distance will f remain approximately 300 feet. Southwestern winds are the prevailing winds ! experienced during the warmer months of the year and are not expected to threaten the Wade Parcel to a significant degree. However, the Wade parcel is expected to be threatened to a much greater extent with the occurrence of severe hurricanes, severe tropical storms and moderate extra tropical storms. Severe storms, most notably hurricanes, have been estimated to occur once every 38.5 years; extra tropical storms are estimated to occur once every 8.5 years and moderate storms once every 0.8 years (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1969). The flooding and washover effects of a severe hurricane would devastate this parcel as it would numerous other coastal areas in the Town of Southold.. However, the proposed house must be built in accordance with FEMA requirements. During a severe storm event with corresponding tidal surge, the washout of the septic system is probable and the fate of resultant debris is uncertain, but likely includes the creek ~a and bay. (j! Comment 953: Where and how will the composted material be disposed of? } j 16 s ~r I 1 r t Response 453: The composted material is described as a material usable as a soil conditioner. Accordingly, the material could be applied to landscaped areas or deposited at the Cutchogue Landfill. t Comment 454: If Mr. Wades family or future owners become disenchanted with a composting toilet how would sewage be pumped from the system and transported off island. { Response #54: As disclosed in the comments submitted from SCDHS attached hereto as Appendix 2, the septic system will be double plumbed meaning that there is no certainty that the composting toilets will in fact be the primary means of sewage disposal. If the conventional septic system were to become backed up thus requiring pumpout, it is likely that such pumpout would be regarded as an emergency measure and the required tanker truck would have to extend a collection hose across Trustees Property or access the property by barge. I Comment #55: Request clarification of statements in the DEIS including (1) how recharge of freshwater effluent into the sanitary will retard saltwater intrusion; (2) how cesspools will handle gray water only; and (3) the reverse osmosis system will provide freshwater for only cooking and drinking, but not for bathing. Response #55: The proposed reverse osmosis system is necessary in order to provide potable water. Essentially, existing groundwater resources contain unacceptably high levels of chlorides, an indication of salt water intrusion. The reverse. osmosis system will remove the salt thereby cleansing the groundwater. While its eventual recharge may not of sufficient volume to effectively retard salt water intrusion, it is certain that the recharge will contain lesser chloride concentration than presently existing in the groundwater. Gray water refers to the effluent exclusive of human waste materials (excrement). Since the acceptance of the DEIS, it has come to light that the septic system will be double plumbed, meaning that the septic system (tank and rings) may recieve black water. Finally, while existing groundwater resources are high in chlorides, they are of sufficient quality for bathing purposes. Comment #56: Please note that northern harriers will also hunt over upland sites especially when adjacent to marsh. Response 456: So noted. 17 ! a - i~ s~ i ni ut ;57: Piping Plovers were exhibited nest behavior in June of 1989. Has snue Conservancy been contacted? j oonse +57: While piping plovers may have exhibited nest behavior on the parcel in June of 1989. However, field inspections to determine the "2nce of piping plover and other rare nesting shorebirds were conducted on July !,)90 and May 26, 1993. (See Appendix 30). These inspections did not reveal presence of piping plover or other nesting shorebirds. Furthermore, no nesting cis or least terns were disclosed in the DEIS although the DEIS did reveal III se shorebirds as potentially found on the site. Finally, monitoring efforts nducted by NYS Department of State and The Nature Conservancy, which n cued nesting shorebirds at Fleet's Neck from 1983 through 1989, revealed one plover to be present at Fleet's Neck in 1985 and 1988. The Nature i~. nservancy was not specifically contacted for input in this EIS. {,I ,runent 458: Drawing provided appear to include a garage. csponse #58: A survey of the most recent proposal for development of this :Ucel is included in the DEIS as Appendix N and shows no garage. umment 459: Provide a chemical analysis of Milorganite. Is it treated sewage .l edge and does it contain heavy metals? iZesponse 459: Milorganite is an organic slow release fertilizer manufactured using a composting technology. The chemical content of Milorganite was researched by two methods: (1) reported chemical content of Milorganite as printed on the packaging and (2) Cornell Cooperative Extension (1993) With regard to packaging disclosure, the brand Metromilorganite was researched. Packaging disclosed the contents of Milorganite to be as follows: total nitrogen (6.0%), water soluble nitrogen (0.50/6), water insoluble nitrogen (5.50/0), phosphoric acid (2.0%), iron (40/o), maximum chlorine (2%). Milorganite is derived from the composting of sludge. The concentrations of heavy metals vary 1 with the quality of composted sludge. Sludge generally contains one to seven percent solid material and 93 to 99 percent water. Cornell Cooperative Extension (1993) has stated the following, In the past, the success of7and application has been hurt by the mismanagement of important./actors such as soil pH. For example, the uptake of many metals, such as cadmium, is related to soil pH. If pH 4 18 { drops below a certain level, cadmium will be released, increasing the chances of f leaching and plant uptake. It is essential for sludge management programs to have knowledgeable staff available to teach people how to apply and monitor the t material correctly.... In general, researchers agree that the effects of organic compounds, certain pesticides and metals are not dangerous when managed properly at regulated levels. However, they caution that additional study of ` organic compounds is needed before unlimited application of sludge can occur .safely on all lands. " Thus, milorganite can contain heavy metals. Comment 460: Provide analysis and estimate of quantity of antifreeze required for chiller-heater system proposed for this project. Response #60: The amount of antifreeze required for the proposed by chiller- heater system varies by percentage depending upon the desired temperature as 1 disclosed in Appendix Q of the DEIS. The proposed chiller-heater system utilizes a commercial brand of inhibited permanent antifreeze. Antifreeze products vary in chemical content but generally consists of 1,2 Eandiol (Ethylene Glycol), Potassium Hydroxide and Sodium Phosphates (Borax) or similar compounds. While these chemicals are hazardous in nature, the system proposed is self contained. Comment #61: Fire safety precautions proposed by Fire Marshall Corcoran 1 include installation of an alarm system, sprinkler and connection to a central I station monitoring system. How will this be accomplished? Response #61: There is no record of any precautions proposed by Fire Marshall Corcoran with regard to this site. Input provided by the Fire Department is limited I to Chief McCaffrey's comments expressed at the Scoping Session of August 15, 1990, and correspondence from the Cutchogue Fire District dated June 22, 1993 (See Appendix 26). These comments conflict, but the written comments contained in Appendix 26 are regarded as official. It is also, noted that the comments raised in the Scoping Outline may have been spoken in error as Chief McCaffrey may not have been aware of the presence of the guard rail at the terminus on East Road. i Comment #62: The vegetation plan relies on non-native species. Only native plants should be considered for vegetating this sensitive site. Response #62: So noted. 19 i i (-omment #63: A more in depth history (such as aerial photos) of the site should be included. Has Mr. Glover's title to the "island" been verified? What did the island consist of prior to the filling of the western channel? Response #63: A more in depth history of the site would add little to the decision making process as this process relies on the condition of the island as it exists today. Mr. Glover's title to the island is verified by deed and ownership of the parcel must be verified in order to obtain a Building Permit. There are no precise accounts on the island prior to the filling of the western channel. Comment #64: We find the proposed plan unacceptable because it creates a new structure in an unstable, vulnerable and environmentally sensitive location. We believe that the long-term effects and potential consequences of this construction have been understated. Response 464: So noted. The following comments were raised by Schwartz by correspondence received July 19, 1993: Comment #65: The property in question is either wetland or what should be supporting area for wetlands. Response 965: The habitats of the island are correctly identified in the DEIS. These habitats include a tidal wetland and dune land. Comment #66: The cumulative adverse financial impact on the community's property values of residential development on the beach would be in the millions of dollars. Response 466: The cumulative adverse impact on property values can only be arrived at through speculation. However, no change in the assessed valuation of the community property values is expected to occur as a result of the project. Comment #67: The existing dock exceeds the owner's right to use this property. Response #67: The Trustees granted a permit for the dock. Therefore, the dock does not exceed the property owner's right for the dock and the use that results. I 20 I } Comment 468: The DEIS alleges that to forbid development without compensation is considered a taking and therefore is illegal." is unsupported and . s the applicant should be required to disclose financial data such as the price he paid III for and terms of sale of the property. Response 468: The question of whether project denial will constitute a taking is a legal issue beyond the scope of this EIS. The applicant was not required to disclose the purchase price for his property in the Seeping Session. i Comment 469: Reference is made to surrounding properties (pg. 39), but the I Fleet's Neck neighborhood is neither mapped nor accurately described. I Response 469: A map of the Fleet's Neck Property Association is attached hereto as Appendix 31. Comment 470: The parcel is historically an island so a detailed marine chart of the entire creek system and harbor are would be appropriate. Response 470: Comment has been addressed in Response 411. Comment #71: It is unclear why if access is to be achieved by boat would the house be designed to front East Road to the west. Response #71: A survey of the proposed house is contained in Appendix N of the DEIS. The survey shows the proposed house to face north. i Comment 472: Proposed water access is possible only at high tide; Depth of low water at dock insufficient for boat described in the DEIS: draft 3', depth of water at dock 1.5' (Appendix W). Response #72: Afield inspection of the property on September 26, 1993 revealed water depths at the end on the existing floating dock to be three feet at high tide. Therefore, water access by a boat having a draft of three feet having tide is of 3 possible. Access at lower tides will prove more difficult a at a d feet will perch on top of the soft bottom. ' Comment #73: There is no mention of dredging plans in the DEIS. 21 r Response #73: The proposal does not include plans for dredging Eugene's Creek. Comment #74: Alleged precedents are not comparable (i.I-. Frank Currans house and North Dumpling Island) because the character of surrounding neighborhoods differ and because they are in different areas with differing environmental characteristics. Response 474: The comparison of Frank Curran's house and North Dumpling Island and the Wade Parcel was drawn in the DEIS in order to demonstrate that other dwellings were built closer to wetlands in previous rimes. There are many more such examples. However, it is true that environmental characteristics and community character varies among these locations. Comment 475: Contrary to the assertion that approval would not induce other development (pg. 78), if applicant is granted a permit to build on subject parcel, then owners of comparable parcels will also be entitled to build. i Response 475: Regulatory decisions reached by the Trustees are arrived at on a case by case basis in accordance with all applicable state and local statute. Comment 476: The parcel is located on the fringe of a residential zone as per the Zoning Map but was never intended to be included in a residential zone. Response #76: Since the parcel has been zoned residential and there have been no his zone one can only conclude that the present zoning in t subsequent changes was intended. Comment 477: The parcel was originally used for harvesting of salt hay, why doesn't the DEIS consider potential for use as an aquaculture site. Response #77: The harvesting of salt hay was never anticipated in the Scoping Session of this DEIS and therefore such alternative was not discussed. However, this particular alternative is not realistic from an environmental and economic standpoint as this regulatory process is one designed to preserve and protect !i wetlands and markets for salt hay are limited. It is unlikely that sufficient quantities of salt hay could be harvested to make this alternative use economically feasible. 22 I Y S Comment 478: The Applicant states that the size of the proposed house is as small as possible while the minimum building size in the adjacent residential zone is smaller. 478: It is true that the minimum size house as permitted in the Town Response ich is proposed by Mr. is smaller than that whWade. Comment 479: The mandatory "No Action Alternative" does not include any description of current uses already available to property owner without further I "improvement" of the property. The current use as a boat launching site is commensurate with the price the applicant paid for the property. Response #79: The current uses include use of the property for recreational and The question as open space purposes and the existing dock is used for boat tie-up. aid for the se of the site is commensurate with the price to whether the docking u addressed as the price paid for the property has not been property can not be verified. able noise level in Comment 480: The proposed generator exceeds the reason and private nuisance the context of a beach and therefore would constitute a public 37 and I Response 480: Noise related impacts are addressed in Responses 12, 2 > II 47. Comment #81: Contrary to the implications of the Dst n toiletk permitted onlyt , Suffol County does of composting toilets. A comp g permit exclusive use . ~ to a conventional system { t as supplemental losed I ' Response 481: True. The supplemental use of the composting toilet is disc qq in Appendix 2. 1 use Comment 482: There is there isoa legal constitutional right to addithonal usageas dock site is insufficient or that Response 482: Legal issues are beyond the scope of this EIS. Comment #83: The DEIS is inconsistent in that it states (pg. 39) "The applicant has no intention of using any adjacent lands for any purposes." then (pg. 46) 23 "Immediately adjacent to subject parcel is the property owned by Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association. This is a private beach for use by the Residents of Fleets Neck." The Applicant is not eligible for membership. Response 483: The Applicant may not be eligible to join the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association. In personal communication of September 26, 1993, Mr. Dempsey of Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association disclosed that the boundary of the association ends at the terminus of East Road. Given that Mr. Wade's Property is separated from East Road by Trustee Lands, Mr. Wade's Parcel may be outside of the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association Boundary. A map showing the boundaries of the Association is attached hereto as Appendix 31. Comment #84: The public use and enjoyment of the beach would be severely diminished by construction of a residence. I Response #84: The beach owned by Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association is a private beach. Its use will be uneffected by the proposed project as Association Members will retain there rights to use the beach. The enjoyment of the beach may be curtailed at least from the standpoint of surrounding aesthetics. Comment 485: Construction on the site could result in severe damage to the Property Owners Beach in the event of a major storm. Response #85: It is unlikely that construction on the site will result in severe damage to the Property Owners Beach as the Property Owners Beach is a high energy beach which is subject to more intense wave energy than the Wade Parcel. The Wade Parcel being located to the north of the Association Beach, will likely play no role in sand supply along the Peconic Shoreline. The following comment was raised by M. Anne Howard by way of correspondence dated July 14, 1993: Comment 486: We do not believe that the East Road Beach is a place to build 1 another house. Response 486: So noted. . 24 1 E The following comments were raised by Donald Finerty by correspondence ' Sated July 10, 1993: Comment 487: The sewage facilities your board allowed to be installed at this site endangers this ecosystem. Response 487: The Town Trustees have not permitted installation of sewage facilities at the Wade Site. Comment 488: Storm generated or tidal action will flush effluents into the Peconic Estuary and further degrade the beach, creek, and Peconic Bay as well as endangering the health of members of the community. Response 488: All conventional septic systems are designed to leach septic effluent into the water table, and therefore, wetlands and surface waters. The soils surrounding the septic ring provide a filtering of septic effluent. Nevertheless, all septic systems increase nutrient concentration to groundwaters and surface waters. The risks associated with a septic system are related to the distance of the septic system to groundwater and surface waters. The DEIS discloses that the distance between the septic system and Eugene's Creek has been maximized. Furthermore, an attempt to control discharge of septic effluents into future creek bottom has been made by the Applicant by virtue of the proposed retaining wall and impervious membrane. However, as disclosed in Appendix 2, implementation of this design would nessesitate relocation of the septic system closer to Eugene's Creek thereby increasing the risk of contamination to creek waters. The following comments were raised by Robert and Hilda Latham by correspondence dated July 14, 1993: Comment 489: We are opposed to the building of a house on the Wade Parcel because of the inevitable ecological threat to the area, the threat of health caused 1 by sewage and waste, and the inherent dangers with the use of propane gas. Response 489: So noted. The following comments were raised by Phyllis Lombardi by correspondence dated July 13, 1993: Comment 490: Ms. Lombardi requests the Trustees to apply the (wetlands) law, obey the law and insist that Mr. Wade do so also. 25 i Response #90: So noted. The following comments were raised by Robert N. Thurber of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation by correspondence dated July 9, 1993: Comment #91: Page 2 Summary The EIS states that the impacts associated with the septic system will be mitigated by elevating the system 2 feet above the water table. According to Environmental Conservation Law the system must be 2 feet above seasonal high ground water. Response #91: Placement of a septic system two feet above the groundwater provides superior protection to the environment and public health than placement of a septic system less than two feet from groundwater. In that sense, such impacts are mitigated. It is recognized that the NYSDEC generally requires two feet from seasonal groundwater elevations which can be difficult to document. Any further raising of the septic system would result in mounding. Comment 492: The DEIS also fails to state that the proposed septic system cannot meet the minimum setback requirement under the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (TWLUR) Part 661 which is 100 feet. 1 Response 492: Clearly, the minimum setback requirements under the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations, Part 661 can not be achieved because the upland portion of the lot is not of sufficient size to meet such setbacks. Comment 493: Summa Emergency access is proposed by land through the Town Trustees property. What would emergency vehicle access be if Eugene's Creek is re-opened? Response 493: The re-opening of Eugene's Creek in the way envisioned by the Trustees would not entail excavation all the way to the western property boundary of Trustee lands, because such.excavation activities would likely undermine the road ending at East Road. Therefore, despite excavation, emergency access would be remotely possible by traversing a portion of Trustee land adjacent to the road ending, then traversing a portion of the land owned by the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association, then traversing the narrow strip of Trustee land adjacent to the southern property boundary of the Wade Parcel. In order to do so, the 26 i icle existing guard rail would have to be removed or a emergency vehhe guard would have rail to go around the guard rail to reach the property. Driving around t would prove difficult due to thick growths of shrubs present and steep slopes. Comment 494: How would access be affected by such conditions (storm -onditions of magnitude warranting a small craft advisory) considering that most emergency situations would occur during poor sea conditions? Response 494: In the event that access by sea was precluded as a result of rough weather, ambulatory access would likely occur. Comment 495: Design and Layout The septic system is proposed to be placed i;ehind a bulkhead if Eugene's Creek is re-opened. If the Creek is re-opened then the setback of the septic system would be zero feet from the wetland. The impacts from the septic system would be dramatically increased. The installation of a plastic membrane does not appear to be very useful because most material from the septic system would enter the creek via groundwater intrusion. Response 495: As disclosed in the site plan appearing as Appendix N in the DEIS, the bulkhead referred to in the above comment is approximately one foot back from the property line and septic system is located adjacent to the bulkhead. Accordingly, the proposed setback of the septic system from the property line is slightly greater than one foot. The purpose of the bulkhead is two fold: (1) to stabilize the septic area thereby maintaining cover around the septic rings and (2) to provide a surface in which to place an impermeable membrane. The only i additional mitigative measure available to the Trustees (besides permit denial) is to t relocate the septic system further to the northeast to maximize the distance of the septic system from excavated Trustee Waters. However, in doing so, the septic setbacks to Eugene's Creek as it presently exists would be further diminished. The concept behind installation of a impermeable membrane was to prevent direct horizontal leaching from the area of the proposed septic system into newly created Trustee Waters. At that time, full use of a composting toilet with a conventional septic system for gray water only was being considered. By way of correspondence dated April 2, 1993 from Albert Krupski, Jr., Vice President of the Southold Town Trustees, to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of Review ("Board of Review") attached hereto as Appendix 29, the Board I Review inever responded to the Truustee~sl request. However, by The Board of Review 27 correspondence from Kimberly Shaw of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated July 19, 1993 and attached hereto as Appendix 2, several salient points and positions were raised. They include: (1) that the leaching pool must be set back 5 feet from property lines; (2) that the septic system must be set back 10 feet from the proposed bulkhead; (3) that the retaining wall must be water proof and (4) that the septic system must be double plumbed to provide for an alternative conventional septic system in the event that the composting toilet does not function properly or is not in fact used. Thus, the septic system would be moved closer to Eugene's Creek as it presently exists thereby potentially increasing its associated impacts. The proposal for the impervious membrane is consistent with Health Department requirements that the wall must be waterproof. Finally, the statement that septic effluents will reach surface waters by groundwater intrusion is true. That is, septic systems are designed to leach and the pathway, in most cases, by which septic effluents reach surface waters is through groundwater. However, the actual materials which reach groundwater are those that are not attenuated by soil particles. Comment 496: Design and Layout How will typical and emergency service work be accomplished such as servicing of propane generators, cooling systems ect.? I Response 496: In the event that emergency service is required, land access is only possible in the ways described in Responses 93 and 94. I Comment 497: What if service people need to take heavy and large equipment to the site? Will barges be landing at the edge of the marsh and off loading onto the marsh. Response 497: All large equipment will be transported to the site by barge. The most likely area for off loading heavy equipment is adjacent to the existing dock. In order to reach the upland portion of the site, all heavy equipment will have to cross the wetland. This is the obvious loading route. While the existing dock is not of sufficient size and strength to accommodate backhoes and trucks generally required in home construction, it will likely be used for the transport of lighter materials and equipment. Comment #98: Will dredging need to be done so boats weighted down with equipment can come into the dock? 28 j i Response #98: No dredging is proposed. However, shallow depths occurring during low tide will likely preclude the transport of heavy equipment by barge or other means. Comment 499: Who will maintain the (composting) system? Response 499: The applicant will maintain the (composting) system. Comment # 100: How will the system be operated in the event of a power failure? Response #100: As disclosed in Appendix 2, the septic system will be double plumbed so that a conventional septic system will be used in a supplementary fashion to the composting toilet. In the event that a power failure occurs, Mr. Wade will most likely utilize the conventional system. E i, Comment # 101: It appears that reliance on propane generators would increase the potential for power failure due to gas running out at inconvenient hours. Response 4101: Not necessarily: Mr. Wade may monitor propane capacity to prevent such inconveniences. i Comment # 102: How will construction machinery be off loaded from the barges? Response 4102: The DEIS does not disclose a detailed description of the actual mechanics involved in the off loading of construction machinery. However, the mechanics involved are surmised in Response 497. Comment #103: Will dredging need to be done so boatsibarges can land at the dock? Response # 103: No dredging is proposed. However, the landing of barge or boat (having a draft of three feet or more) may be impossible except during high rides. Comment 4104: Is the dock facility strong enough to accommodate heavy machinery on it or will the machinery have to be off loaded in the tidal wetlands? Response 4104: It is apparent that heavy machinery will be off loaded on or across tidal wetlands as the dock is relatively narrow and most likely of 29 insufficient strength to accommodate the weight of heavy equipment of the types generally used in home construction. Comment # 105: If the machinery has to be operated in the wetlands what will keep these areas from being disturbed? Response 4105: Disturbance of the wetlands is inevitable if machinery is operated within them. Comment # 106: A new application will need to be submitted for the entire project and DEC staff will have to consider it with respect to the standards of the Tidal Wetland regulations regarding the expanded proposal in view of current environmental conditions, the potential for dredging or otherwise destroying/ damaging the existing shoal and loss of the marsh fringe and the impacts from the septic system to tidal wetlands and tidal waters. Response 4106: So noted. Comment 4107: There are two contradictory statements with regards to the location of the water table. The first statement says the depth to the aquifer is between 0 and 3 feet. The second statement says the depth to seasonal high water in the area of the sanitary system is 8.5 feet. If the aquifer is 0 to 3 feet how can the sanitary system be 8.5 feet to groundwater unless the system is above ground somewhere? Response 4107: Appendix E discloses test hole information which indicates i groundwater to be 11 1/2 feet below grade. There is no indication that the septic system will be mounded. Comment 9108: The DEIS fails to state that the shoals/bars/mud flats seaward of the marsh grasses is covered with sea lettuce (ulva). This is a highly productive shoal area which appears one foot below mean low water at the seaward end of the float. i Response #108: A field inspection conducted on September 26, 1993, of the shoals/bars/mud flats seaward to the tidal wetland grasses in the area of the existing dock revealed extensive areas of sea lettuce in clumped distribution. I i 30 I If i Comment 4109: The DEIS fails to state that the septic system does not meet all county and state standards. Response # 109: Clearly, the septic system does not meet all county and state standards and its approval will require variances. Comment #110: Any vegetative marsh that is adjacent to the bulkhead also becomes subject of the scouring action and slowly erodes. Since the vegetative marsh fringe appears to have moved closer to the toe of the proposed bulkhead this would mean that the scouring will occur more frequently and the marsh fringe would be eroded away sooner. If dredging is involved in this project deeper water will allow increased wave energy increasing the power of the scouring action. Response # 110: Not all vegetative marshes become scoured as a result of a bulkhead built landward from it. It is the forces of wave energy that can cause scouring. There is uncertainty regarding landward movement of the marsh fringe. It is more likely that subtle differences in the location of the marsh fringe is related to differences in wetland delineation and/or survey. No dredging has been proposed at this time. Comment # 111: Although contaminants and pathogens will bond to certain types of soils, the organic content of the soils, the organic content of the soils is the controlling factors of contaminant bonding. A reference to bonding of contaminants and pathogens in soils having low organic content is not credible. Response # 111: The test hole information included in Appendix E of the DEIS discloses the presence of loam and bog in the soils stratum. Both loam and bog are made up of varying quantities of organic constituents. Comment # 112: There is an overwhelming amount of research that contradicts the conclusions stated in the document with regard to site conditions, attenuation of contaminants, and the impacts associated with septic systems. (1) Sand is neither biologically or chemically reactive and therefore no sorption or description of chemicals occur; (2) Subsurface pollution removal depends largely on the amount of organic material and clay in the soil (which is absent on the Wade Parcel); (3) Nutrient removal is in part associated with contact time in the root zone. Therefore, since the site consists of all sand material the statements about contaminant removal are invalid. Any discharge of chemicals (fertilizers, cleaners, ~I soaps, pesticides, ect.) into the soils of this site will ultimately travel unrestricted into the surface waters of the estuary. I 31 i Response #112: As disclosed in Response #111, the soil stratum disclosed in the DEIS reveals the presence of loam and bog which contains organic materials. The loam may be stripped away in the installation of the septic system but a certain amount of bog would likely remain. Thus a certain amount of sorption and description would be expected to occur. Nutrient removal in the root zone will probably play little role in nutrient removal (for nutrients associated with septic effluents) because the septic material deposited in the bottom of the leaching pool will likely be below the root zone. In sum, the phenomenon of soil attenuation, sorption and description will take place on the Wade Parcel. I Comment #113: Pathogen contamination remains a concern because Suffolk County requires that composting toilets are double plumbed so that black water can be discharged into the leach field in the event of system problems and emergencies. As long as the system is has the capability of discharging into the leach field, there will always be the potential for pathogen contamination. Response 4113: Appendix 2 discloses that Suffolk County will require the septic system to be double plumbed. Accordingly, leaching will occur and therefore the potential for pathogen contamination exists. Comment # 114: Its is also important to note that pathogens are not exclusively passed in fecal wastes but can be harbored in other human excrement that would be discharged with the gray water into the leach field. Response #114: So noted. Comment # 115: The document states that absorption and filtration of bacteria occurs in sand. However absorption only occurs in organic soils. Response #115: There are perhaps no natural profiles found anywhere on Long Island that contain pure sand. However, as analyzed herein in Responses 111 and 112; test hole data indicate the presence of organic soils. Comment #116: Its is very important to note that there are differences in travel times between bacterial indicator organisms (coliforms) and viruses. Response #116: There is probably only insignificant differences in travel times between bacterial indicator organisms and viruses. However, there is scientific 32 j cidence that viruses may travel farther from a septic system than bacteria. Comment #117: The values associated with tidal wetlands, particularly that pertaining to cleansing the ecosystem, will impact the wetlands by virtue of increased runoff to the wetlands. Also, the values to wetlands including marine food production and marina habitat will be impacted due to scouring as resulting from the proposed bulkhead. Response 4117: The amount of runoff generated from the proposed project at a particular time is a function of rainfall intensity and duration, the runoff coefficient of the drainage area (defined by site specific conditions), and the area of the watershed (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984). The increased runoff resulting from the proposed project is directly related to the amount of impervious area created, but the degree of impact can be controlled by the installation of gutters, down spouts and drywells which are commonly required by both the Trustees and NYSDEC as conditions attached to a permit. Impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed bulkhead are addressed in Response #110. Comment # 118: Alternative Designs. The mushroom design should not be discounted because of the extensive work involved in removing the piles. Response #118: So noted. Comment # 119: The DEIS needs a considerable amount of revision to reflect the current literature with regards to septic system impacts, the attenuation of contaminants in sandy soils, and the impacts associated with regards to septic system impacts, the attenuation of contaminants in sandy soils, and the impacts associated with increased runoff. Response: # 119: The DEIS was analyzed in detail and a determination was made that the DEIS was adequate for public review. Subsequently, the DEIS was coordinated among Involved Agencies and the general public. EIS's are not intended to be encyclopedic. The following comments were raised by Morton Cogen by correspondence dated July 11, 1993: Comment #120: This construction will force us to listen to the incessant hum of a propane fired electric generator running constantly. 33 i 1 1 Response #120: Noise impacts are addressed in Responses 12, 21, 37 and 47. Comment # 121: Will Mr. Wade play by the rules? How will proposals such as water access and composting toilets be enforced. Response #121: Enforcement of permit approvals particularly with respect to access may prove difficult because Mr. Wade may legally park at the end of East ' Road (a public road) and may walk on public lands (Trustee Lands) and therefore access his home. As disclosed in Appendix 2, Suffolk County will require a supplementary conventional septic system and thus there is no enforceability to insure that the composting toilet will actually be used. ¦ Comment #122: In the future will the beach area on his property be growing i flowers and grass lawns with fertilizer run-off into the creek? 1 Response #122: The DEIS discloses the nature of the landscaping proposed and the use of Milorganite as the selected fertilizer. Runoff of Milorganite is expected to be minor as most of the site is flat and soils are porous. I Comment #123: The Wade house should not be built at this location. Response # 123: So noted. ' The following comments were raised by the Town of Southold Board of Appeals by correspondence dated July 13, 1993: Comment #124: The status of the applications pending before all agencies should be reported. ' Response #124: The DEIS identifies all Involved Agencies and discloses the approvals required. Additionally, the DEIS was routed to all Involved Agencies. 1 Therefore, all involved agencies should be aware that applications are or will be pending. i Comment # 125: No building permit may be issued until all agency approvals have been obtained including approval which is necessary by this Board under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for safe and adequate access by fire and 1 emergency vehicles. ' 34 I Response 4125: See Response 439. Comment 4126: Effects by changes in weather conditions at flood high tides and moon high/low tides, storm tides, and the requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road will need to be addressed. Response 4126: The weather effects to the Wade Parcel are described on page 62 of the DEIS. Additionally, the effects of flooding and severe weather are addressed herein in Responses 4, 7, 48, 52, and 94. There is no requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road. Rather, as stated in the DEIS, the Trustees have made their intentions known to excavate the deposited fill. i Comment 4127: The preparer has not confirmed alternatives for service companies and fire departments to gain access to the proposed house during freezing of the creek and bay areas surrounding this land. I Response 4127: Access for the purposes of service is addressed herein in Responses 93 and 94. Comment 4128: Will covenants for such access to the ovinean property transport furnished for perpetual use, and how does the property plan equipment, delivery items and vehicles to the property for emergency services, construction purposes, and otherwise. Response # 128: Access to the property is described in Responses 93, 94, 97 and 98. Comment 4129: The record needs to be corrected to show a distance from the applicant's land to east road at 85 feet or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Response 4129: So noted. Comment 4130: Noise impacts need to be addressed. Response 4130: Noise impacts are addressed in Responses 12, 21,37 and 47. i Comment 413 1: Minimal reference is made for the possible access for back hoe and other equipment by barge. The points of location and proof of such 35 i 6 authorization from property owners has not been provided and is necessary in i order to access from upland areas for not only back hoes but also for maintenance and cleaning of cesspools, heating, ect. Response #131: Access for aback hoe and similar heavy equipment is addressed in Responses 92, 97 and 98. Comment #132: Questions are outstanding by this agency concerning time periods for fire and emergency responses for water emergencies, the depth of water and dock suitability at low tides during transports, ect. Response #132: The Fire District has most recently disclosed that it cannot reach the site (See Appendix 26). The Police Department has disclosed that the proposed project will not over burden the Department (See Appendix 20). The depth of water at the end of the dock at high ride is approximately three feet. Normal tides in the Peconic Bay Estuary are slightly greater than two feet meaning that at low tide, slightly less than one foot of water at the end of the dock exists. The suitability of the dock for water access at low tide is correspondingly reduced. Comment #133: Project is located in a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) and all notices of filing should be amended as a Type 1 Action. Response #133: The corrected Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") prepared by the Board of Appeal's consultant, Thomas W. Cramer dated July 15, 1990, identifies the project as located in a Critical Environmental Area ("CEA"). Additionally, the Positive Declaration prepared by the Board of Appeal's Consultant, Charles J. Voorhis, correctly identifies the action as a Type 1 Action and Lon EAF Parts 1 2 and d 3 were completed as required. Clearly, this actions classification as Type 1, lead to the possibility that a EIS could be required and furthermore, project location in a CEA is what enabled the Action to be classified as Type 1. The importance of the Type I designation of this action and its location in a CEA is found in connection with the decision to require an EIS. All subsequent filing notices were constructed in conformance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.10. Comment # 134: Page 17 makes a reference to a new, updated survey dated April 17, 1993, which has not been made part of this DEIS. i 36 Response 9134: Page 17 does not make reference to an updated survey, dated April 17, 1993. Rather, reference is made to an updated survey dated April 8, 1993 which was submitted at the request of the Board of Appeals. The survey dated April 8, was included in the DEIS (See Appendix N). Comment 4135: The question of the legality of propane storage is outstanding. II j Response 4135. The issue of propane storage is addressed in Appendix 28. The following comments were raised by Edward and June Hussey by correspondence dated July 13, 1993: Comment 9136: The Husseys voice strong opposition to the construction of any ' building on the property adjacent to the Fleets Neck Property Owners Association beach property. Response 4136: So noted. Comment 9137: The property is not suitable for the use purpose Mr. Wade intends to use it for; utilities are not available, access is difficult. Response 4137: The DEIS attempts to explain how access will be achieved and advocates the proposed improvements. Comment #138: Mr. Wades' intent to use propane or similar potentially dangerous gas for heating and cooking engenders unsafe shipping and handling procedures which are against fire department regulations. Response 4138: The issue of propane is addressed in Responses 3, 22, and 35. The following comment were raised by Mrs. E. Carll Buhler by i correspondence dated July 13, 1993: l Comment 4139: The Trustees should deny the project proposed by Mr. Wade. y Response 4139: So noted. 37 i Ij I I'. The following comment was raised by Stanley Droskowski, Chief of the Police Department of the Town of Southold by correspondence dated June 29, 1993: Comment 4140: The construction of the single family residence will not have any I effect nor will it impact the operation of this department. Response 4140: So noted. li I The following comments were raised by Anthony Nowacheck by correspondence dated July 2, 1993: Comment #141: The Board must be aware of the previous violations occurring on I~ the property and the status of the previously executed Consent Order on such violations. Response #141: The violations occurring on the Wade Property and the II, subsequently executed Consent Order was disclosed in the DEIS (See pages 5 to 6). Comment 4142: The Board is urged that there is no new basis for the application and the proposal therewith but to the contrary a self-serving statement evading and avoiding the adversities to the environment, evidencing its destruction and eventual annihilation. Response 4142: Any owner of real property may bring forth a proposal for development. In this case, the Trustees are charged with the responsibility of evaluating all proposals and rendering a decision in accordance with SEQRA and Chapter 97 of the Town Code. The following continent was raised by Bernard Dempsey representing the Fleet s Neck Property Owners Association, Inc. by correspondence dated July 1, 1993: , Comment # 143: Mr. Dempsey extends his appreciation trusting that the Board of Trustees will deny and reject the proposal. Response 4143: So noted. 39 ~I l~ The following comments were raised by Anthony and Junneann Zarzecki by correspondence dated July 1, 1993: I h, Comment 4144: The generated gas pump will echo up the whole creek and be a disturbance to all. i Response #144: Noise impacts are addressed in Responses 12, 21,37 and 47. I Comment #145: We as residents of Cutchogue for 33 years are deeply concerned and disapprove of Gustave Wade Property Impact Bldg, ect.. Response #145: So noted. I, I The following comments were raised by Heather Tetrault by correspondence dated June 26, 1993: Comment #146: Mr. Wade proposes a composting toilet for sewage. What about the gray water? Response #146: Impacts pertaining to septic which include gray water are addressed in Responses 13, 23, 24, 25, 36, 40, 81, 87, 88, 92, 99, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114,115, 116, and 119. Comment #147: There is no way to regulate the use of chemicals once Mr. Wade has his house. Response #147: Regulations (by the Trustees) of chemicals once Mr. Wade has his house is difficult. Comment # 148: A generator - a machine running right near the water would echo across the water. Response #148: Noise impacts are addressed in Responses 12, 21, 37, 47. The following comments were raised by Linda Levy of the North Fork Environmental Council by correspondence dated June 24, 1993: Comment 9149: The North Fork Environmental Council states their opposition the proposed project. 39 I Response #149: So noted. Comment 4150: Water access to the property is unworkable and unenforceable. Response #150: Water access is addressed in Responses 2, 6, 7, 48, 72, 94, 97, 127, 131, and 132. Comment #151: This proposal will degrade the value of surrounding homes, thereby having a negative economic impact on the community. Response #151: This comment is addressed in Response #66. Comment 4152: This application should not be approved if the result is simply to cost Town taxpayers a higher amount for the purchase or trade of this parcel. Response 4152: This comment is addressed in Response #9. j The following comments were raised by Mathew Martin of the Cutchogue Fire District by correspondence dated June 22, 1993: Comment #153: Water supply does not meet ISO minimum requirements, thereby indicating the need for an additional water source. Response 4153: So noted. Comment 4154: The access road indicated in the cover letter does not exist and this department has no means for reaching the Wade Site. Response 4154: So noted. Comment #155: The Cutchogue Fire District cannot provide adequate fire protection until an additional water source and road access is provided. Response #155: So noted. The following comments were raised by Stan and Clare Sledz by correspondence dated July 17, 1993: 40 4 Y I 'I nument #156: If the Board approves the Wade Project, it will seta precedent 1Y for home construction. the future owner of lot 19 to also app Responses 46 and 75. ;~sponse 4156: This comment is previously addressed in i utnment 4157: The Sledz object to the Wade Application. :csponse 4157: So noted. 'I I, i s I I'I I~ I i I i II i I is 41 ~1 References )mell cooperative Extension. 1993. Environmental Fact Sheets: The Beneficial Uses of Sludge. Fact Sheet 43. 4 p• )empsey, B• 1993. Personal CommnAssooiatiDonscription of the boundaries of the Fleet's Neck property owners Board. 1984. NonPoint So"r :94-91619. 129p. un~ Island Regional Planning Card Number of Congress Catalog Handbook. Library 1991. A I artment of State and The Nature Conservancy; R itat: Protection an p CNN, York State De e~~ieu, of Long Island's Beach-Nesting Shorebird Hab e Management of a Valuable Resourc. 216p. { Island, Suffolk , interim 14umoe S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. North Shore of Long I County, New York, Beach Erosion and Control an~ osion of the ort h { Study. Newyork D byt, New York. 271 p. D. S. Davies, E. W • Axelrod and J. O'Connor. sland, Shore of Long Technical Report series 418, 1973. 101 p• Application for s. 1990. Special Scoping Minutes on variance of Gus Wade. 95 p. /oning Board of Appeal I { I 42 k Appendix 1: Minutes of the Public Hearing dated June 24, 1993 4 ~j l ICY hi z SoFFO[ SUPERVISOR TRUSTEES 1„hn M. I3rcdcmc%cr, III. Presidcnt ~p~p CDD SCOTT L. I IARRIS s \Ihcrl J. Kmpski, Jr., Vice President o ~ l Icnrv P. Smilh o 16wn Hall John B. Tuthill w 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson Oy p!~ P.O. Box 1171) Soulhuld, New York 11971 lilcphottc (SIG) 76.5-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES JUNE 24, 1993 PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer III, President Albert J. Krupski, Vice-President Henry P. Smith, Trustee William G. Albertson, Trustee John B. Tuthill, Trustee Jill Doherty j It WORKSESSION: CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thursday WORKSESSION: APPROVE MINUTES: I. MONTHLY REPORT: II. PUBLIC NOTICES: III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: I~ THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD- I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND MAY HE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE I~ PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE 7:45 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of Gus Wade: 11 ;'P.USTEE BREDEMEYER: The Town Trustees are Lead Agency and 111intain copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. there is a copy which is available in the reference Library of the cutchogue Library and sources for review of the DEIS. the '"own Trustees will consider comments in this matter on an oxtended comment period until July 19. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak, if you will, to the issue of the completeness or issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in this matter. I'd like to ask that your comments be succinct and specifically directed to completeness, thoroughness or any new issues. If you would please identify yourself. I would ask that we have a sign in sheet for the sake of completing a proper record and comparing comments. Stand up to the mike and speak clearly and spell your name just so we get the spelling of names correctly for the Public Record. Anyone here who wishes to speak? BERNIE DEMPSEY: I am President of the Fleets Neck Property owners Association. The Association was incorporated in 1939 and we have approximately 125 members. And if you add in the family members, children grandchildren, there are several hundred people that could be adversely affected by this project. We are adamantly opposed of this project on the basis of environmental, economic and legal grounds. I'm not going to address each one of these issues because we have counsel here who represents us on legal grounds. and there are also a number of people who are members of the Fleets Neck Association and they will speak as a member and also as an individual. And I'd like to give them an opportunity to address the environmental as well as the economic issues. My own, speaking as an individual as well as the President Association am opposed to this environmental extensive piece of property is well documented. By your own admission a Positive Impact Statement would declare that this piece of property has been under water on a number of occasions particularly from this last storm we had. Just from an economic viewpoint, if you take into consideration, if there were any concessioners were made on this project, you can imagine the amount cost that this type of precedent being set. Somewhere in the impact statement its mentioned about the school ii district being able to accommodate any children, and Mr. Wade in his proposal said his has no children would be attending schools, however, for future ownership, who will provide transportation? Will we be providing boat transportation for these children? Just another side to this issue on the economic portion of this objection. I will defer at this point because a lot of people would like to take a few moments up here to express their concerns about this very sensitive project. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional individuals who wish to speak from the right side of the room? STEVE PINZINO: I'm from the Law offices of Steven Pinzino. I'd like to thank you for affording me the opportunity to present a few arguments in opposition to the proposed project. I respectfully reserve my right to revise and amend any comments I might make and to submit at a later point in time any documentary evidence that may make reference to my presentation. I will likewise refer to those people who are fI {r expert and have expertise in their particular field as it impacts upon environmental and economic issues. One point I would like to bring out and stress to the members of the Board, is taken from the Draft Impact Statement on page 19. I'm sure the Board will have a copy of that. I quote from page 19. " Mr. wade will personally attend to his fuel needs". As the Board is fully aware, if harbor system of cooling and heating will be fueled by propane tanks. I further quote. "He will transport the propane in one hundred pound tanks, plural, on his boat to and from his house". This is too obviate the need to egress or access across the Trustees land._. oeording to,rederal Statute and.I '~'t~D lati0ns'4hat:article. _„gilote fro tA ' o e b e ,Re9U , 46_ the i; 1 CU. olog-z -,to„thi board for-hot A bringing more;Cop til sent t of I will _ quote-just-briefly.,,!' s 9 fikls Afisportation on deck ofyligtief~et115~;5 5 Attd portablC Cylinders and tanks and trans n tatiooemptid''3 YifStdble ;hanks' preVibiislyse'' a aCCOr ance`iaithie `"r"egtiirements of 49 -gtidEd-b 171-thru 179. the transportatioh o such 66nEaih6rs under deck shail be in accordance with further requirements. So not to bore the members of the audience with legal eves, I also have here the chart which summarizes the transportation of hazardous material. I've asked, and I'll direct to the Board and to conclude my presentation, "propane" which is listed as a 2.1 hazardous class or division of flammable gas well above the level of gasoline. With respect to the transportation of any such containers on a passenger vessel, as opposed to a cargo vessel or something so designed, it is absolutely prohibited on a passenger vessel. So not knowing Mr. Wade personally, but just going by what is stated in the document that he is proposing, obviates the need for any such requirements, I fail to see how he is going to accomplish the transportation of propane via water on a 26 foot boat, when he speaks of 100 lb. cylinders. Meaning more than one. Continuing in that frame also attached to the same document that attached the appendix W is his contract with the Cutchogue Harbor Marina. Maybe the Board recalls I appeared before you sometime last year with reference to other problems, that unfortunately are still unresolved. With respect to this contract the marina operators are quite clear in that they say that boats shall be sea worthy tradition and not constitute a fire hazard. As a volunteer fireman in my Town of Manhasset I can tell the Board and bring in newspaper articles to show what a five pound cylinder of propane will do to a structure, it can completely level it. How he proposes to accomplish the loading and off-loading of one hundred pound propane tanks at a marina which is not under Federal regulations licensed or zoned for that, presents an imminent danger and harm all around the marina as well as any bodies transporting or using the water and or the beach for recreational purposes. That means the children, grandchildren and any other residents that Mr. Dempsey referred to. Absolutely, categorically hazardous fire hazard. The contract with the marina goes on to state that the boat owner agrees to teep nis boat fully insured. The worst case scenario being an _ 11tcorney with the ligate society, assume the boat does blow up, was the recourse, Mrs. Huntington, who lives across the street, if this boat blows up, I am sure that the insurance contract has written in it a disclaimer that no pledge of vehicle will be covered if they are transporting one hundred pound propane tanks. We are at their mercy. I know full well the operator of the marina is not going to reimburse us for any hopefully just loss of property damage as not even counting life. We have absolutely no recourse. Further we go on to state attached had appendix X as a letter from Dennis M. Cochran a fire prevention expert. He takes great lengths in this letter to say that if fire prevention will not be impeded by the fact that Mr. Wade's property is going to be on an Island with which no access can be gained over other than an emergency situation. What he fails to point out in paragraph 5, he says, that the utilities such as electric service and telephone will be brought onto the site. No where in his letter is mentioned how it is going to be brought up to the site, by way of propane and a 4,000 watt generator going 24 hours a day. Just one further note, with respect to propane. The National Fire Protection Association in a publication which is called "Publishers Standards of Storage and Transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas" at NFPA.85 establishes standards that the industry follows in the transportation of liquid petroleum products, propane being one of them. I had an occasion today to speak to the president of Conservative Gas in Riverhead. One hundred pound tanks are owned and owned solely by the company that delivers and services. No one is allowed by County regulations to own a one hundred pound propane tank. They are leased for use, the company services them, and supplies them. They cannot under existing regulations deliver to any member of the Board a i one hundred. pound tank and let them go on their merry way on their little scooter with that to do with what they will. Again I hate to harp on the same point, naturally fish might be impacted and birds might be impacted, those are all good and valid concerns. My concern is the loss of life on a July 4th week-end in a house which is just a week-end residence subject to vandals and children on the beach at night on unprotected ~i beach when we have five hundred people on the beach and a leak in a propane tank that someone is carrying by himself happens to go off. I thank the Board for their attention and as I said I will submit to you my letter or FAX the appropriate section. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak on this side of the room? MARYANNE HUNTINGTON: I live on West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. I'm submitting to the Board some photographs that were taken at various times within the past year after the major storm. Indicating that some of the property is clearly underwater that it had in fact had reached across the land mass to the Bay. I also submit photos taken in 1966 which may be of interest to the Board showing how the Board of Trustees property has been filled in, not by Suffolk County as indicated by the impact statement. ~i u~i i 1 The critical points in the photos are defined. you'll see where its clear when there's no flooding conditions than you will see the signs underwater or in the middle of the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSRI: For point of clarification, these pictures with the bull dozer spreading sand? MS. HUNTINGTON: They were taken in 1966, when the Board of Trustees water way was in fact filled in, and not by the County in their dredging. If you'll notice there's ice, we don't have I, the exact date, but its believed that its definitely in the winter and not when the County does its dredging. All the photos are dated on the back. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you wish to have these back? 111 MS. HUNTINGTON: No, you may have them. (Change of tape) MR. MC KILOP: I wanted to know if its appropriate to ask for a little clarification on what they mean in the description of the action when they refer to two navy type retaining walls? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Navy type of retaining wall is that which is constructed with post whalers and stringers as opposed to construction which might be a reverse type of retaining wall which only has a flat facure. For the sake of information I don't know, Mr. Haje who regularly writes permits or any of the other consultants here can give a better description, but the navy type retaining wall is a type of construction that we know is a conventional retaining wall or bulkhead of Southold Town as opposed to ones other communities use which typically have an exposed flat facure, ours have the stringers if you will. The navy bulkhead has the stringers on the outside, the + pilings seaward or outboard of the stringers. MR. MC KILOP: I appreciate that. I also wish to echo the I sentiments of the previous person speaking as to how much that beach means to area of Fleets Neck. We've only been there 25 years but our children have enjoyed that beach and I'm sure the people will enjoy that beach in the years to come. The I construction of'this home seems to be endangering that beach now i and what it means to the people in Fleets Neck. All of the items mentioned as to the possible dangers that would be incurred, it baffles me as to how the issue could still be under discussion. But having said that I just wanted to echo the sentiments of I think many of my neighbors as.to how much this beach means to the people in Fleets Neck. j i TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak? ANTHONY MAERCHECK: I've gone full circle with this, and I really want to say when the former President of the Board, Mr. Kujawski sat there, he said, "Hoy, here comes trouble". But its an opportunity for me again say hello to my neighbors because it seems to me they talk about the beach and the best place to meet is in Town Hall here, because this things been going on for 9 years. Let me just mention some of the practicalities and realities. The legal issues have been decided. There's a new door opener. And a new circle that's just beginning. The door opened when the dock went in. That was going to be for pleasure purposes, recreation and boating. Before you people the applicant, I don't that's a question you have to ask. Is it for pleasure? Was it intended for r pleasure? If you look at that impact statement now it's for residential use. I have to commend the members of the Board, Town Trustees that sat through the 9 years here and I was involved in the association. I happen to be a neighbor of these great people, and there's a good number of them here that haven't stood up and said anything. I want to commend the former Town Attorney the late Bob Tasker. Because I felt that the Board at that time, and some of you people were members, had the same interest that we as citizens and residents had, we are all basically environmentalists. We selected the Boards, and you included, we vested in you a proper authority, we have given you the right to rule and enforce, and we've given you our confidence and trust that you will do the right thing and you would uphold the law and the value of character of the community. That has been done full circle from the initial II application of this Mr. Wade, when he turned around in the first instance, and he asked the Town Trustees to give him an easement over the jurisdiction over the body of water you have. He couldn't get the easement he asked you give him a deed so he could own that land. He didn't get that either. So he had no way of getting to his property so he got the Building Dept. to give him a permit on the basis he had access by walking. He went to the DEC and told them a lot of things also up in Albany, not here in Stony Brook. And when they gave him a permit at Albany, he came back here and he violated every condition in that permit. I don't know 'cause I'm not the DEC, but I think some of the violations still remain on that property. Some of the footage of those piles have not been removed and should have been. When the prosbcution ended in a consent order where a fine of $2,000 was paid and there was mandate that the excess fill was to be removed, vegetation was to be restored, and as well some of the pilings. The.President, Mr. Dempsey called me and said "Well we have a new impact statement". I looked at in my drawer with 38 inches of files and the first thing I was able to pull out was a duzard. Which is local. It appeared in Suffolk Times, June 22, 1989 and it says, "End of the road for the 18 year fill flat". And this article appeared and showed what Trustees property was like prior to being filled, not by bain that ckfilled disclosure that. Howdoesstatement, he the County of the ruling wasstheyldidn't alleged know it was the County of Suffolk, at this late stage? I'd like you have this and I'll furnish you with a copy. And the reason that this came out on June 22 was because on June 7th 1989 a judge in the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk ruled the easement business went out the door after all the administrative decisions denied the easement, then the quit claim deed went out and back to court they went. The court upheld the Trustees and they upheld the Town Board. Then he went in for the bridge. Finally on June 7th 1989 Judge Vaughn said "Good-by Mr. Wade, no bridge." And you haven't taken any appeal. So now, what happened? The DEC Permit expired December of 1984. on the order of consent with the DEC after Mr. Wade paid the fine, he had right because the DEC gave to him to have that permit extended for over two years. That would have brought it to M't'But there were conditions put into that consent order. rna he should do it immediately. If he was going to make an pdifications or changes to the original stuff he had in the MVP "I.. for that permit he would do randitdwould golback to or 60 days, you have that in your files, the same judge that gave him the permit originally. It's the way extended he says, to 1986 and he's extending it to 1992Iis it? You gentleman have the copy in writing the DEC. s that the original permit that was extended? The one in which he violated the overfill? He violated the over number of pilings j, and so on, is that the same permit that was extended? and is 'I that the same permit he's coming here with saying "That's the one I'm gonna try to use for the DEC for all these purposes"? Let's look at the reaiity Gentleman/ I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Bredemeyer when we talk about the exchange of property. I didn't figure he had a quarter of a million dollars i in orient Point. Mr. Wade says in this thing here he was the when he came before this Board looking for a Wetlandsas owner Permit. He was not gentleman. Look at your records. He contract vendee. He was under contract buying the land from Mr. Glorbic. He knew that he was buying the cat in the bag. met"I like a guy buying the Brooklyn Bridge and then saying want to build a house over the tracts and the train can go underneath it." That's what he did, and became an owner in 1984. He said he intended and purchased it because he wanted to build on it. He wanted to live there as a residence. If Mr. Globic gave him an assurance and he bought it at that risk for $22,000 gentleman,if I recall correctly. I can determine that I think by the revenue stamps on the deed. $22,000 for a mound of sand that last year was appraised for $225,000. This impact statement now should make the property worth another $25,000. Is the value of the land increased because of the legal proceedings, that were generated by Mr. Wade with all this. (Mr. Mc Kilop went on about this same issue for awhile, basically i saying the same thing) i TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would like to go in an orderly fashion, like across the room. Unless someone has an eminent personal problem that they have to leave the meeting, I'd like you be recognized. LINDA FLETCHER: I am a resident of New Suffolk, and I just have I a question for this Board as in regard of 1986 Order of Consent and the compliance schedule from the DEC regarding this 4 ' property. Do you know if the applicant has complied with that 1986 compliance schedule? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would have toconsider isa don't a asta request of the Board as part of the hearing pr i member has recently studied that. 1 I MS. FLETCHER: So you do not know whether or not the compliance has been completed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, we couldn't say. That would be an I independent request that position we look t into E that $ as part t of our ryou environmental review. 'I R5, FLETCHER: I think it would be very interesting to know that it there was a compliance scheduled issued in 1986 if the applicant had complied with it. That's another layer of =equlations that are necessary and compliance schedules are set up because there have been violations. And I think usually those violations have y terestin it would be very interesting 9 to know if been corrected. I will ask you to look into it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We will. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to be recognized from this side of the room? There being none, the middle of the room. LINDA LEVY: I am the Southold Coordinator for the North Fork Environmental Council and I- want to say that I'm glad you clarified exactly what this hearing is about, because I myself am a little bit confused. When I was looking at the DEIS today and writing up my remarks I was thinking "why am I writing these remarks today if we haven't even gone through the DEIS hearing. So I'm glad to know, and I have to say because I was confused my remarks do cover both a DEIS hearing and a final III application hearing all in one. In case I don't get back here for your final hearing you can these remarks. We've like to state our opposition to the granting of the permit to construct y a residence and retaining walls at this site. And I have to sayI that this application as described in the DEIS demonstrates the length to which an individual property owner will go in an effort to build on property which is environmentally unsuited for development. This whole package that I have received was just full of so many things I could comment on that I just can't begin to tell you. one thing after another. But we've limited our comments to just a few points. First of all due to the Trustees well founded refusal to allow road access across his property the proposal caused for water accessed only. Allowed to be applied for ingenuity this concept is most unworkable and unenforceable. It's only a matter of time before 4-wheel drive vehicles are surreptitiously used to gain access to this property. The question is who's gonna be out there to see whether or not these vehicles are going to be going across, who's going to know what's happening on this site. We know that already we have problems with enforcement in all levels of the Town and there's nobody left in Town who has anymore time to be standing outside on east road watching to see if anybody driving down in the middle of the night to that house. In addition we hear that the emergency vehicles are permitted by law to cross any property including Trustee property. Now I would never say that if somebody has a house down there and they have trouble that we shouldn't let them have an ambulance come to their house. But the fact is, that if there were no house down there there would be no need to have any emergency vehicles on that property at all. The potential for flooding and erosion is addressed by proposed retaining walls. one is 70 feet the other 150 feet. While these walls may resolve the immediate problem of the house being washed away,.the ultimate hydro-geologic impacts of such results remains unknown. We do know that mandate barriers in other parts of the country and here on the - Ir east end has caused very costly problems. Once the Town has authorized a habitation and water access on this property it will be legally obligated to bear the cost to maintain that access in the future. The impact on the surrounding community at this proposal cannot be taken lightly. Fleets Neck Homeowners were bequeathed a beach which is currently surrounded by open space and beautiful vistas. The property values of the area reflect this condition. The issue is not simply one of aesthetic appeal; this proposal will degrade the value of surrounding homes, thereby having a negative economic impact on the community. The DEIS states that no group or agency has been willing to purchase this property for open space. In fact, the owner has been offered .a. land transfer by the Trustees, and Southold Town has gone so far as to have the property appraised for the purpose of acquisition. These avenues should be pursued further. It should be noted that the Town assessed the property at $50,000 without a Building Permit, and $175,000 with a permit. This application should not be approved if the result is simply to cost Town taxpayers a higher amount for the purchase or trade of this parcel. Nothing can alter the fact that this is a proposal to build a house less than 40 feet from the high water mark, virtually in the middle of wetlands, and lying within the 100 year flood plain. Regardless of high-tech disposal systems, propane generators, and reverse-osmosis wells, these circumstances cannot be mitigated. Yes, in Southold Town we do have other houses built too close to wetlands, in environmentally sensitive areas. Let's learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. We respectfully request that you deny this application. J TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak? BEN SWARTZ: I don't own any property but for over 27 years I've lived adjacent to the subject property. I'd like to affirm everything that's been said and add my own personal appreciation of this beach during the project described. Regarding this whole DEIS here is based on a mistaken impression that the applicant has the invested right to use this property for residential purposes. This is not true. Unusual extreme j variances from the standard building lot and plan, the impacts had identified right in the DEIS, making clear any residential use of this property is not only unacceptable but would be illegal.. The applicant has every right to pursue this application for residential use. the Trustees have a right and III' the duty to deny it.' Recent contact with some of the county agencies have led me to believe the applicant at present has no DEC clearance, no permits from them, no Suffolk County Dept. of Health permits, and if the application as presented in the DEIS would not be approvable by either of those agencies. I hope that it will not gain the Trustees approval. Specifically getting to the things that are missing from the DEIS there is.... he jumps into the middle of the story, he gives very little history about when it was once an island. It was never an island. Anybody that knows it was and island, I would like to hear about it. It was proven in court up in Albany that there was once an island there, but I've seen the proof. And I f a~ i I' Oon t believe it. However, if it was once an island then lets j look at that and look at the prior owners title. My understanding was it was titled to paying considan island. was rnot ights ,Men in the 16 & 1700's this property buildable lot. Then why should we, with our environmental conferences today, turn that around and say "go ahead, build a house there". If its accessible only by the water then I think since water access to residential use in Southold is so unusual I thin it would be appropriate for the environmental impact statement and the final environmental impact statement to contain a chart of the water depth and the access route. I don't understand why if the access to this house is supposed to be by the water and the dock is gonna be his front door, then I' why is the front of the house facing the road? According to the DEIS page 40. (Mr. Schwartz basically says the same things for awhile) TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak from this end of the room? ClIM S & EILEEN CARB: Eileen and I are porperty owners in j Fleets Neck, and as you heard we enjoy the beach very much. I'd like to touch on something that Ben alerted to. You all, from p your physics and from sound know how sound is amplified and travels across water. I don't know whether anyone would want to hear a 4,000 watt generator twenty four hours a day. Ben mentioned Haywaters beach. Now your infringing on other property and your gonna have Nassau Point people up in arms. My second quick comment is, if there is a fire or an emergency that area in East Road has a stantion. they have to take down the stantion first before they can get any vehicles in there. I; TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else from this side of the room? At this time, quickly, we'll go back over the entire room and if III there's anyone who wishes to speak who has not had the opportunity to., Any members of the Board of Trustees? At this time I'll take a motion to close the hearing in the matter of the DEIS. The Board in following this, will review the minutes and the comments given and will consult with our Consultant. there will be consideration of requiring items as appropriate in a final Environmental Impact Statement or there is also the possibility that the Board will require the l applicant to file a supplement to the DEIS for further consideration as an appending to the draft. The Trustees I believe under SEQRA have appropriate routing to consider. y Either route and upon consideration of aluminous comment here this evening we will consider both options while we work with our Environmental Consultant in this matter. Is there anyone have any questions in this matter? (changed tape, lost some words) Mr.. Pinzino asked if a 2nd hearing will be held. I won't quote you chapter and verse, but I believe since the process is supposed to be as open and directed to public comment as possible we?would probably try to do that. Understanding that the Board is not in a position to do that or we find we want to simply address this through the Final Environmental Impact Statement there is still a hearing that has to be held on the thoroughness or the completeness of the FEIS. And there `i I i I; i ~I i is still would be the option that we would hold the wetland f_pudblic hearing separate from that. As I said previously there's 1, iscretionary judgement to have both together. I can't say for certainty. If you wish this Board to research that and I, Communicated to lets say a contact person within the Fleets w peck Association or yourself as an attorney representing them we l would be glad to do that. y+REN MC KILLOP: I think earlier you said you would into whether or not this gentleman has complied with some of the 'requirements of the Board. I think that should be step # 1. And if he hasn't complied is the process going further than it does? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think what we're looking into whether he complied with the DEC'not with the Board of Trustees. MR. MC KILLOP: Even so then if he hasn't complied with ` anybodys existing laws or regulations.... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would remain a consideration for the Board to mull over upon getting a return from the DEC. We are not the DEC and there comes a point in time as far as appropriateness for anyones right to bring an application or =1 be heard that we don't simply sign these activities of this Board on other agencies. We pride ourselves on being fairly independent and that runs even to our relationship with the Town Board. I think it would a decision whether we would want a siamese or link our actions to another agency. ~I LINDA FLETCHER: As a point, if an applicant is in violation cani a local entity like the DEC grant a permit for the same thing? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We certainly could, and again your it complaint would be ;Pith the DEC. We never granted approvals there. We consistently interacted with Mr. Wade both favorably ;II and negatively. We granted a dock application. And we denied a bridge application. But if the Fleets Neck Property Association or the New Suffolk Group or the North Fork Environmental Council or any individual has a problem with the compliance of the DEC, then bring it to the DEC. BEN SCHWARTZ: I think the question is we're dealing with a so called court of equity that the applicant has to come in front of you with clean hands. Does he have to be free of all encumbrances and violations of other agencies. MR. KRUPSKI: I don't think so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There being no further comment I'll take a motion to close the hearing on the DEIS in this matter? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES I I i IJ, ya. Appendix 2: Correspondence from Shaw of Suffolk County Department of Health Services dated July 19, 1993 i 1 1 I TIL 21 193 1-4: 34 T01 111 Of SOUTHOLD P. 1/5 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i' I; d ROBERT J. GAFFNEY !Ili; SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Li DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MART E. HIRRERO, M.D., M.V.H. COMM15SIONER "July 19,1993 John Bredemeyer, President ,UL, Southold Zoning Board of Trustees ` loom East Ltnaa TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold, New York 11971 i I RE: Gustave Wade-DEIS f SCTM#: 1000-110.6-25 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: I . ' The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has reviewed the above captioned document and finds it to be incomplete and inappropriate for the purpose of decision making. In genernt we are concerned with the potential long and short term hrnpacts associated with the ' construction of the proposed residence and appurtenances and the lack of alternative design IN considerations which maximize protection of the tidal wetlands. Specific details of our concern ae presented below. ~i 1 1. SANITARY CODE A. Article VI Application Status The SCDHS has received an application for the realty development as required by Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC). The application has been deemed incomplete I by the Division of Water and Wastewater .Management pending the submission of additional infounation including at approved plan from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and a Southold Town Trustees permit. AS proposed the layout of the system does not meet SCDHS standards, The leaching pool I must be setback at least 10 feet from the foundation with or without a cellar, and 5 feet from the 01v,6,ON 00 F.1,111ENTAI OVAL." COUNTY CENTER 111VERNEAO. N.Y. 11901-3397 f ILL 21 '93 13:35 T01#1 OF SCUTHOLD P. 2/5 Letter to John Bredemeyer lily 19, 1993 Page 2 ptoperty line boundary. The survey must indicate the proposed sewage disposal system/water supply well/water service lute. The survey should also depict the test boring and the location. Grading plans showing invert elevations of sewage disposal system, foundation, and final grade (by licensed design professional) must also be submitted. I' I ' Additionally, the DEIS did not specify if the applicants propose to install the 70' long a section of navy retaining wall to the sotith of the system regardless of the potential for the reopening creek. This important issue should be resolved through the enviromnental review as the entire system has to be designed to accommodate the retaining;wall. Furthermore the retaining wail must meet specific setbacks from the building and the property line boundary. The ii retaining wall must be designed in accordance with good engineering practices and all applicable buddung codes. The retaining wail must be setback 10 feet from the nearest pan of the sewage dispustd, 10' from the property line and must be waterproof. III As described in the DEIS, the sanitary system will include the installation of a composting toilet. Althuugh this type of alternative system may be considered by the SCDHS it will require that the residence be double plumbed and that a conventional system be installed as back up. This alternative system would have to be designed by a design professional. As the property Is In I' a flood hazard zone the board may require that the sanitary system be flood proof. The design of 1 the composting system must take into account the limited amount of use as the residence will be - ii = utilized seasonally. Most of the composting toilets require frequent and continual use in order to function properly. Furthermore, the report does not include sufficient detail of the proposed type I' of system and of literature describing the proposed system design. A more detailed description of the system should be provided in a supplementary EIS. Although our records Indicate the Board of Review granted a variance an March 19, 1984 to allow the construction of a sanitary system no less than 55 feet from the the waters of Eugene Creek, any modifications in the design or a change in the conditions may require a re- l examination of the proposal by the Board of Review. 11. DESIGN AND LAYOUT A.Structures The applicants propose to install a 170 feet long navy style retaining wall along the edge of the tidal wetland on the north side of the parcel. This department questions the need, purpose and location of the shore hardening structure. The beach does not appear to be a high energy zone as evidenced by the wide tided wetland fringe surrounding the property. Construction of the !I ~I tl Z1 'a? 13:35 TOLIII OF SOUTHOLD P.3/5 j letter to John Biedemeyer July 19, 1993 1,nc 3 I' eutuihng wall as shown on the Van Tuyl survey dated revised November 27, 1992 is within and contiguous to a New York State regulated tidal wetland. Contradictory to the statement that the + "mtush will persist after the retaining wall is constructed" p. 50, it is this Department's opinion That the construction of the retaining wadi will directly cause the removal and despoliation of the wetland vegetation. Although navy style retaining walls are generally considered more stable than the conventional retaining wall this type of retaining wall requires the installation of the support members on the seaward side of the structure. Clearing grading and construction necessary for dte installation of the wall and the machinery necessary for the proposal will ' directly impact the wetland and the vegetation within. The retaining will not prevent flood and stone waters from invading the parcel dt;~ to the low lying nature of the site and may be undermined during severe storms. Construction of tctainhig walls or perhaps in this instance bulkheading ultimately leads to the loss of the beach in taunt of the structure. If the board believes the retaining wall is necessary, it should be constructed closer to the residence and not within the boundaries of the tidal wedand. The :q;plicants should satisfactorily express their need for the structure. l Ill. CULTURAL RESOURCES i A. Visual Impacts ~I Another potentially significant impact will be the visual impairment if a residence is constructed oil this beach front parcel. The structure if constructed on a pile foundation at least S feet above mean sea level will impair views and vistas that are presently enjoyed by the residents of the community. It would be difficult to screen the structure as there are few salt tolerant q species that grow to a significant height that would adequately buffer the residence. If the applicants construct a two story residence the structure would be more visible from land and from the water. If the Trustees permit construction on site the board should prohibit the (:(instruction of a two story structure and perhaps the village design review board should review the overall design and layout of the building so that it is compatible with surrounding residences. ; B. Noise The DLIS states energy for the residence will be generated front propane and generators hlstadled below grade. This will significantly contribute to overall noise in the atea and may be further tunplified over the waterway. This department has several concerns with the transport of ptopaie gas for the purpose of energy supply to the residence. The DEIS should explore alternative sources of energy such as passive solar energy. 4 JUL 21 '93 133E TOIdPI OF SOUTHOLP P.4/5 Letter to John Beedemeyer July 19, 1993 Page 4 I IV. ALTERNATIVES i A. Design Based on art evaluation of the alternatives proposed, we believe that design alternatives should be discussed in an attempt to minimize potential impacts to the natural resources. We encourage consideration of a design alternative which omits the construction of a retaining wall within the boundaries of delineated tidal wetlands. The board should consider first siting of the septic system in an acceptable location which maximizes the wetland setback and then site the residence. The septic system could be, shifted to the east thereby establishing at least a 70' setback from the wetlands. As the system will be mounded the landscaping lan should include either substantial plantings :round the perimeter of the system or plantings of beach grass on the mound in order to screen it from view. All wetlands on site should be included within a legally protected buffer and protected from any clearing mowing or construction. The DEIS included non indigenous plantings on site and the use of topsoil. To mitigate I these impacts indigenous vegetation should be used in the landscaping of this project. Such vegetation is well suited to the on-site soils'and can provide valuable mitigation in reclaiming disturbed portions of the site. Vegetative clearing and high maintenance landscaping should be mininized where possible throughout the site. I B. Acquisition ' The EIS should explore acquisition as an alternative. Other involved agencies, conservation groups or neighborhood association, should be contacted. In conclusion, this office believes that development of the subject parcel as proposed would have tun innpact on the natural resuurces,vegetation and wildlife habitat present on site while reducing open space in the vicinity of the parcel. Tidal wetlands and the upland adjacent area are an inegratednatund system. The benefit of the tidal wetland produced in one area of the nuush benefits nearby areas. Negative inpacts in one area are transferred to adjacent wetland areas . Therefore land use development in or adjacent to a tidal wetland may cause inpacts on adjacent areas. Upland uses should be compatible with the present and potential values of the tidal wetland. i JUL 21 '93 13:37 T01411 OF SOUTHOLD P. 51,15 Letter to John Bredemeyer July l9, 1993 i Paige 5 1 Please provide our office with any addtional information concernbtg this application. If ' you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 852-2078. Suicerely, 1 Cl. mvi Kunberly Shaw Sr. Environmental Arralyst Office of Ecology KS/muf ' Vito Munei, P.E. t Stephen Costa, P.E. ' Frank Dowling, SC Planning 1 1 i I 1 l I i Ft. .J Appendix 3: Correspondence from Hunington dated July 17, 1993 i .G. ~I ~sl i J i Mary Anne Huntington 3175 West Creek Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 01,00 July 17, 1993 Board of Trustees Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold. NY 11971 Re: Gustave Wade Property Gentlemen: Since 1966, the residents of Fleet's Neck have been shouting "FOULI" to the use of the wetlands at the end of East Road as a building site. Time and again, we have shown proof that this parcel of land, gained legally or illegally was not suitable for development, no more than any other intertidal marsh site where spartina altemylora and spartina patens grow. ; i The attached second generation photocopy of photographs taken in 1941 1 (photographed by Paul Stoutenburgh, Sr.) shows this parcel of land clearly defined as Intertidal marsh proliferated with spartina altern(flora. I am sure that a core sample would prove that this was Intertidal marsh before human hand altered it. It also clearly shows the water way before it was filled in by Leander Glover in 1966. 1 have possession of the first generation photocopy which is infinitely clearer if you wish to see it, but the actually photos are missing. Compare these photos with the photos submitted at the Wade hearing, and you will see how, over protestations of residents, that the land mass changed to its present Incarnation. 1, as well as my neighbors, would like to see this parcel, not only not built upon, but restored to Its original state. 1 believe that the Board of Trustees has the spirit of the law and the law itself in their possession to see this reach fniition. r Cordially-. i ' Marv tie Huntington arc , yy,~ , Ya 91;~ ` qt J r . .fit , {~.S( Appendix 4: Correspondence from Vanderbeck dated July 16, 1993 i i 1 r r TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ape cCrc~" k~k ' .t. x~itiL ¦ act, I ~ A&~E~e<~ i I a f .1 F Appendix 5: Correspondence from Killop dated July 14, 1993 i l.] , T.j 4 1 1 l 17125 - u QR0wa D IL 1.9 M. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD a 01-0 ? qZ&V I I C , o V a a.~ ~nv Z, 1 1 Ji Qe rwa L ~ l -V I dytj cam,(" p - ~~eana, ? V z N, ~ 6IA l fug Uri 1i #r r I Appendix 6: Correspondence from Walsh dated July 16, 1993 r 2?07AA o EOFSOUTHOLD TOWN iP7 y IAL /I°CntiauG~r~- G 1 de, iz`~' 44 7L lev~ I i 14-~ lG~ JA, mac` u c G L ~c ~-f L2 z - ~t~s, {{JAG MOIL v.~. E •Zt~_ %71,2, . ~/~a~. ~ _ j i r;l 0 Z GL~ ~t c~ 6~ 21v4 G~ GQ f gf i p -JA4Au 7/1 Appendix 7: Correspondence from Allen dated July 15, 1993 TOWN OFSOUT HOLD Marjorie & Roy Allen Box 1189 295 Track Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Southold Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Roar Box 1179 Southold, NY.11971 RE: G. J. Wade's application to build on the East Road Beach. I It certainly appears that the Wade situation is an example of a shrewd person, not without in- fluence, who, from the beginning, was confident he could circumvent laws and restrictions for his economic advantage. We would greatly appreciate your strong reject- ion of his effort. Very truly yours, 7 7/15,93 I i i I Ni Appendix 8: Correspondence from Wetzel received July 19, 1993 3tt 19 to TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,~z~ ~9_ t - ~6c- < T ~ s ~~If If ttr.... Appendix 9: Correspondence from the Open Space Council dated July 18, 1993 a Ih The ,,\II OPEN SPACE - council P.O. Box 275. Brookhaven, NY ~ 6 R a M ~ D July 18,1993 L5 U Mr. John M. Bredemeyer III jut 9 1V Southold Board of Tovn Trustees lbvn Hall Main Rd. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: DEIS-Owtave Wede on Eugene's Creek Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, i1 Our specific comments on this project are as follows: 1.On page 14 this document refers b the Etorm of December 11, 1992 as a 100 year storm and concludes that "since no serious damage was incurred that find storm damage is unlikely". We believe that this site's proximity to the Little Peconic Bay and & fetch area reaching from south of Robin's Island makes future damage from a strong southwesterly wind very likely, especlally it the ij now closed breach is ever opened. Pieeoe provide a projection of the coastal processes to be expected from a hurricane which could generate such extreme conditions. Include effects of washover on the structural integrity of the dvelling, the washout of sewage systems and the deposition of the resultant ' debris into the waterways and saitmarsh. 2. The DEI S is confusing on several points regarding the installation and maintenance of the composting toilet system Where and hov vi11 the composted materiel be disposed of? If Mr. Wades family or other futtne ovnem of this proposed dwelling become disenchanted vith a composting toilet hov would sewage be pumped from the system and transported off island? On page 60 the DEIS indicates that recharge of "freshwater effluent" into sanitary system vill retard saltwater intrusion. Yet ve are lead to believe that cesspools will handle "gray valor" only and that the reverse osmosis system will provide freshvel er for only cooking and drinking not for bathing. Please clarify. I 3. Please rote that Northern Harriers will also hunt over upland sites especially when adjacent to marsh. (p. 63) 4. This reviewer, when a resident of Cutchogue, personally observed Piping Plovers exhibiting nest defense behavior in June of 1989 on the beech south of this site. Has The Nature Conservancy been contaeted regarding any other reported sitings or nosting observations? 5. Drawings provided appear la include a garage. Under the current state of affairs no vehicular access is being allowed. Is this area to be expanded into living space or eliminated from the plan? l 'I osc-consents aaetne Wade DE X pge 2 6. Provide chemical analysis of Milorgenite to be used on site. Is it treated sewage sludge and does it contain heavy metal ion? 7. Provide analysis and estimate of quantity of antifreeze required for chMer--hater system proposed for this project 8. The fin safety precautions proposed by Firs Marshall Dennis M. Corcoraq include installation of an alarm system, a sprinkler system and connection b a central station monibring system. The first tvo systems appear to varent connection io an electriml system. Hop is the electrical generator lo be arranged lo handle this situation? The central station connection usually requires a dedicated phone line. Is this lobe allowed across the Truste's property or will a cellular system be needed? 9. The vegetation plan provided relies heavily on non-native species. Only native plants should be considered for vegetating this sensitive site. 10. A more indepth history of the site sash as earlier aerial photographs or historic maps should be ischrded. Has Mr. Glover's title to the "bland' been verified? What did the `bland' consist of prior to the filling of the western channel? In conclusion, ve find the proposed plan unacceptable because it creates a nev structure in an usable, vulnerable and environmentally sensitive location. We believe that the longterm effects and potential consequences of this construction have been nmdersmied. Thank you for the opportunity to comment Please keep us advised. t[ully, ~s~ 1 Moms, r for fie Board of Dhet:tors 1 Appendix 10: Correspondence from Schwartz received July 16, 1993 i C 0 -0 59 0 1 Written Comment on the LJ r't6F~ Draft Environmental Impact Statem N OF SOUTHOLD for the East Creek beach owned by the developer, Gustave J. Wade, reviewable by the SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES July, 1993. SUMMARY The Board of Trustees must find that the instant application to build a house on the subject property is frivolous and undeserving of the serious consideration it has. received. There is only one reasonable purpose such a comprehensive Environmental Impact review process may serve, that is to determine the underlying issue. The instant proposal will be followed.by others year after year, unless there is a conclusive finding that the subject property is not, and will never be, adaptable for residential use: TRUSTEES ROLE The trustees role as reviewers of the EIS is twofold. As lead agency pursuant to New York State Environmental Conservation Law, and also as executives of the Southold Town wetlands law. The disclosure required by SEQRA includes discovery of both natural and cultural impacts and taking a hard look taken at both of them. This state law mirrors the international policy initiated with the US National Environmental Policy Act. Closer to home, Southold Town Wetlands Law reflects our national policy of "No net loss of wetlands". The property in question is in its entirety either wetland or what should be considered supporting area for.the wetlands. The particular location of the subject property is unique in being perhaps the functional center of the largest, most naturally productive and also intensively developed creek system on the East End of Long Island. Wildlife, surrounding property owners, baymen, and recreational visitors all utilize this key resource. Any residence on the property would be inappropriate. The property is not adaptable for residential use and such use would have severe adverse impacts on our environment. 1 MONEY I In terms of financial impacts, Applicant's speculative venture can not be held to rise to the level of an investment backed expectation, however the surrounding property owners paid a premium for their residences in consideration of the well planned, orderly Fleet's Neck neighborhood. The cuntmulative adverse financial impact on the community's property values of residential development on the beach would be in the millions of dollars. The existing dock, house pilings and . dispersing dirt by which the site is currently "improved" have undoubtedly already resulted in substantial economic losses to the community. The threat of a possible residence on the beach is a significant factor in the current deterioration f of this still proud, but once prouder, neighborhood. THE DOCK The dock on the subject property is a nuisance. Tile subject property fronts on a sandbar and a narrow section of the channel therefore the riparian rights of this I property should have been limited to water access via small boats from the beach. l The existing dock exceeds the owner's rights to use this property. A dock is considered an accessory use under Southold Town Zoning Code. The current policy of the Trustees to uniformly permit docks as primary uses should be rectified. There are cases when an isolated dock is appropriate, for example, if an owner of undeveloped waterfront property also owns property in l residential use in the same neighborhood, and a condition is attached to the permit that if in the future the two properties are sold into separate ownership the dock must be removed. It is entirely reasonable for the Trustees to determine applications for dock permits on a case by case basis. The specific reasoning in the decisions, both approving and disapproving, will form a flexible set of } standards. Existing precedents may be held to have created vested rights in the owners of existing docks, but there is no legal basis to continue allowing docks without regard to the particular circumstances. THE DEIS The entire DEIS is based on a mistake, the applicant apparently believes he has a vested right to use the property for residential purposes, this is not the case. Considering the unusual variances from a standard building lot and plan, and the impacts identified in DEIS, it is clear that any residential use of this property is unacceptable and illegal. The applicant has the right to pursue an application for residential use of the subject property, and the Trustees have the right, and the duty, to deity it. The DEIS does not identify: #1. Acquisition history of the property, including prior owner's title and contract of sale. The alleged Building Permit of the prior owner (pg 4) was expired before applicant purchased the property and if his contract was conditional on a valid building permit then lie must have purchased the property knowing that it was not a legal building lot. The DEIS alleges that "To forbid development without compensation is considered a taking and is therefore illegal." (pg 76) As necessary support for this claim the applicant should be required to disclose financial data such as the price he paid for, and terms of sale of the property. #2. The location of the subject parcel. Reference is made to surrounding properties (pg 39), but the Fleets Neck neighborhood is neither snapped nor accurately described. #3. The parcel was historically an "island" and it is currently accessible only by water, therefore a detailed marine chart of the entire creek systesm and harbor area, including the proposed access route would be appropriate. i #4. It is unclear why in the DEIS the applicant states access will be exclusively by the dock which is on the north side of the property and yet the house is designed to front on East Road towards the west side of the property (pg 40). #5. Proposed access possible only at high tide; Depth of low water at ' dock insufficient for the boat described in the DEIS: draft 3', depth of water at dock 1.5' (Appendix W). There is no mention of dredging plans included in the DEIS. #6. Alleged precedents are not comparable (pg 41) #1 Frank Curran's house & accessory build 8.5' & 3' from bulkhead & prop line @ 780 j Haywaters Rd. #2 North Dumpling Island. Both these locations are vastle I different in the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the other island is out in the middle of the LI Sound rather than at the mouth of an i extensive salt marsh system at the head of Cutchogue Harbor. Contrary to the assertion that approval would not induce other development (pg 78), if applicant is granted a permit to build on the subject parcel, then owners of comparable parcels will also be entitled to build. For example, the parcel on Fleetwood Road on which the neighborhood boat ramp easement is located, and another property just across the channel from that parcel, the miniature triangle of land owned by nine local property owners as tenants in common for the purpose of water access. Both these parcels share with the subject parcel the suitability for water access and not residential use. #7. Alternatives to residential use of the property. On the zoning map the parcel in question is on the fringe of the residential zone and was never intended to be included in the residential zone. Inspection at the time the applicant purchased the site revealed suitability for use only as open space. Fill and pilings illegally deposited by the applicant can not form a basis for changing legally permissible use. #8. The parcel was originally used for harvesting salt hay, why doesn't the DEIS consider potential for use as an aquaculture site? #9. Applicant states "Tlte size of the development is as small as possible. The house will be no more than 1300 square feet in area." Thirteen- hundred square feet is significantly larger than 850 square feet, minimum building size in the adjacent residential zone (850 sgft +450 =1300). #10. The mandatory "No Action Alternative" (pg 76) does not include any description of current uses already available to property owner without further "improvement" of the property. The current use as a boat launching site is comensurate with the price applicant paid for the property. #11. The proposed electric generator (pg48) exceeds reasonable noise level in the context of a beach and would therefore be a public and private nuisance. The unhealthy noise generated would carry over water almost as far as the detrimental visual impacts of the proposed house. #12. Contrary to the implications of the DEIS permit exclusive use of composting toilets Suffolk County does not toilet is permitted only (Appendix V . FEIS must be ' as supplemental to a conventional system, nd the almost usti thagteeither td? e ??glY. TI?eposting D or it would be used a ter a EIS is evasive on this issue. It is toil et would not be constructed, #13. Y short time, then "retired" as too generous The discretion which much b the Southold exists the Propert y was permitted at tlteotlter. existing on the proper Trustees. Since there is no other use is an accesso ty, the dock is now the n' use incidental to a residence. Primary use. Normally a dock to build a residence permit for a dock ont roffect as an Now the applicant dopckesA accessory use incidental f the right. A property without a residence is not as of permit for a residence on property with a dock is there legal a basis for the riot as of right. There is no th constitution position that the use as dock site is insufficient or that #14. institutional right to additional usage. intention The DEIS is inconsistent in that it states of using any adjacent lands for to (Pg 39 „ "Immediate) ) the applicant has Neck Propert adjacent to the subject p T arcel is any Purposes. theft (pg 4 l residents oft O'sner's ssociation. Property owned by the Fleet's Fleet Ne k. , As Propert ow is s Private beach for use the May use this beach for recreational Y es. Mr. Wade a for membership in Purposes. The applicant and his family #15 P n the Fleets Neck Property is not eligible Despite tile, unobstructed solar resource r'oil site solar water heatin oil site, ne. considered. g, solar space heating, nor photovoltaic electricity is impacts of resident alnuse outthe subject This point is suggestion to mitigate the unmitigatable the allegedly.environmentally sensitive property, but as all indication that personal enrichment of the a Plan, is mere) #16 Y a scheme for . The public use and en oPl?cant. diminished b j yment of the beach would be severely construction of a fishermen and n ature lovers froresidence. the area is significant to wildlife and also Currently the beach is visited by m all over Southold. The open character of symbolically. The economic and cultural i t mpst People, materially and destructive of the public welfare. f co structioit would be CONCLUSION 4 The DEIS is not t'•e '7 11e t ' proper forum for a debate over the legal rights of the propery owner vs the state, this issue is left to the courts for decision. Since it is apparent that the applicant intends to claim Ile has rights to do whatever h think ahead. Ita wants and that the state as zero authority to stop hint, therefore it is appropriate to C "File constitutional laws against "taking" of private property for public use without "just compensation do not protect an owner's right to develop property. What is protected is an owner's exclusive right to use property "as is", developed or undeveloped. Therefore moratoriums can temporarily stop all development while changes in legal regulations are being considered and "non-conforming uses" are permitted to continue as long as they are not interrupted. The unanimous opposition to development of the subject property is not interested in taking property away from the applicant, applicant's plans to develop his property from a $20,000.00 plot of open space into a $300,000.00 residence would be destructive of public health, safety, and enjoyable community and environment, and the rights of the public, would constitute a taking of surrounding private property owners rights to protect the existing character, use, and economic value of their properties. If you have any question about the above please call me. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely yours, I Benjamin J. Schwartz, Esq. East and Fleetwood Roads Cutchogue, NY 11935 [734-5093 o-727-1665] 9, i- J0 sV~~ i .d ere Qa~ S n. a.l?iarG NtS,`d e 4. ~~sa cnks~+~ oti AA, 5 ? n M-3 O cew~DC ..~s.~[d,w se~~e r~»uyC vw ~J O~u~s kiv-tc.~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Appendix 11: Correspondence from Howard dated July 14, 1993 TOWN CF SOUTHOLD M. Anne Howard 1395 Fleetwood Road cutchogue, New York i July 14, 1993 Southold Board of Town Trustees ' Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Trustees! of 1 My husband and I recently purchase Wea we havee l 5 Fleetwood Road. Since that time, Gustave J. Wade's application to build a house on the East Road beach. - I am not an attorney nor an expert on the environ ent, sowner can only comment on my observations so far as a in the Fleet's Neck area. After purchasing our new "old" home, we began talking with area contractors about remodeling our 1937 cottage. We were told by more than one contrcr that any modifications tthe the outside of the house, particularly extensons on have to be approved waterside of the property, would were told from an environmental standpoint. In addition, we we by the realtor and contractors that new wereorestrictions on how close to the water's edge o and these lots on the vacant lot adjacent to our property sit some 25 feet above the water'). With this brief introduction to what seems to be close ed to control over building and the nofna,housesbeingkbuilt learn that there was the possibility that many rules are on the books, East but Road they beach. may It not appears always apply to everyone--or there are ways to get around them if one has enough money, time and patience. We hope that the Southold Board of Town judgment will review this application carefully and use go evaluating the impact of this house on the surrounding town. We do noth believe that the wetlands, neighborhood and East Road Beach is a place build another se. Sincerely, ] M. Anne Howard J:k 4 Appendix 12: Correspondence from Finerty dated July 10, 1993 Ic\ )L 7rlJ ,o, /iY= i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / r /~Z` • (.T Vji"r/:G /x»7~ S,~.r,/iC s~7: zrl ~i`i ~/J . d?? ~C.~iG NIL=ns7" l~~u.a o, .CUT;:: //s .r-b r. V-tot vrl %~/w~-<..<,L.- ~F-L-V:..~_ .V`.<~ ~Ln<f ,L•"t•?T(~<- aL<~e-~.-.o..r.,.r_ (,~.a. _La::!/e. GCr4 rs~..? q R~ 1.y~<e%:/i /1~'<-Zy 1VCC ~e? < <c-(.c-~C.<•`rxc<. _ cl_~. l._ ~'(,.JI LIG r,/t~ ~ ~tA/. / N~ • f?CY 1~ U~ ( ~ t ~ ~ A- v ! A-'ice[<.<4v ~Lrf~,../•<c' _J4"c-l. •-~-L(,ali.:c. a.-A!:.i,•.<.n...<:...L-..f_.,4n,'~•_,:.I.<.kc ~.c~~c<,<~~T ,l yirC~,h•.zv.<~.+-,a-<:.. -r i. .7- .x•-sLCy-~~ ~ f 'i~.. t o. ~v.J~ ~ u.~s.-~~a.-E~ , ) f ~"yL... V/ ~r~Y._ ~c..Z.C ~-nqu/- ~""o'F.-<+La.r. ~.4. ff+.-~ ~~t.:•,L l'Cr {]et. [i <!t•"1tGt-.: LLaI iY J ~ r ~ n ~t~eC-~ ~ ,Q L:-,e..•%..4~•,/!-<e,i.e... .J--~.y..-,a,r-~«L,.•x~G,- s~etJLG~-~;4 ~~-~.-viY ,•=r~/<i-~.? s! ,..C~ -f .s.t coLVrC G.~7'xI ••JI ,/un.CT L.C.i~i"f~ AY--.~'-~ ~iLri,;~JU..,a-.- ~~T_A._,z, u4 f`-e-y ~t<t-.•. Jti. , 7 T_/4 na.;./«S/~. r'^~ ' G 1 5 it L4 w.e /o w „+-..<,<~ .lLC J-.•~a.F•~.<C..~--?~11.a_~ 1-~v... ~/"~C!us. FK S`.v~'.ala/~'C<•<.c~x/-.•~<•L1 I Q COmP- ./i.P72csiJ li-»~ . ~f~.. JPr -L: i~:'G~ ~u. /,c<.y at-~.,~c..Q/ p2-R.<Lr.<~'. r•-a..~• .Araii.•1~,.0y~. ;...~.f~m....,.~ l ~(t•~+tc, Q~i-,.-..<.r<~ ! ..L.c.:~-c. ~r.--,-.~ a-n+(~. t,-~//..-c-r-,-...r-t ~y/-cZ. v=~.~~ ~A.r+<.<+-a>-c-< 4. fL'L<f4C_~r-G v JSG..: /7 r.G+<_ •(1.:...C.i_.~.<-r-c ~ /~f«-~ %ata...ail K/..J=t.c"a.. 4•:t.~~!-...r-.l QOi.^~Q.. ? r y ~~<'Le<- :r-,..1~ .,i/^A%~-.,-.tee ~:<:;.~`~/,f7./ ,K/~:<. j .,~1.:_ r~ -..,t-~r~ mil- <C~~V~.It,-L,.i;L~ ~w%~. ~•.r~ r (~c<.r_(Cl~.,~'i-•fcr[w.•`C/C', / / ~ J. / / ) / 4,44, ~(fy ff/P<~..t.4,.ru-v / ,M'R .,/-~P.f.«rt.l. .l•f,~a/.I.II .~,.1.< Ti(.li F7.t:-G.. .C+M1CI.n.AK~ IlJ•.ti R'C.(Y.(0.`i+a.<.•'-... . ~P %~~la-<C,I~C.,-... ur <.l' C •S /.-e<<i .iJ-~-l~ r`-/~.. r. _ :ti<...~~./i t..-r~ a..~~~-c-, tlr_ G. s^ J^v- -/i- .71a 6..v.. J /.niear+ •.,-ski :.f G, (I ~y ` 1.1//1.!-~ ,(Alt<..! C1X Ir_!r/"mar; r~ f-<'.f,.t i~YT.t~ A.1~.<-~Y~: r..:, .~./lj• 1iItY V N- I 1-I , /J C (1._,_t. a~'j,-I'...: ~...'-t f/~.c. fic..r...< = 2/i La..e.<.' '.CI:L.{~Q/': 6~ /I c'L:L... ...c _ . y..•cCT. as [....F%'ri•i' ~ P~'A_ . U r.-f- I ,'1-e{l..J_ ra~~ c,..._; rr-.r.J ,l._, 2.e.r",_ r/ ,.rtn:fr tor..-.-.-. e I- f.r~ ' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix 13: Correspondence from Latham dated July 14, 1993 I - 1 1 I I I I. t 1 1 D ~i JUL 15 Aso C~c'tc.-°G+.%~ a~cc~~" h~h. n~J ~er,Ln~~,? ~ et UAL (/~-(~G_Q~(YYC.Q~ielYl, i6.~Q-G4tI -,~/G ~C-Cu.LyJL/O'~ 'C, '"%?/tid~ ~ ''~Lc-o`^uiiL CGU/;L~~rj-~~'~ ..QEGy"Z-Q_Q nt L /~1Qi ct~ r l -7r~-e[ntaf ~j~'yGGGG=,L .~~+.<+~li i fj Y.,^f / + r ~ ? {.rte i i!l P i i al Appendix 14: Correspondence from Lombardi dated July 13, 1993 i ~I. i. i 1 1 i D B ~ LS ~ ~ LS JrS /~(Bu~ca~ JUL 15 199(3 3 s TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ - ~ 6k/ Z/Z T/vi"NrY Ir-4,4CS 17Go SET aar Te, gL /f9/<//9 rE JeIZf', 2 h1oX11)F_ / ('nti9 T&E 41R. C~O yFi9/~~( .C /I TE /~NI> L ^/'E /00 /~~/oti-'i9A~~~'ic~cis y2 sri~~ _ 1jp1-d T//iNG 4/le Gvir ~EUf/ 5 cF SaG R ~ /0 x /T E GIN, ~ ~ s`'_ C'FciQ/~sL- 7W,-f-- 7-1 ye ~vH~N s/o Y To 1;75S A ~.s~v. Y"/ Z1,71 F,J C v TAE .y ,,~/G//T 7-0 i r r~ ,r Appendix 15: Correspondence from Thurber of NYSDEC dated July 9, 1993 • {3L L {.z Y New York State Departm nt of Environmental Conservatlun Building 40-SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 n l (516) 444-0365 6 v a FAX (516) 444-0373 D ,iUl 15 ,0 Thomas C. Jotting TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Commissioner July 9, 1993 Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, III Southold Board of Town Trustees P.O.BX 1179 53095 Main Rd, Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re:Gustave Wade Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) NYSDEC file,fl-4738-00827/00001-0 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: The Department has reviewed the DEIS for this proposal and submits the following comments: 1. Page 2 Summary The EIS states that the impacts associated with the septic system will be mitigated by elevating the system 2 feet' above the water table. According to Environmental Conservation Law the system must be 2 feet above seasonal high ground water. The DEIS also fails to state that the proposed septic system cannot meet the minimum setback requirement under New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (TWLUR)Part 661 is 100 feet. ` u~cC, ' 2. Page 15. Summary Emergency access is proposed by land through the Town Trustees property. What would emergency vehicle access be if Eugene's Creek is re-opened? It is also important to note. that the internal waters of Long Island are frequently faced with small craft advisories by the coast Guard. How would access be affected by such conditions considering that most ' emergency situations would occur during poor sea conditions? 3. Page 18.Design and Layout The septic system is proposed to be placed behind a bulkhead if Eugene's Creek is re- opened. If the Creek is re-opened then the setback of the septic system would be zero feet from the wetland. 1 The impacts from the septic system would be dramatically increased. The installation of a plastic membrane to line the bulkhead does not appear to be very useful 1 1;J n~~ee a. iecr~M wo+ because most material from the septic system would enter the creek via ground water intrusion. 4• Page 19.Desian and Layout The access to the site will be by boat. document How will typical and emergency service work be accomplished such as servicing of propane generators, cooling systems etc.? What if service people need to take heavy and large equipment to the site? Will barges be landing at the edge of the marsh and offloading onto the marsh. Will dredging need to be done so boats weighted down with equipment can come into the dock? More details are needed on equipment and machine handling. 5. Page 21.Desion and Layout The use of must be discussed in more detail since c mposting ttolets oilets are very maintenance intensive. However there is no mention of regular maintenance. Who will maintain the system? How will the system be operated in the event of a power failure? It appears that reliance on propane generators would increase the potential for power failure due to the gas running out at inconvenient hours.etc. 6. Page 23.Construction and O eration How will construction machinery be offloaded from the barges? Will dredging need to be done so boats/barges can land at the dock? Is the dock facility strong enough to accommodate heavy machinery on it or will the machinery offloaded in the tidal wetlands? If them chiner to be be operated in the wetlands what will keep the ar asafrom being disturbed? 7• Page 24.Approvals The document states that the DEC Tidal Wetlands permit must be extended or a new permit ranted. The document fails to acknowledge that he d velopment plans have substantially changed since the original permit was issued. From the tidal wetlands line shown on a survey (last revised date:.4/8/93) included with the DEIS it appears that environmental changes have apparently occurred such that the tidal wetlands edge has moved landward.' Therefore, the setbacks of the septic system and the house would be even less than those allowed by the permit issued in 1983. The applicant was advised by letter dated 7/10/9b (enclosed) that when a project exceeds the scope of the original permit a new application for a new permit is required. This principle ' is applied whether for adding new structures (which that letter referred to), increasing coverage or requesting greater variances. all three of these characteristics are apparent in the plans included with the DEIS. A New application will need to be submitted for the entire project and DEC staff will have to consider it with respect to the standards of the Tidal Wetlands Regulations regarding the expanded proposal in view of current environmental conditions, the potential for dredging or otherwise destroying/ damaging the existing shoal and loss of the marsh fringe and the impacts from the septic system to tidal wetlands and tidal waters. 8. Page 28.Water Resources There are two contradictory statements with regards to the location of the water table. The first statement says the depth to the aquifer is between 0 and 3 feet. The second statement says the depth to seasonal high water in the area of the sanitary system is 8.5 feet. If the aquifer is 0 to 3 feet how can the sanitary system be 8.5 feet to ground water unless the system is above ground somewhere? 9. Page 30.Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology The DEIS fails to state that the shoals/bars/mudflats type of tidal wetlands (SM) seaward of the intertidal marsh grasses is covered with sea lettuce (ulva).,This is a highly productive shoal area The shoal appears to be approximately 11 (one foot) below mean low water at the seaward end of the float. 10. Page 43.Land Use and Zoning The document fails to state that the septic svstem does not meet all county and State standards. The septic system does not meet the 100 foot minimum setback requirement under NYS ECL Article 25 TWLUR NYCRR Section 661.6(a)(2) 11. Page 50.Erosion and Siltation Impacts The document states that the marsh fringe will persist after construction of the retaining wall. However, the statement "...artificial protective structures such as sea-walls or bulkheads may compound destructive energy by refracting waves and causing sand scouring immediately in front of the bulkheadl"(Haje, 1976) has been confirmed by subsequent DEC staff observations. When hard structures such as bulkheads are constructed the direction and magnitude of wave energies are redirected. Because the wave impacts the vertical face the energy. is directed downwards. This downwards energy eventually leads to scouring at the toe of the bulkhead. Any vegetated marsh that is adjacent to the bulkhead also becomes subject of the scouring action and slowly erodes. This is occurring in many locations. Since the vegetated marsh fringe appears to have moved closer to the toe of the proposed bulkhead this would mean that the scouring scouring will occur more frequently and the marsh fringe would be eroded away sooner. If dredging is involved in this project deeper water will allow increased wave energy increasing the power of the scouring action. 12. Pages 53-59.Septic System Impacts Although contaminants and pathogenswill bond to certain types of soils, the organic content of the soils is the controlling factor of contaminant bonding. A reference to bonding of contaminants and pathogens In soils having low organic content is not credible. As stated on Page 25 the site consists of fine to coarse sand to approximately 150 feet below the site. There is an overwhelming amount of current research that contradicts the conclusions stated in the document with regards to the site conditions, attenuation of contaminants, and the impacts associated with the septic system. The reasons are as follows: (a) Sand is typically composed of inorganic silicate materials that are noncohesive and are not chemically or biologically reactive, therefore, no sorption or desorption of chemicals occur (Power and Chapman 1992). (b) Subsurface characteristics ofothetsoils. In particular, the controlled t removal of certain chemical species, including ammonium, is related to the cation Exchange capacity of the soil (Groffman et al. 1990). The Cation Exchange Capacity is determined largely by the content of organic matter and clay in the soil, which act to bind cations, on the other hand, removal of nitrate is controlled by microbial denitrification and plant uptake (Palmstrom 1991). However, since nutrient removal is in part, associated with contact time in the root zone, pollutant sources located in well drained soils (such as sand) require greater distances than average to attenuate soluble nitrogen fractions (Palmstrom 1991). Therefore, since the site consists of all sand material the statements about contaminant attenuation are invalid. Any discharge of chemicals (fertilizers, cleaners, soaps, pesticides., etc.) into the soils of this site will ultimately travel unrestricted into the ground water and intrude into the surface waters of the estuary. Pathogen contamination remains a matter of concern for the following reasons: (a) The elimination of black water to the septic system by the use of composting toilets does not eliminate the threat of pathogen contamination of shellfish resources or bathing areas. Suffolk County requires that composting toilets are double plumbed so that black water can be discharged into the leach field in the event of system problems and emergencies. As lohg as the system has the capability of discharging into .the leach field, there will always be the potential for pathogen contamination. It is also important to note that pathogens are not exclusively passed in fecal wastes but can be harbored in other human excrements that would be discharged with the gray water into the leach field. i ~ (b) The document states on pages 54 and 55 that adsorption and filtration of bacteria occurs in sand. As stated above adsorption only occurs in organic soils. It is very important to note that there are differences in travel distances between bacterial indicator organisms (coliforms) and pathogenic i viruses. Although fecal coliforms were found to travel a distance of 5 feet in Long Island soil conditions, studies have shown that the polio virus can travel up to 220 feet (Vaughn et al. 1983). This indicates that the potential for i contamination from viruses in shoreline areas could be much greater than bacterial contamination. The absence of bacterial indicator organisms does not necessarily assure the i absence of pathogenic viruses (Tetra-Tech Inc. 1992). In fact, many human pathogenic microorganisms associated with waste water may accumulate in estuarine waters and sediments and survive longer than bacterial indicators found in the j i water column (Mccambridge and McMeekin'1981). The USEPA model for septic system siting shows that septic i systems with a 50 foot setback distance will very probably cause surface water contamination When the depth to the water table is 3 to 10 feet (Roman 1990). The proposed system i appears to be anywhere form 0 to 8.5 feet. 13. Page 65.Wetland Impacts The document states that the values of adjacent tidal wetlands will remain undisturbed by the project. This is untrue. By constructing the proposed dwelling (with increased footprint) and accessory structures on this small site at limited setbacks the natural runoff of the site will be altered and place an undue burden on the wetlands. The addition of impervious surfaces- to the site will increase the amount of stormwater runoff entering the wetlands. This increase 'in runoff will impact the wetlands natural ability for cleansing the ecosystem and absorption of silt and organic material ' due to the increased anthropogenic burden placed upon the system. Also, scouring away of the marsh (see comment I'll above) will reduce marine food production and marine habitat along with other reduced values: ly. Page 73.Alternative Designs The document discounts the alternative of construction of the "mushroom" house because of the extensive work required to remove the 1 pilings which were placed for the conventional house. The 'piles were installed without the required authorizations or permits and is not a valid argument for 1 not pursuing the "mushroom" alternative. It is unfortunate that the piles were placed illegally but the cost associated with their removal should not be considered. 1 t References: Haje, R.L. 1976 The Effects of the New York State Tidal Wetlands Act Moratorium Phase. Special Report 4. Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY. Power E.A. and P.M. Chapman. 1992. Assessing sediment quality. In: G.A. Burton Jr.-(Ed.) Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, F1. 457pp. Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, W.R. Eddleman: 1991. An investigation into multiple uses of vegetated buffer strips. Current Report The Narragansett Bay Project. Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. Palmstrom, N. 1991. Vegetated buffer strip designation method guidance manual. Current Report The Narragansett Bay Project. IEP, Inc. Consulting Environmental Scientists: Northborough, MA. r i Vaughn, J.M., E.F. Landry, and T.Z. McHarrell. 1983. througha Entrainment shallow,us sandyo soil aquifer. leach pl. fields and Environ. Microbiol. 45(5): 1474-1480. ' Tetra-Tech, Inc. 1992. Long Island Sound study Pathogen Characterization. Long Island Sound Study Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Long Island Sound Office: Stamford, CT. 96pp. McCam bridge, J. and T.A. McMeekin. 1981. Effect of solar radiation and predacious microorganisms on survival of fecal and other bacteria. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 41:1083-1087. Roman, C.T. 1990. Pathogens in Narragansett Bay, Issues, Inputs and Improvement Options. March 1990 Draft Report, Narragansett Bay Project. General Comment The EIS is very inadequate in its content and inaccurate in its conclusions. Many statements in the document are misleading and not valid for the specific site . These mi are evidentoin the discussioneofeseptic lsystem impactsmand the ability of the soils to attenuate contaminants. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement needs a considerable i amount of revision to reflect the current literature with regards to septic system impacts, the attenuation of contaminants in sandy soils, and the impacts associated with increased runoff. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. Sincerely,. Robert N.; Thurber Environmental Analyst I cc: L. Chiarella Appendix 16: Correspondence from Cogen dated July 15, 1993 l a i i 199(j [T!O MOF WE MORTON COGEN UTH0LD 1395 Fl eetwood Road Cutchogue, New York July, 11, 1993 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Main Street Southold, New York 119.71 Dear Board of Trustees: I recently bought a home in,Cutchogue at 1395 Fleetwood Road. The key factors that led to our purchase were: a) The peace and quiet of the location b) The visual serenity of the area with homes neatly built back into the trees. c) The natural beach. I suspect that the reasons why I have quickly fallen in love with the place are common with the other residents who share this won- derful spot. The proposed Wade construction is in conflict with all of the above. Individual rights are extremely important in our society yet the proposed home to be built by Gustave Wade, I feel, tramples on the rights of the other residents for the following reasons. 1.Will Peace and Quiet be preserved? The evenings at Fleets Neck are only disturbed by natural sounds of water and wild- life. This construction will force us to listen to the incessant hum of a propane fired electric generator running constantly. 2.Will Mr. Wade play by the rules? In the past Mr. Wade has bent the rules initiating construction without proper approval. Will he really install and use his double osmosis composting toilets instead of the septic tanks? Will he only access the property by water or will he trespass daily? Logic and past behavior lead me to the conclusion that these and other explanations provided by Mr. Wade are only for the purpose of getting a building permit. once built there will be no way to police these absurd plans and the septic tanks will be used and the property will be accessed by trespass. 3.Will common sense be applied? The property was purchased for about $22,000. Waterfront property is just not available at that price. Ipso facto Mr. Wade always knew this was not a buildable lot. 4.Do we really need to build houses on the beach? Beach space is such a precious commodity. Already the so-called clean fill on the Wade property has changed white sand on the town beach into brown gravel. In the future will the beach area on his property be growing flowers and grass lawns with fer- tilizer run-off into the creek? The beach should be left in its natural state as much as possible. It is possible to go on and on, yet I hope that you will come to conclusion that building this house is shoving the proverbial square peg in the round hole. It is wrong for legal, aesthetic LLLiii and ecological reasons. The Wade house should not be built at this location. Sincerely, v~ Morton Coge 1395 Fleetwood Road Cutchogue, NY i I Appendix 17: Correspondence from Southold I Board of Appeals dated July 13, 1993 I I I i 1 II CO \ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS G, F A Supervisor Gerard P. Gcehringeq Chairman iI x Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. I)$~ P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa ~l Fit ~Sf Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton ? 'nv Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (616) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 0 @ R U W E TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold D IUL FROM: Board of Appeals ' a DATE: July 13, 1993 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS, as amended May 5, 1993 Property of Gustave Wade at Cutchogue On June 11, 1993, a copy of the DEIS prepared by En-Consultants was received by the Board of Appeals for review and comments which will be accepted up until July 19, 1993. We offer the following comments and requests, which include some references also previously noted in our November 27, 1992 report (copy attached for your convenience and use). 1. The status of the applications pending before all agencies should be reported. Also, a request is made to correct this for the record, and the fact that no building permit may be issued until all agency approvals have been obtained including approval which is necessary by this Board under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for safe and adequate access by fire and emergency vehicles. 2. Effects by changes in weather conditions at flood high tides and moon high/low tides, storm tides, and the requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road will need to be addressed. 3. The preparer has not confirmed alternatives for service companies and fire departments to gain access to the proposed house during freezing of the creek and bay areas immediately surrounding this land. There is mention of a one-year lease with Cutchogue Harbor Marina which may be terminated at any time. This lease is noted to be non-assignable and is strictly for the owner's boat. Will covenants for such access to the applicant's property be furnished for perpetual use, and how does the property owner plan to transport equipment, delivery items and vehicles to the property for emergency services, construction purposes, and otherwise. 1 of 3 f Page 2 - July 13, 19( To: Town Trustees, Lead Agency Re: Review of DEIS - Gustave Wade Property 4. The record needs to be corrected to show a distance from the applicant's land to East Road at 85 feet or more (not 65 feet as suggested). 5. Noise impacts need to be addressed. This is necessary at least concerning noise levels and disturbances made in the use of generators and pumping stations at the site utilized for propane, electricity, water, and other purposes. Confirmation as to the number and location of the pumps and their generators are requested in addition to information concerning noise impacts. 6. Minimal reference is made for possible access for backhoes and other equipment by barge. The points of location and proof of such authorization from property owners has not been provided and is necessary in order to access from upland areas for not only backhoes but also for maintenance and cl2aning of cesspools, heating, etc. 7. Other concerns with reference to statements made by the prepare, Dennis Corcoran, and others concerning proposals for fire safety, as well as questions about sufficient and safe access by emergency or fire vehicles will, of course, be continued at a public hearing before the Board of Appeals as required by Town Law, Section 280-A, and further considerations are mandated which are not a part of the SEQRA process. Further, an accurate map showing water routes for access by vehicles and for equipment will need to be submitted and considered. Questions are outstanding by this agency concerning time periods for fire and emergency responses for water emergencies, the depth of water and dock suitability at low tides during transports etc. 8. As noted in our written comments of November 27, 1992 on the prior DEIS submission, this property is located in a "Critial Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, and also referred to as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland areas within 500 feet of the bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on' February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29-Year 1988, Suffolk County, and was enacted by the County Legislature. It is requested that all Notices of filing and procedural requirements be amended as a Type I Action. ) 9. Page 17,makes reference to a new, updated survey dated April 17, 1993 which has not been made a part of this DEIS. An original print is requested for coordination and use to all involved agencies. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject DEIS for final acceptance by the Town. 2 of 3' t oa F01 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~O~ OpA SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. "r (Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. O Southold Robert A. Villa , New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton fJ Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF "PEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7/14/93 - Received surveys updated April 8, 1993 from Mr. Haje Propane tank area is not shown on this April 1993 survey. Mr. Haje indicates that it may not be legally permissible to store 100 lb. propane tanks at the premises, and in that case 1 they would have to go for solar on the roof of the building. This question is presently outstanding. 1 1 6 - S . 3 of 3 1 r \ 'n Fn 7 u + q t. N I( ) I T O PAjO 1' ' N '1 N V) A r Ll C c I O m ~ ~ n m •r1 ol`lc \ \ • of a m N `o C- v s 1`616 i(I ~ • / per! ' rf ~ m} ' to 6• r w I \ G ti) r to 0 3: w I; m1 6 \aK!1 It ~~.al_ Z ee zil • f r ~s X11 I Y • r~ 'e{yy !'~~.,1 j Iq. q R 1 f sp(€ ~lEd .A O •d ~6,Y t..'fye II) ~•\J~"•~a ' p\'11 r11i nl ` 1' i• Q ~M1;IT s.;If s I' '3 \Q \ ' 1~{, n'' % 1 -~aQ ffw ~r t ?w`t? ~ r rrl1 p .4P x Gu11 YS 1 Mn. r ' _ r ~ p ~ ; , m ~ Za; 1, r%. : f~.. ' 'r ll ,if..i` "v~ In '1:~ ' , 1' t. i,~X ~''i' rr;' . Jl~ Q ~4=.`, tl l A •J' i z - ~a I Irk', o - ' 14~'rN . j , % .yk., ~.it_, 1 ~Q ~ t ~ ^ IJ ? q N 1 t ' t+a'tl ~ . G g a I -k ~m ~Z~l tp ~Jylyh ar `p~• i y. , ~ .~11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j:- • Nd~~ i~•y( ,r.\~rf X11 , t \`4 o ~'I - ! GL+ r. t' 1 ~ t 1 a . i ~ f hjj e'~e r 'lj..! \ & ~ 1'. R!. ~Y~r. ~ ! y ,1 1•. G 'It a C. le N Z tt~7 ° to • m N Z . f (q r 4C~a., r. 1,. 1 ~ Cj b 4 .'y~~iTn In {j (il b 1 ( a •r} ``~'~.f1,'P tJIt0.ID! f.i• 1''",r,.y( r.1. I pQ 13 1 Appendix 18: Correspondence from Hussey dated July 13, 1993 X13 an 7 0 c, Irard 't LIT Hussey OF SOUTNOL.D lor_.r; FIeet!v d Rd TOWN_ _ - Cut:r_hogue NY 119: S n_aly 13, 1 +9 ut.hr_•ld 'Town 'irustrzes plain Rd .:'out-hold MY 11971 Dear Trustees; I' This is to advise you that. we, as property { q, 9 owners in Flept:sneck, are strongly opp_sed to the erection or c~_~nst.ruct.ic~n of any building on the propert.y adjacent. to the Fleet.sneck Property Owners ASsoci.at.iun beach prop_ ,arty and presently owned by Mr. Wade. I~ The property in question is not. Suitable for 31 for the purpose Mr. Wade intends to uSe it. for; notably a domicile, utilities are not. availabe as well as water and waste disposal, access is difficult. and presents 1_+roblems for delivery of supplies and equipment. Mr Wades' intent: use propane or a similiar potentially dangerous gas for, heat.irn_1 and cook:incl engenders unsafe shipping and hra.rxilin_1 procedupes which are against fire de1it. re,3ulat.ions. Sincerely, I i fit~ 4 ' I tl t. i Appendix 19: Correspondence from Buhler dated July 13, 1993 I :j 1 I i III } I dv~41. C. C. dill DufzlE2 d?. dR. 1, 50 faitiuood lbc. eutcf Zo9ue, dvew'Yo%g 11933 ~ ~ e&l -717 ~ i ,e all i. el- O ~7u ~Q~ ""~O C6' ~i It _ r.. ~~a1aLa Appendix 20: Correspondence from Doroski of Southold Police Department dated June 29, 1993 roLicr . w., POLICE DEPARTMENT', 'DOWN Or SOUTHOLD ADMINISTRATIVE PECONIC, NY 11958 516-765-2000 ll1 TEI.EPIIONF 516-734-) Stanlcy Droskoski EMERGENCY DIAL 911 FAX 516-76 - IN /a a POLICE r - 9;, D John M. Bredemyer, III, President Board of Town Trustees TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town of Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York 11971, June 29, 1993 r Dear John, In reference to your inquiry for action known as Gustave Wade: I have reviewed the text that was submitted to this department and find that the construction of the single family residence will not have any effect nor will it impact the operation of this department-. 1 Respectfully submitted, ~12t -Stan e r sko9 i Z Chief of oyce r r r r r 1 1 ~ - v Appendix 21: Correspondence from Nowacheck i dated July 2, 1993 1 z. I k iY I A 1 ¦ i 1 i ~ ANTHONY G. NOWACIIEK ArdlNry at ZVO REPLY ADDRESS 562 Willis Avenue 11 . U. Iles 500 Mineola, New York 11501 Meuim,k, New Yuck 11952 O (516) 29.1 67611 D ,JUI 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD my 2, 1993 n MR. JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Matter of proposal of GUS WADE and Draft of Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. President and members of the Board: As the attorney for the FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSO- CIATION; INC., for and in its behalf, its composite member- ship of property owners and neighbors, the reasons, legal and other, were advanced in opposition to the above at the hearing on June.24, 1993. The Board and its counsel should note all of its prior deter- minations which were judicially upheld, and that the same were made inter alia on proposals of the nature and type here- in submitted. The proposal, akin to a " geyser " sends an un- equivocal message that it is no more than an endeavor to undo and rescind all prior determinations making obvious the stark reality of a statement that would, if given any credibity, would not only adversely impact the environment, but would set forth the destruction and eventual annihilation of the environment. Legally, there is no positive and conclusive evi- dentiary and probative data and information to dispel the fact that the proposals in the statement negate the adversity manifested, displayed, anticipated, expected and finally to be realized. The Board must remain aware and cognizant of the violations charged by the Department of Environmental Conservation and consider whether the disposition of same by a Consent Order was fully and totally complied with. Notwithstanding request of the DEC as to such compliance, to date a reply to such re- quest was not received, and it behooves the Board to obtain that data. The Board must take into consideration the total lack of access to the subject premises as that proposed is contra the mandate of the Town Law and was determined and adju- dicated as such. The matter of the value of the subject premises, notwithstanding appraisals, at most is the cost basis of the owner, with no basis for increment in value under principles and guidelines utilized in evaluating realty. MR. JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Re: Matter of Proposal of GUS WADE etc., continued - The Board is urged to find that there is no new basis the application and the proposal therewith,the for statement of impact on the environment, though intended to " open " a new avenue for the proponent, is on its face " Prima Facie " a statement unfounded, unproven and non-realistic of non-adversity to the environment, but to the as a showing coar serving statement evading and avoiding the, adversities to the environment y a self- tion. evidencing its destruction and eventual annihila- Please take notice, the the FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSO- CIATION, INC., a not for profit membership corporation prised prised of a large membership of property known and referred to as " and which is , . com- in fee of the beach (Fleet's Neckowners in the area the sub' y in the immediate area of 7ect premises, has in prior proceedings intervened and been a party in same, deemed and designated as a party of members that would be adversely affected as would its pro- perty owners as members and users of the beach facility, b any determination in the matter contrary to its position ,accordingly does hereb y as aforestated. Y appear and assert its interventionand Trusting your due deliberation and serious consideration in the matter of the proposal and the statement, the undersigned hereby requests that all notices and correspondence be directed to the association at the address set forth below as a party in interest. Thank you kindly for your courtesy in the matter. ty tru y y( rs, AGN:na ANTHONY OWACIIEK CC TO: FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., P.S.: Notices and correspondence to be directed to: FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., P.O. BOX 554 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Appendix 22: Correspondence from Dempsey of Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association, Inc. dated July 1, 1993 r~5 i .46 FLEETj'.. ECK PROPERTY OWNS. SOCIATION . INC. s_ P. O ~ 54 CUTCHOGUE, N Y , 11935 I July 1, 1993 MR. JOHN BREDEMEYER, III 0 LS O President D BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road TOWN OFSQUTH Southold, New York 11971 Q~D Re: In the matter of GUS WADE and his Draft Environmental Im- pact Statement Dear Mr. President and members of the Board: This will confirm my attendance in my official capacity of the ! above captioned membership corporation at the hearing in the above referenced matter on June 24, 1993 placing on record the definitive and unequivocal opposition to the proposal. Addi- tionally this will serve as confirmation of a large multitude of the association's memberhsip coupled with the oral recor- ded opposition of several of those in attendance. 11 I A review of the complete record comprising the numerous appli- cations and requests of Mr. Wade to your Board for the same re- lief with similar, akin or somewhat modified proposals, have not only been expressly denied but the denials were judicially I upheld: As a bona fide not-for-profit organization which owns the beach 1 facility that would be adversely affected by the grant of any such proposal coupled with the resulting adverse effect on the individual and property rights of its composite members and ' neighbors, it has been and shall continue to be an interested party and entity in all such proceedings as it had been since the inception of Mr. Wade's applications, ever committed to not only preserve and protect the environment in all its as- pects but to promote and enhance its quality, with committed intent and action resisting and restraining any effort by any individual, party or entity that would in the slightest adverse- ly effect the cherished environment. Trusting your due deliberation and consideration in the matter will result in an unequivocal denial and rejection of the pro- posal, with finding that same would in its totallity adversely impact the environment, I extend the thanks and appreciation of the membership, its neighbors and supporters. CC TO: Ms. Jill Doherty,Clerk V` t r ly rl" rs, of Board of Town Trustees H File RNARD DEMPSEY President i i r i r Appendix 23: Correspondence from Zarzecki dated July 1, 1993 r r • r r r r _ r r r r r o 7n7l Ly 1993 Town o f southola pBoard of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11935 Dear Sirs: In reference to the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement prepared for Gustave Wade, Re: House on East Road. It truly would not be an asset to the Community of Fleet's Neck to build a house on .0347 acre with a propane, gas generated electricity, and no way for proper water to the purposed building(flouse). If a 1 storm such as we have been having comes the first j building on this point would be in the water in our creek. I Is the Town of Southold taxes going to pay for this when it occurs? I'am sure they will not. The generated gas pump would echo up the whole creek and be a distrubance I to all. We as residents of Cutchogue for 33 yrs are deeply 1 concerned and disapprove of ---Gustave Wade Property Impact Bldg, etc.. l 1 Sincerely, Anthony T.Zarzecki I Juneann Zarzecki I J i i i 1 i Appendix 24: Correspondence from Tetrault dated June 26, 1993 i Yj i i i r`>J U,4yarr ~r.~ c-? w~G[ r -T>{-CIZ9 D i TOWN OF SOUTHOJ Dear Jc'4f-h o Id l 6wn /3CMI~{ v~ /ITCsCf ego 7 OLo ~OZ nu / in¢rn (,o t r cc~ l U 66hfe ur fr srr /~a(v~SJ~ <,m,~.•~c.C/f it ¦ /7 9 'Se a. T ht(,r l eC a Aau~ 4 rrn Lk - S/7~ ccl I /t~ /LZ~C f -f-o ~ 4S f ~iLe.P. k, rn 1 -lu o- pa LnL f 4 r c ;o cA t v,- /sJc,c¢ ~ QO WLctij cc ff i , 6"-f- >h,2„ bof we'cz cZ I/ L(Ttnu ~Ccu- ll.Lp li cis ~b JCccrz a~~L V~ ca7o~j- Dn l flute U`k¢/vJ ~~t1 /b f- l.s l/~vt.l~c u I cAecb-Q ¢ } ~s - < r c ¢ 6 e a ce; lunc~ vV C~oofvv(I a,.t tiell) ccnd 1 W11) hQ up / I r t ~t.~~ cCv3 e -ft) -77t9 iccc~ol _Lt u CL1c;'en !-4 77~ I_I--I- is Gt. ?A yl Wt e Gt,-aa fS -A r~ c ~r ~7azcve I U o l 'l ~n oZ ~U~ c~ /I C /UCC K- P'Le r„~n? fir' e~, u.~ ~Cto 1 ~l eL L' ~lZ~' ~1i, ea G'+ LVt,c', ~ ~~e?,(a !?~f/ i7'! :%~j / tr, JZ• n 4~ /3/r tJ7~. Lu-re L7iLo ~e eP~) . J A s = I IM j bJ G>Q 7Yil 1 q S u-tu>"LH-S 4u heal e y u cl,_ rr ocke 1 ~~a d~ r, ofl l~J LLc<~ n,~.o, ovtsz_ S ewa~c I t 4~ct~ ~<i t ^Che LQ G_ I - J - LAY A-4 wd r~2 U Cti Q /LO OY Ll.!-t:et~~,.tfS I~ ~1.iS SihlLo 1ZL~J ih~~~ J ~ Gin~>v,~ ~=~S ~vZ D-e~blern-~-, V 01(tll o,, C FA-,,,du or Sys 0~ G~t'cna Lim , R1 S rw lux J -f r., ~.l¢.~~uJ~°`f~9 ~1l•t.i.o crn.cA Gtu ~ t,'a 711's 06 WVM C/Lt-c.lta lib Ol IN It-2L,Et ~i_ -~Yr(~" `1L UU~,7) GC.e(l OccaViW--l•~ SGh~-(_.CyLJi` (~l.l 1l l~l~to/t P I y k aC.~.a>~ ~7.,~ U.e.e.lc• l loci J Ilu flu.->7tir aA-V_ -'1. DJe I t It tr< ire Le lYtcl c~ri "t t~ - lQ~. Lr A14-ft"CC llnLf LLy~~ ftvc~t i7 ~?)1 /i C({ p 'n C ~ c ~1S2LZllc~. c~;~.~ccEfi7" ~ oc. M~cc2vhz P~ (nct~:L, - L.~L~,•I ,l~c,G~.o cLCic-oi~ -fl-l ~j~ln tz l o P9ea~tRQ c1e zJ. _.G~ _~t ~Q~~e. fly. Lt6y) kV) 1 } I ? J ~lw, ~~2Kk zk~ Spo{ -SG' f1 0.(l ~tL,.;, l~ S l~a'sA Cud Ie (-Fray-, 1. 1",Rncr-L. / -,Yj2 etu'C c1-7 y {rU} (11-,n--T I~'p _ Sih,y~o dtn~ ~~c~ c~Az-~vu_ ~•~~2 i~ n o,P 0IAI V A7 ) /J~Ur OS- L4ccvl Il~~•~ `~~i Cz.c~z.~ ~t- l o O'lln l Sh 11 /s v~,t L tv t No L cvttt, `,~t,Lr Fa e(~ co ti 1 M~~~ ~T l ~T all Ar / - - ~v Knit L.G~~in 'L-vvn Ita y 4-n f, f " 'a,,n b y c~~t vir Ail L. -~21 IC.'IT ~`~a I~fW~ f (.t ~4't iil ~°-t I-I~I~G) l.V{'LD"~ V~~t E ~ f sre i ru~ti f,tn~ r~ r1 S ev °'~(ut fnJ ~1u l< c~ -(lw L(~ - 7lu F ~~Q~ S . / t Gtt sI'Ic.Ilt cd-t l i Len -e I G n-iJ ~'L-~e Jc~ ~U„ y no., /1Q-~-I'~n~ /h -j2t1 C~~-QU (,V ~IZI I r I In L Q p n~ o f r{ ( U E )OAXe C-1 I Ao, Silo CQ22C~- Appendix 25: Correspondence from North Fork Environmental Council dated June 24, 1993 : C ~ 4sol' RTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL e 25 at Love Lane. PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 .516-298-8880 June 24, 1993 Town Board of Trustees Town Hall Southol d, NY 11971 re: Application for Wetlands Permit Wade Property, 1000 East Rd., Cutchogde Dear Members of the Board of Trustees, The North Fork Environmental Council would like to state its opposition to the granting of a wetlands permit to construct a residence and retaining walls at this site. This application, as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS), demonstrates the lengths to which an individual property owner will go in an effort to build on property which is environmentally unsuited for development. Due to the Trustees' well-founded refusal to allow road access across its property, the proposal calls for water-access only. While to be applauded for ingenuity, this concept is both unworkable and unenforceable. It is only a matter of time before 4-wheel drive vehicles are surreptitiously used to gain access to this property. In addition, emergency vehicles, permitted by law to cross any property, would not ever need to traverse this area of wetlands if•it were not for this proposed residence. The potential for flooding and erosion is addressed by the proposed retaining walls; one of 70 feet, the other 150 feet. While these walls may resolve the immediate problem of the house being washed away, the ultimate hydro-geologic impact of such walls remains unknown. We do know that man-made barriers in tidal waters can create costly problems. Once the town has authorized habitation and water access on this property, it will be legally obligated to bear the costs to maintain that access in the future. The impact on the surrounding community of this proposal cannot ' be taken lightly. Fleet's Neck homeowners were bequeathed a beach which is.currently surrounded by open space and beautiful vistas. The property values of the area reflect this condition.. The issue is not simply one of aesthetic appeal; this proposal will degrade the value of surrounding homes, thereby having a negative economic impact on the community. I 1 a non-profll organization for III, Preaorvallon of land, men, air and quality of life Printed on 100% recyde.d paper -'0'' ! The DEIS states that no group or agency has been willing to purchase this property for open space. In fact, the owner has been offered a land transfer by the Trustees, and Southold Town has gone so far as to have the property appraised for the purpose of acquisition. These avenues should be pursued further. it should be noted that the Town assessed the property at $50,000 without a building permit, and $175,000 with a permit. This application should not be approved if the result is simply to cost Town taxpayers a higher amount for the purchase or trade of this parcel. Nothing can alter the fact that this is a proposal to build a house less than 40 feet from the high water mark, virtually in the middle of wetlands, and lying within the 100 year flood plain. Regardless of high-tech disposal systems, propane generators, and reverse-osmosis wells, these circumstances cannot be mitigated. Yes, in Southold Town we dd have other houses f~ built too close to wetlands, in environmentally sensitive areas. Let's learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. We respectfully request that you deny this application. Thank you. Sincerely, Lind Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental Council Appendix 26: Correspondence from Martin of Cutchogue Fire District dated July 22, 1993 ^f CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT Now Suffolk lto ll", I" 11ux 930, Cu1ch~~Ku e, NY 1 I936 Telephone (610) 7:34-9907 • Fnx (619) 73.4-7079 June 22, 1993 r) V Mr. John Bredemeyer III TOy±~~I OF SOUTHOL D Board of Trustees Town Hall Southold, NY 11971• Ref: Gustave Wade Properties Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, In reply to your correspondence concerning fire protection for the Wade property. Chief Tom Martin has reviewed the site and its surroundings and finds the following; a) Water supply does not meet ISO minimum requirements, thereby indicating the need for an additional water source. b) The access road indicated in the cover letter does not exist and this department has no means of reaching the Wade site. Until the above are complied with, the Cutchogue Fire Department feels that it cannot adequately provide fire protection for this site. If your office has any questions, please contact the Board or Chief Martin. Thank you and we remain, Very truly yours, Board of Fire /A Commissioners Matthew J. Martin Secretary cc: Chief Martin Planning Board Trustees Board Appendix 27: Correspondence from Sledz dated July 17, 1993 ¦ r i AUG 19 '93 14:04 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD P.1/1 a 230 Stanley E. Sledz r~WN U SO H I &004b Or-. iowAr i,Pu~ s %awoJ D~ ~OU'r"wOC~ d'3o 9r` M-f/A/ kb.ra sbu7'eoc.o, nr,v, //47/ P~~fir~ ~aa o~,e A/ s ~0 7u Af4vy [~i7/ et CJvWp 40[/TiUu6 7c OQT aT ie 014-&43 ~i PAt/C },iDnl To o AA-ML f bN i ? ~c s I RJt-a,~c, J5AI!/ikoA/MEk-'r4-4 IAAfLcrs iN WZ' ZiefttT Est S ~nZWR /920 kA-" 6GI4-AFPS Iiv' 7TAOLr I/i[ci~/,ry ec OULJ4 4~4: rrA?EQS~cv ~ FoR F~,~tPt~~ L?,E' p~ueJ .CO i /9~ Qtoek y i.tl S~e77a,U i37 wycy iS ,fc,poss ~,eo,K oure ,•s~oM,r ,~-<J.b ~r /s,P- i~4~Y ~'t'~Jtd~/C..Ex~' 4h72~tv,1j />u M,G, uJAbE IS ,4 AW-CEb6t I Mi647- arttoty R- XV7R A17- O MA'Q Q.- Lv7- /9 75 r. o ,6SnPq(tn,vG 160A~fi-n4 d./u xve 4K4- 0" cis`' o,~" Ak'it Oy J5; $rCA?CE e- 0A) ~-Z-nvood G ~4 Pg c32~ L sv T. 7y 7*-F- ,tft*,PA lsJ/« Mk~F ~!/I R, CW7' ~&CG 0.1041 4,vd ~piFa~, ~tf,P~ tJ.4~ ~S +¢if2/dA7ibnl S'7a1N Cs s9Q~ $'~r'~'Z I 700 ~t~rc~eo~ .A>»r~ . C~~/ioauE ,vy 730 Third Avenue/Now York, NY 10017 (212) 918-5003 0 1 ~ C I { .I 1 Appendix 28: Correspondence from Karr dated August 3, 1993. 1 a I Jh~ 1 `I (b A carrier may not transport (4) A vessel used exclusively . vessel any explosive or explosive comrn- - pleasure; 0. - y Code, subject to the conditions (49 U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1808; 49 CFR 1.53, position described in § 173.54 of this (5) A vessel of 500 gross tons' Od mitattons set forth in § 171.12 of aPD• A to Dart 1) subchapter. smaller when engaged in fisheries;. to subchapter. The requirements of IAmdt. 176-1, 41 FR 16110. Apr. 15, 1976] [Arndt. 178-1 (6) A tug or towing vessel, ex - 0176.83. 176.84, and 176.112 through EDIToRray No= For FrmER L Rw.rse cl. amended by , 41 Arnddt. t. 16110, 176-30, 5i . FR 15 ii t 1978 , as , when towing another vessel h8 174 are not applicable to ship. tsttuns affecting 1176.11 , see the List of Dec. 21,19901 , 55 Class 1 (explosive) materials lo lots of Class 1 (explosive) materials CPR Sections Affected appearing in the 11 (flammable liquids), or Dion 51de in accordance with the IMDG Finding Aids section of this volume. 4176.4 Port security and safety regale- (flammable gas) materials, in wl Wde. A hazardous material which - tion& case the owner/operator of the tug a~ 04darms (a the provisions of this 9176.13 Responsibility for compliance. (a) Each carrier, master, agent, and towing vessel shall make such pror}vgraph (a> is not subject to the re- Unless this subchapter specifically charterer of a vessel and all other per- stons to guard against and ext ~[ement specified in § 172.201(d) of provides that another person must sons engaged in handling hazardous fire as the Coast Guard may presc subchapter for an emergency re- perform a duty, each carrier, including C7) A cable vessel, dredge, posse telephone number, w materials on hen trans- board vessels shall ge, eleva Won of the hazardous material a connecting carrier, shall comply with comply with the applicable provisions vessel, fireboat, icebreaker, pile dri all applicable regulations in this art, of 33 CFR parts 6, 109, 110, 125, 126, pilot boat, welding vessel, salt' rigmates and terminates outside the part, instruct his em- vessel, or wrecking vessel; or Nt States and the hazardous ma- and ployees shall in relation thoroughly thereto. end 160. (b) Division 1.1 and 1.2 (Class A and (8) A foreign vessel transiting B explosive) materials may only be territorial sea of the United 6t (1) Is not offloaded from the vessel; 4176.15 Enforcement loaded on and unloaded from a vessel without entering the internal wateij r at- of the United States, if all hazardoa'7 (7) Is offloaded between ocean ves- (a) An enforcement officer of the (1) A facility of particular hazard as materials being carried on board dt_ at a U.S. Port facility, without U.S. Coast Guard may at any time and defined in 33 CFR 126.05(b); being carried in accordance with- king transported by public highway, at any place, within the jurisdiction of (2) An explosives anchorage listed in requirements of the IMDG Code: N> Canadian shipments and pack- the United States, board any vessel for 33 CFR part 110; or (c) [Reserved] - xts may be transported by vessel if the purpose of enforcement of this (3) A facility operated or controlled (d) Except for transportation in Sa are transported in accordance subchapter and inspect any shipment by the Department of Defense.. packagings (as defined in § 171.8, #h this subchapter. (See § 171.12a of of hazardous materials as defined in (c) With the concurrence of the this subchapter), the bulk catriag0 _ subchapter.) this subchapter. COTP;. Division 1.1 and 1.2 (Class A hazardous materials by water is"" - . The requirements of this sub- [Amdt. 176-1, 41 FR 16110, Apr. 15, 1976, as and B explosive) materials may be erned by 46 CFR chapter I, sd ter governing the transportation amended by Amdt. 176-1A. 41 FR 40687, loaded on or unloaded from a vessel in ters D, I. N and O. - combustible liquids do not apply to Sept. 20, 1978; Arndt. 146-24, 51 FR 5974. any location acceptable to the COTP. [Arndt. 176-1, 41 FR 16110, Apr. 15; 197 ~transportation of combustible liq- Feb. 18, 19861 [Arnd t 178-30 amended. by Amdt. 176-1A. 41, non-bulk (see definitions in - , 55 FR 52688, Dec. 21, 18901 # Sept. 20, 1976; Arndt. 176-14, 47 of this subchapter) packages on 4176.18 Assignment and certification. • - . - FR 4176.5' Application to vessels. - Oct. 7, 1982; Amdt. 176-24, 51 FR 697 --Vessels. - (a) The National Cargo Bureau, Inc 18. 1986; Amdt. 176-30, 55 FR 52 Transport vehicles, containing is authorized to assist the Coast Guard (a) Except as provided in paragraph 21,1990:56 FR 66281. Dec. 20, 19911 _ ous materials loaded in accord. (b) of this section, this subchapter ap• _vlth specific requirements of this in administering this subchapter with plies to each domestic or foreign vessel 9176.9:. "Order-Notify" or "C.ter applicable to such vehicles, respect to the following: when in the navigable waters of the ments. be transported on board a ferry (1) Inspection of vessels for suitabil- United States, regardless of its charac• - A carrier may not transport Or,C&rfloat, subject to the applt• Ity for loading hazardous materials; ter,-:tonnage, size, or service, and 1.1 or 1.2 (Class A explosive) ` requirements specified in (2) Examination of stowage of haz- whether self-propelled or not, whether detonators, or boosters wlthr 176:76, 176.100, and subpart E of ardous materials; arriving'.- or departing, underway, tors which are: (3) 'Making recommendations for i- moored; anchored, aground, or while (a). Consigned to order no tlirzardous materials classed and stowage requirements of hazardous in dry dock. "C.O.D.", except on a through,- as ORM-D are not subject to materials cargo; and - (b) With the exception of paragraph lading to a place outside WE hquirements of this part unless (4) Issuance of certificates of loading (c) of this section, this subchapter States: or - are offered for transporatton as setting forth that the stowage of haz- does not apply to: (b) Consigned by the shipper us wastes. ardous materials is in accordance with (1) rommercial public vessel not engaged in self unless he has a resident' Paragraph (a) of this section does the requirements of this subchapter. (2) A vessel service: constructed or converted ative to receive the ship men rDD1Y to hazardous materials, in. (b) A certificate of loading issued by for-the principal purpose carrying port of discharge. certain hazardous wastes and the National Cargo Bureau, Inc., may flammable or combustible liquid cargo [AmaC. :a us substances as defined in be accepted by the Coast Guard as 176-30, 55 FR 52688, D - of this subchaPter, which are in bulk in its own tanks, when only Prima facie evidence that the cargo is carrying these liquid cargoes; 4176.11 Exceptions. ect to the requirements of the stowed in conformity with the require- (3) A vessel of 15 gross tons or small- (a) A hazardous material .m!(Y le e' ments Of this subchapter. er. when not engaged in carrying pas. fered and accepted for a requirements of this sub- (Arndt 176-1. 41 FR 16110, Apr. 15, 1976, as 0 not sengers for hire; vessel. when in conforman PPIy to atmospheric in amended by Arndt. 178-24, 51 FR 5979, Feb. a refrigeration system. 18.1986 660 661 Battery Park Bldg. I U.S. Department Commanding Officer New York, NY 10004-1466 g of in S U.S. Coast Guard taff Symbol: E( Marine inspection Office Phone: (212( 111-7494 United States Coast Guard I 5720 03 August 93 i~ Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Deerfield Green, Montauk Highway P. O. Box 958 Water Mill, New York 11976-0958 Dear Mr. Anderson, We examined the scenario regarding the transportation of propane described in your letter of 27 July 1993. Because the transportation is not commercial, it is not regulated. If you have any other questions feel free to contact LTJG Cummins of my staff at (212) 668-7494- sincerely, M.1B. KARR U.S. Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander, Acting Chief, Inspection Division, Officer By direction of the Commanding i i Appendix 29: Correspondence from Krupski to Moran dated April 2, 1993. ,A. H r r TRUSTEES OSBFFO(+ C49 SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, 111, President =y' y~ SCO'TT 1 HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., M-ce President y = Henry P. Smith lbwn }tall John B. Iblhill ~y 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson ~0( CO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 iblephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 2, 1993 Dennis Moran, Chairman Board of Review Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive Haupauge, NY 11788 Re: Wade by En-Consultants H. S. Reference No.: 88-SO-89 Dear Mr.. Moran, As you may be aware, the Southold Town Board of Trustees ("Trustees") has wetlands jurisdiction over the above referenced project and assumed lead agency status. Subsequently, re9uired a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ('DEIS' * ` Attached herewith is a copy of a survey submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDIIS") for approval regarding sewage disposal and water supply. Of importance is the fact that Mr. Wade's parcel is surrounded by lands owned by the Trustees and the Trustees have not granted an easement across their lands for the purpose of access'. Therefore, Mr. Wade's parcel is considered an island. The Trustees have made known their intention to excavate their lands in order to.establish a small boat mooring area. The Trustees are concerned that the proposed placement of the sanitary system would preclude the excavation of Trustee lands for the above stated purpose. Mr. Wade, has offered to construct a bulkhead along his property boundary adjacent to Trustee lands and place a membrane on the norEhern face of the bulkhead to prevent April 2, 1993 Page 2 leaching of septic constituents into a future Trustee mooring area. It is noted that Mr. Wade 's application is pending SCDHS approval (See attached Notice of Incomplete Application). By way of this correspondence# the Trustees are requesting an opinion from the Board of Review as to whether such an alternative could be permitted by the Board of Review. .The Trustees have advised Mr. Wade to include this scenario in the DEIS as an alternative. Sincerely, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Vice President r cc. Roy l{ajef;En-Cgnsultants Roy.Reynglds, 4CD11S Bruce Anderson 1 9 J tQt) ^ ~1 f Appendix 30: Correspondence from Anderson to Bredemeyer dated May 26, 1993. i 'a -1 r Suffolk Envirounielital Consulting, L?c. I)enrfinld Green. Monlraik Highway. P.O. [lox 959, Waler Mill, Now York 1 IU7fr-11959 (516) 726- 1919 Pax: (516) 72('1-4471 Iln¢e Anderson, M.S., 1'resideni Hand Delivered May 26, 1993 John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Ball P. 0. Box 1179 i Re: Wade - East Road, Cutchogue ii Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, j Please be advised that a field inspection of the above referenced property was made on this date. The field I inspection did not reveal the presence of piping plover, common tern, nor least tern on subject property. Further, jl the field inspection did not reveal the presence of nests on subject property. I i Sincerely, Bruce A. Anderson ~l~- - I i i I I Appendix 31: Map of Fleet's Neck: showing the boundaries of the Fleet's Neck Property Association as described by Bernard Dempsey on September 26, 1993. Map of Fleet's Neck: showing the boundaries of the Fleet's Neck Property Association as described by Bernard Dempsey on September 26, 1993. ll ~ ? O ` f • YY 1 • ~ ~ . yYl ~ • ~ r V 4 I• 16 1 1 N•1 I O ~ • YI .1 ~ ?11i I^ rI '.1 , ; (W ~ Y, 1 _ ,I • .J.y 1 • yI r • O'y ° . r•.r 1 • r° r° r r r' i•' y `r «r 1 e ~ ..1 0.0 ~ 1 • . 4 y + M • J r • rW O t rN 1. 1r ..S ~ nw ryr `7 Zffi 6U rs con NTY OF SUFFOLK L O(Rnzo) IROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER July 19,1993 FTF V D John Bredemeyer, President 1 Southold Zoning Board of Trustees 1000 East Road SOUTHOLD Southold, New York 11971 RE: Gustave Wade-DEIS SCTM#: 1000-110-6-25 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has reviewed the above captioned document and finds it to be incomplete and inappropriate for the purpose of decision making. In general we are concerned with the potential long and short term impacts associated with the construction of the proposed residence and appurtenances and the lack of alternative design considerations which maximize protection of the tidal wetlands. Specific details of our concern are presented below. 1. SANITARY CODE A. Article VI Application Status The SCDHS has received an application for the realty development as required by Article Vl of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC). The application has been deemed incomplete by the Division of Water and Wastewater Management pending the submission of additional information including an approved plan from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and a Southold Town Trustees permit. As proposed the layout of the system does not meet SCDHS standards. The leaching pool must be setback at least 10 feet from the foundation with or without a cellar, and 5 feet from the DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITY COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11901-3387 852-2100 Letter to John Bredemeyer July 19, 1993 Page 2 property line boundary. The survey must indicate the proposed sewage disposal system/water supply well/water service line. The survey should also depict the test boring and the location. Grading plans showing invert elevations of sewage disposal system, foundation, and final grade (by licensed design professional) must also be submitted. Additionally, the DEIS (lid not specify if the applicants propose to install the 70' long section of navy retaining wall to the south of the system regardless of the potential for the reopening creek. This important issue should be resolved through the environmental review as the entire system has to be designed to accommodate the retaining wall. Furthermore the retaining wall must meet specific setbacks from the building and the property line boundary. The retaining wall must be designed in accordance with good engineering practices and all applicable building codes. The retaining wall must be setback 10 feet from the nearest part of the sewage disposal, 10' from the property line and must be waterproof. As described in the DEIS, the sanitary system will include the installation of a composting toilet. Although this type of alternative system may be considered by the SCDHS it will require that the residence be double plumbed and that a conventional system be installed as back up. This alternative system would have to be designed by a design professional. As the property is in a flood hazard zone the board may require that the sanitary system be flood proof. The design of the composting system must take into account the limited amount of use as the residence will be utilized seasonally. Most of the composting toilets require frequent and continual use in order to function properly. Furthermore, the report does not include sufficient detail of the proposed type of system and or literature describing the proposed system design. A more detailed description of the system should be provided in a supplementary EIS. Although our records indicate the Board of Review granted a variance on March 19, 1984 to allow the construction of a sanitary system no less than 55 feet from the the waters of Eugene Creek, any modifications in the design or a change in the conditions may require a re- examination of the proposal by the Board of Review. 11. DESIGN AND LAYOUT A.Structures The applicants propose to install a 170 feet long navy style retaining wall along the edge of the tidal wetland on the north side of the parcel. This department questions the need, purpose and location of the shore hardening structure. The beach does not appear to be a high energy zone as evidenced by the wide tidal wetland fringe surrounding the property. Construction of the Letter to John Bredemeyer July 19, 1993 Page 3 retaining wall as shown on the Van Tuyl survey dated revised November 27, 1992 is within and contiguous to a New York State regulated tidal wetland. Contradictory to the statement that the "marsh will persist after the retaining wall is constructed" p. 50, it is this Department's opinion that the construction of the retaining wall will directly cause the removal and despoliation of the wetland vegetation. Although navy style retaining walls are generally considered more stable than the conventional retaining wall this type of retaining wall requires the installation of the support members on the seaward side of the structure. Clearing grading and construction necessary for the installation of the wall and the machinery necessary for the proposal will directly impact the wetland and the vegetation within. The retaining will not prevent flood and stoma waters from invading the parcel due to the low lying nature of the site and may be undermined during severe storms. Construction of retaining walls or perhaps in this instance bulkheading ultimately leads to the loss of the beach in front of the structure. If the board believes the retaining wall is necessary, it should be constructed closer to the residence and not within the boundaries of the tidal wetland. The applicants should satisfactorily express their need for the structure. III. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Visual Impacts Another potentially significant impact will be the visual impairment if a residence is constructed on this beach front parcel. The structure if constructed on a pile foundation at least 8 feet above mean sea level will impair views and vistas that are presently enjoyed by the residents of the community. It would be difficult to screen the structure as there are few salt tolerant species that grow to a significant height that would adequately buffer the residence. If the applicants construct a two story residence the structure would be more visible from land and from the water. If the Trustees permit construction on site the board should prohibit the construction of a two story structure and perhaps the village design review board should review the overall design and layout of the building so that it is compatible with surrounding residences. B. Noise The DEIS states energy for the residence will be generated from propane and generators installed below grade. This will significantly contribute to overall noise in the area and may be further amplified over the waterway. This department has several concerns with the transport of propane gas for the purpose of energy supply to the residence. The DEIS should explore alternative sources of energy such as passive solar energy. Letter to John Bredemeyer July 19, 1993 Page 4 IV. ALTERNATIVES A. Design Based on an evaluation of the alternatives proposed, we believe that design alternatives should be discussed in an attempt to minimize potential impacts to the natural resources. We encourage consideration of a design alternative which omits the construction of a retaining wall within the boundaries of delineated tidal wetlands. The board should consider first siting of the septic system in an acceptable location which maximizes the wetland setback and then site the residence. The septic system could be shifted to the east thereby establishing at least a 70' setback from the wetlands. As the system will be mounded the landscaping plan should include either substantial plantings around the perimeter of the system or plantings of beach grass on the mound in order to screen it from view. All wetlands on site should be included within a legally protected buffer and protected from any clearing mowing or construction. The DEIS included non indigenous plantings on site and the use of topsoil. To mitigate these impacts indigenous vegetation should be used in the landscaping of this project. Such vegetation is well suited to the on-site soils and can provide valuable mitigation in reclaiming disturbed portions of the site. Vegetative clearing and high maintenance landscaping should be minirnized where possible throughout the site. B. Acquisition The EIS should explore acquisition as an alternative. Other involved agencies, conservation groups or neighborhood association, should be contacted. In conclusion, this office believes that development of the subject parcel as proposed would have an impact on the natural resources,vegetation and wildlife habitat present on site while reducing open space in the vicinity of the parcel. Tidal wetlands and the upland adjacent area are art uttegrated natural system. The benefit of the tidal wetland produced in one area of the marsh benefits nearby areas. Negative impacts in one area are transferred to adjacent wetland areas . Therefore land use development in or adjacent to a tidal wetland may cause impacts on adjacent areas. Upland uses should be compatible with the present and potential values of the tidal wetland. Letter to John Bredemeyer July 19, 1993 Page 5 Please provide our office with any addtional information concerning this application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 852-2078. Sincerely, Kitmberly Shaw Sr. Environmental Analyst Office of Ecology KS/atmf Vito Mutei, P.E. Stephen Costa, P.E. Frank Dowling, SC Planning A 4-or „r CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New Suffolk Road. PO Box 930, Cutchogue, NY 11935 1 ? Telephone (516) 734-8907 • Fax (516) 73~4q-7079 June 22, 1993 Mr. John Bredemeyer III TOINN OF SOUTHOLD Board of Trustees Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Ref: Gustave Wade Properties Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, In reply to your correspondence concerning fire protection for the Wade property. Chief Tom Martin has reviewed the site and its surroundings and finds the following; a) Water supply does not meet ISO minimum requirements, thereby indicating the need for an additional water source. b) The access road indicated in the cover letter does not exist and this department has no means of reaching the Wade site. Until the above are complied with, the Cutchogue Fire Department feels that it cannot adequately provide fire protection for this site. If your office has any questions, please contact the Board or Chief Martin.. Thank you and we remain, Very truly yours, Board of Fire Commissioners ,A )/4 Matthew J. Martin Secretary cc: Chief Martin Planning Board Trustees Board R FS New York State Depart of Environmental Conservati*1 Building 40-SONY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 M 6 FAX (516) 44450373 ~ a U D _ Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner TOWN OF SOU HOLD, July 9, 1993 Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, III Southold Board of Town Trustees P.O.Bx 1179 53095 Main Rd, Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re:Gustave Wade Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) NYSDEC file#1-4738-00827/00001-0 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: The Department has reviewed the DEIS for this proposal and submits the following comments: 1. Page 2 Summary The EIS states that the impacts associated with the septic system will be mitigated by elevating the system 2 feet above the water table. According to Environmental Conservation Law the system must be 2 feet above seasonal high ground water. The DEIS also fails to state that the proposed septic system cannot meet the minimum setback requirement under New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (TWLUR)Part 661, is 100 feet. 2. Page 15. Summary Emergency access is proposed by land through the Town Trustees property. What would emergency vehicle access be if Eugene's Creek is re-opened? It is also important to note that the internal waters of Long Island are frequently faced with small craft advisories by the Coast Guard. How would access be affected by such conditions considering that most emergency situations would occur during poor sea conditions? 3. Page 18.Desian and Layout The septic system is proposed to be placed behind a bulkhead if Eugene's Creek is re- opened. If the Creek is re-opened then the setback of the septic system would be zero feet from the wetland. The impacts from the septic system would be dramatically increased. The installation of a plastic membr line the bulkhead does not appear to be very e~ OUR~ - I! l JLL 1 919M La wm,ea a..«rciw was because most material from the septic system would enter the creek via ground water intrusion. 4. Page 19.Desian and Layout The document states that all access to the site will be by boat. How will typical and emergency service work be accomplished such as servicing of propane generators, cooling systems etc.? What if service people need to take heavy and large equipment to the site? Will barges be landing at the edge of the marsh and offloading onto the marsh. Will dredging need to be done so boats weighted down with equipment can come into the dock? More details are needed on equipment and machine handling. 5. Page 21.Design and Layout The use of composting toilets must be discussed in more detail since composting toilets are very maintenance intensive. However there is no mention of regular maintenance. Who will maintain the system? How will the system be operated in the event of a power failure? It appears that reliance on propane generators would increase the potential for power failure due to the gas running out at inconvenient hours etc. 6. Page 23.Construction and operation How will construction machinery be offloaded from the barges? Will dredging need to be done so boats/barges can land at the dock? Is the dock facility strong enough to accommodate heavy machinery on it or will the machinery have to be offloaded in the tidal wetlands? If the machinery has to be operated in the wetlands what will keep the areas from being disturbed? 7. Page 24.Approvals The document states that the DEC Tidal Wetlands permit must be extended or a new permit granted. The document fails to acknowledge that the development plans have substantially changed since the original permit was issued. From the tidal wetlands line shown on a survey (last revised date:4/8/93) included with the DEIS it appears that environmental changes have apparently occurred such that the tidal wetlands edge has moved landward. Therefore, the setbacks of the septic system and the house would be even less than those allowed by the permit issued in 1983. The applicant was advised by letter dated 7/10/90 (enclosed) that when a project exceeds the scope of the original permit a new application for a new permit is required. This principle is applied whether for adding new structures (which that letter referred to), increasing coverage or requesting greater variances. all three of these characteristics are apparent in the plans included with the DEIS. A New application will need to be submitted for the entire project and DEC staff will have to consider it with respect to the standards of the Tidal Wetlands Regulations regarding the expanded proposal in view of current environmental conditions, the potential for dredging or otherwise destroying/ damaging the existing shoal and loss of the marsh fringe and the impacts from the septic system to tidal wetlands and tidal waters. 8. Page 28.Water Resources There are two contradictory statements with regards to the location of the water table. The first statement says the depth to the aquifer is between 0 and 3 feet. The second statement says the depth to seasonal high water in the area of the sanitary system is 8.5 feet. If the aquifer is 0 to 3 feet how can the sanitary system be 8.5 feet to ground water unless the system is above ground somewhere? 9. Page 30.Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology The DEIS fails to state that the shoals/bars/mudflats type of tidal wetlands (SM) seaward of the intertidal marsh grasses is covered with sea lettuce (ulva). This is a highly productive shoal area The shoal appears to be approximately 1' (one foot) below mean low water at the seaward end of the float. 10. Page 43.Land Use and Zoning The document fails to state that the septic svstem does not meet all County and State standards. The septic system does not meet the 100 foot minimum setback requirement under NYS ECL Article 25 TWLUR NYCRR Section 661.6(a)(2) 11. Page 50.Erosion and Siltation Impacts The document states that the marsh fringe will persist after construction of the retaining wall. However, the statement " ..artificial protective structures such as sea-walls or bulkheads may compound destructive energy by refracting waves and causing sand scouring immediately in front of the bulkhead" (Haje, 1976) has been confirmed by subsequent DEC staff observations. When hard structures such as bulkheads are constructed the direction and magnitude of wave energies are redirected. Because the wave impacts the vertical face the energy is directed downwards. This downwards energy eventually leads to scouring at the toe of the bulkhead. Any vegetated marsh that is adjacent to the bulkhead also becomes subject of the scouring action and slowly erodes. This is occurring in many locations. Since the vegetated marsh fringe appears to have moved closer to the toe of the proposed bulkhead this would mean that the scouring scouring will occur more frequently and the marsh fringe would be eroded away sooner. If dredging is involved in this project deeper water will allow increased wave energy increasing the power of the scouring action. 12. Pages 53-59.Septic System Impacts Although contaminants and pathogenswill bond to certain types of soils, the organic content of the soils is the controlling factor of contaminant bonding. A reference to bonding of contaminants and pathogens in soils having low organic content is not credible. As stated on Page 25 the site consists of fine to coarse sand to approximately 150 feet below the site. There is an overwhelming amount of current research that contradicts the conclusions stated in the document with regards to the site conditions, attenuation of contaminants, and the impacts associated with the septic system. The reasons are as follows: (a) Sand is typically composed of inorganic silicate materials that are noncohesive and are not chemically or biologically reactive, therefore, no sorption or desorption of chemicals occur (Power and Chapman 1992). (b) Subsurface pollutant removal is controlled by the characteristics of the soils. In particular, the removal of certain chemical species, including ammonium, is related to the Cation Exchange capacity of the soil (Groffman et al. 1990). The Cation Exchange Capacity is determined largely by the content of organic matter and clay in the soil, which act to bind cations. On the other hand, removal of nitrate is controlled by microbial denitrification and plant uptake (Palmstrom 1991). However, since nutrient removal is in part, associated with contact time in the root zone, pollutant sources located in well drained soils (such as sand) require greater distances than average to attenuate soluble nitrogen fractions (Palmstrom 1991). Therefore, since the site consists of all sand material the statements about contaminant attenuation are invalid. Any discharge of chemicals (fertilizers, cleaners, soaps, pesticides, etc.) into the soils of this site will ultimately travel unrestricted into the ground water and intrude into the surface waters of the estuary. Pathogen contamination remains a matter of concern for the following reasons: (a) The elimination of black water to the septic system by the use of composting toilets does not eliminate the threat of pathogen contamination of shellfish resources or bathing areas. Suffolk County requires that composting toilets are double plumbed so that black water can be discharged into the leach field in the event of system problems and emergencies. As long as the system has the capability of discharging into the leach field, there will always be the potential for pathogen contamination. It is also important to note that pathogens are not exclusively passed in fecal wastes but can be harbored in other human excrements that would be discharged with the gray water into the leach field. (b) The document states on pages 54 and 55 that adsorption and filtration of bacteria occurs in sand. As stated above adsorption only occurs in organic soils. It is very important to note that there are differences in travel distances between bacterial indicator organisms (coliforms) and pathogenic viruses. Although fecal coliforms were found to travel a distance of 5 feet in Long Island soil conditions, studies have shown that the polio virus can travel up to 220 feet (Vaughn et al. 1983). This indicates that the potential for contamination from viruses in shoreline areas could be much greater than bacterial contamination. The absence of bacterial indicator organisms does not necessarily assure the absence of pathogenic viruses (Tetra-Tech Inc. 1992). In fact, many human pathogenic microorganisms associated with waste water may accumulate in estuarine waters and sediments and survive longer than bacterial indicators found in the water.column (McCambridge and McMeekin 1981). The USEPA model for septic system siting shows that septic systems with a 50 foot setback distance will very Probably cause surface water contamination when the depth to the water table is 3 to 10 feet (Roman 1990). The proposed system appears to be anywhere form 0 to 8.5 feet. 13. Page 65.Wetland Impacts The document states that the values of adjacent tidal wetlands will remain undisturbed by the project. This is untrue. By constructing the proposed dwelling (with increased footprint) and accessory structures on this small site at limited setbacks the natural runoff of the site will be altered and place an undue burden on the wetlands. The addition of impervious surfaces to the site will increase the amount of stormwater runoff entering the wetlands. This increase in runoff will impact the wetlands natural ability for cleansing the ecosystem and absorption of silt and organic material due to the increased anthropogenic burden placed upon the system. Also, scouring away of the marsh (see comment #11 above) will reduce marine food production and marine habitat along with other reduced values. 1~/. Page 73.Alternative Designs The document discounts the alternative of construction of the "mushroom" house because of the extensive work required to remove the pilings which were placed for the conventional house. The piles were installed without the required authorizations or permits and is not a valid argument for not pursuing the "mushroom" alternative. It is unfortunate that the piles were placed illegally but the cost associated with their removal should not be considered. 6 References: Haje, R.L. 1976 The Effects of the New York State Tidal Wetlands Act Moratorium Phase. Special Report 4. Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY. Power E.A. and P.M. Chapman. 1992. Assessing sediment quality. In: G.A. Burton Jr. (Ed.) Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, F1. 457pp. Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, W.R. Eddleman. 1991. An investigation into multiple uses of vegetated buffer strips. Current Report The Narragansett Bay Project. Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. Palmstrom, N. 1991. Vegetated buffer strip designation method guidance manual. Current Report The Narragansett Bay Project. IEP, Inc. Consulting Environmental Scientists: Northborough, MA. Vaughn, J.M., E.F. Landry, and T.Z. McHarrell. 1983. Entrainment of viruses from septic tank leach fields through a shallow, sandy soil aquifer. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 45(5): 1474-1480. Tetra-Tech, Inc. 1992. Long Island Sound Study Pathogen Characterization. Long Island Sound Study Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Long Island Sound Office: Stamford, CT. 96pp. McCambridge, J. and T.A. McMeekin. 1981. Effect of solar radiation and predacious microorganisms on survival of fecal and other bacteria. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 41:1083-1087. Roman, C.T. 1990. Pathogens in Narragansett Bay, Issues, Inputs and Improvement Options. March 1990 Draft Report, Narragansett Bay Project. General Comment The EIS is very inadequate in its content and inaccurate .in its conclusions. Many statements in the document are misleading and not valid for the specific site conditions. These misrepresentations are extremely evident in the discussion of septic system impacts and the ability of the soils to attenuate contaminants. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement needs a considerable i i amount of revision to reflect the current literature with regards to septic system impacts, the attenuation of contaminants in sandy soils, and the impacts associated with increased runoff. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. Sincerely, j -'7 Robert N. Thurber Environmental Analyst I cc: L. Chiarella U` ~,~FFO(~- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Qti~ C0 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman°w 2 Serge Doyen, Jr. d A Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James 1 'yt rk 11971 Southold, New York Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD D Q TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold FROM: Board of Appeals v + a DATE: July 13, 1993 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS, as amended May 5, 1993 Property of Gustave Wade at Cutchogue On June 11, 1993, a copy of the DEIS prepared by En-Consultants was received by the Board of Appeals for review and comments which will be accepted up until July 19, 1993. We offer the following comments and requests, which include some references also previously noted in our November 27, 1992 report (copy attached for your convenience and use). 1. The status of the applications pending before all agencies should be reported. Also, a request is made to correct this for the record, and the fact that no building permit may be issued until all agency approvals have been obtained including approval which is necessary by this Board under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for safe and adequate access by fire and emergency vehicles. 2. Effects by changes in weather conditions at flood high tides and moon high/low tides, storm tides, and the requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road will need to be addressed. 3. The preparer has not confirmed alternatives for service companies and fire departments to gain access to the proposed house during freezing of the creek and bay areas immediately surrounding this land. There is mention of a one-year lease with Cutchogue Harbor Marina which may be terminated at any time. This lease is noted to be non-assignable and is strictly for the owner's boat. Will covenants for such access to the applicant's property be furnished for perpetual use, and how does the property owner plan to transport equipment, delivery items and vehicles to the property for emergency services, construction purposes, and otherwise. 1 of 3 Page 2 - July 13, " To: Town Trustees o ead Agency V Re: Review of DEIS - Gustave Wade Property 4. The record needs to be corrected to show a distance from the applicant's land to East Road at 85 feet or more (not 65 feet as suggested). 5. Noise impacts need to be addressed. This is necessary at least concerning noise levels and disturbances made in the use of generators and pumping stations at the site utilized for propane, electricity, water, and other purposes. Confirmation as to the number and location of the pumps and their generators are requested in addition to information concerning noise impacts. 6. Minimal reference is made for possible access for backhoes and other equipment by barge. The points of location and proof of such authorization from property owners has not been provided and is necessary in order to access from upland areas for not only backhoes but also for maintenance and cleaning of cesspools, heating, etc. 7. other concerns with reference to statements made by the prepare, Dennis Corcoran, and others concerning proposals for fire safety, as well as questions about sufficient and safe access by emergency or fire vehicles will, of course, be continued at a public hearing before the Board of Appeals as required by Town Law, Section 280-A, and further considerations are mandated which are not a part of the SEQRA process. Further, an accurate map showing water routes for access by vehicles and for equipment will need to be submitted and considered. Questions are outstanding by this agency concerning time periods for fire and emergency responses for water emergencies, the depth of water and dock suitability at low tides during transports, etc. 8. As noted in our written comments of November 27, 1992 on the prior DEIS submission, this property is located in a "Critial Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, and also referred to as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland areas within 500 feet of the bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29-Year 1988, Suffolk County, and was enacted by the County Legislature. It is requested that all Notices of filing and procedural requirements be amended as a Type I Action. 9. Page 17 makes reference to a new, updated survey dated April 17, 1993 which has not been made a part of this DEIS. An original print is requested for coordination and use to all involved agencies. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject DEIS for final acceptance by the Town. 2 of 3' .0 CJ3~tF0( APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS f%~"J~© CMG SCOTT L. HARRIS ~ Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman '°n Serge Doyen, Jr. p F Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa 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 7/14/93 - Received surveys updated April 8, 1993 from Mr. Haje Propane tank area is not shown on this April 1993 survey. Mr. Haje indicates that it may not be legally permissible to store 100 lb. propane tanks at the premises, and in that case they would have to go for solar on the roof of the building. This question is presently outstanding. 3 of 3 n bCde wrvryYerlddbnd _ } y 6ecYM reo.d.bNw}M&eee IY.+ L al,i "YZ - . Ey~lnc 1 i MAP 01' Pf10PEC27Y JVfZVEYED FOR.. - , ,'tOismlaMbdceYElMwndW nn. p' 7R •1'} X tJ t> ,s r,.. / - , m bnlY+nMemm J Vabn °Y b a./ bYY ~ J ,end an M1Y biM1b i - Ord t - / ~ ~ a t ~A~? YV1.\VL..r _ ~ tlWwniwY. W'iem^eMal eGeKY AT' CUTCNOGtJE:..: 1WN OF 5OUTNOLI),.N_Y. ~0 '"ea Y ,ylN6 WALL T _ N II, w.m • 14,475 S.F. ocmwacv' coot cP - raFl! / r A. -TO r B•-yam i 4b %•`9 a P i se oop.. 10 'IF L-N?°Ji.,}~~. ,i '~y*_ \ wL a."~J aayy ? J - / ~ttFA6&D U-- t]- I,:C AREA A /c(~ UniDS •?975 S.P. P IJ, S~° -d' . _ 40 fb?^S - 3 _ ; 5B 1w ~Dp6 f~ / FOR L F 34YSTE ' acE Cwusel•,SODS F / r . l¢~~~ ~P "y , i 4 a } 4 f S ~C. ,?.1 1 i,/~t He S.S r F{ ` _T~ ~4Y t f yf, ~ r:. J ~I $-r%uexr-_.>!5 9 ~(.a°O •fJS~~4c \ 1 aqc~'- , ~:'t~it NG h^a1~1D , , ~'i° -r Y M~, i~'~.... i e r< SCALE-20 1 ` <L' ~ 0 \ ` ~NSS r.~~D •~O`Q ~lz~~... - ir%r++" zccJcC+1a'.,, m+au¢.aam+ePJnwY+s I>tL p. MpNUMEMa . + ~ f yJrM .ti,. ua sne°eusl xe ew.v.w¢eo t Pp-op., IG n¢COOf ?a A.c Roc 4Ol.oMa,l ,rte ' !G Ol ~ ~ i - - ~ - • , " ~WETLMIDS IJNE 0.S oTP KED B`! ~vOS-~ j, ...O~ 7l?>,^J.I}2 TQUSF. t;=:. , s <r'y1,. t e 62GCE AN~E250t50:71'FiOLD s TCMLN TRUST'EE5 MA2 28.94+. s 4 • / tETAi II^ G WALL: . 'G OC{ 51%.EOLT ¢ 6te0LWV~R EG . t„ y l•- qi 'j NAG AMENDED MAR.IUI~AS4,O1JG.21.1=}8 30 1 T18 ROD 3 I a . r ' i-~1'! N x'f ALVG 23,1 AN.16 I L:6::99r• F l Q 8 ! I APQ 22 { f,l,1AY 30 1-SULY IB iS ye 9QIOFMMAN , A72. e I > D,, PF~~~q a1 ..SS1.8 b PILE ,r"y .Frr~L •°r - of NE dpi cu{6\/j'~`'kG SEC. FJ ,8, o.o ro ~y tE{~e,~wn,ea QC~^ w ° (CODE21'V~ VAN rU'y c4 Jam' < [ (e C Ud «.~,em. ~2. r- r ` ` S ~s ' f 14 °uMD L[LJND5Ui2VCY4tjS E2vi~0«^S• ti t JUL ~ ` pnIuM fX'4 4LE/4TION3 3,_CO~,,,VfCQJQ`y M@At1+5CA / ~ ~ - .•a . V, Y ~V 4~y~~ l ti' 1r , APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS " r SCOTT L. HARRIS 6 Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman n Serge Doyen, Jr.~ ~l ' y « Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold Mr. Roy Haje, En-Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS of 11/2/92 APPLICANT: Gustave Wade SITE: Property near the End of East Road at Fleet's Neck Cutchogue, Town of Southold Based upon review, it is the opinion of the Board of Appeals that the document as submitted November 2, 1992, is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review. Included herein are specific comments pertaining to the document which outline deficiencies which are in need of additional discussion, clarification, documentation, and/or answers prior to circulation to outside governmental agencies and public comment. I. SUMMARY The summary should, of course, be amended to reflect changes in the text based upon the following: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Commencing at Page 4 - Background and History a) With regard to permits, permit and permit renewals were not attached. Expiration dates for each agency permit were not furnished. Building permits are renewable for dwellings under construction only; therefore, the building permits referenced could not be renewed and apparently had expired some time ago. Separate permit applications and reviews are subsequently required. b) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental permits were not listed of record prior to 1982. No mention is made of effect of building construction without N.Y.S. D.E.C. permits. Page' 2 - November 1992 J,. Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck C) Background and history as well as the physical conditions of the site and the surrounding lands at the time of zoning (1957) and at the time of purchase, to the present time period, need to be addressed. d) Physical changes to the site and surrounding area during all specific time periods were not adequately described in detail, i.e. destruction and types of wetlands being replaced with the stone blend, gravel, and other materials onto the wetland area between East Road and the "island," and onto the island upland areas, etc. e) Reference is made to the claim that the island is no longer considered an island. This is questionable since the owner (Town) of the lands did not authorize the wetlands to be filled in and did not authorize the island to become a part of the mainland. Document should confirm ownership between the "island" and East Road to be other than the applicant's. Reference was made that this island is no longer being considered an island. Clarification of this statement is needed, substantiated by documentation as to how this was arrived at, which shall include the Town's anticipated re-opening of the channel at the end of East Road. Pages 6-8 Reference was made to certain "accusations in a court injunction" concerning a Town building permit in 1984 - 1985. Copies of all Court Determinations should be attached, and reference should be corrected to show that Court determined building permit was ineffective and construction could not begin. It should also be noted that a building permit could not again be issued unless all other agency permits were obtained and in full force and effect, as well as obtaining recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles to the island as provided under New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Status of all agency permits, including those now expired and not issued, must be listed. Copies of currently valid permits (if any) should be attached in Appendix. This document must confirm that there are currently no valid permits from any governmental agency concerning the construction of a dwelling, particularly since references mentioned are misleading. Commencing at Page 15 Effects by adverse changes in weather conditions, flood high tides, moon tides during storms, removal of unauthorized fill between island and East Road have not been addressed. Page 3 - November 41992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Page 16 How will owner, service companies, etc. gain access to house during freezing of creek and bay areas around island? Will neighboring property be utilized? Page 17 To what depths and what methods are being used to clear 6900 sq. ft. of land as proposed (see December 15, 1988 survey)? Why is 6900 sq. ft. of land area needed to be cleared, rather than substantially lesser areas if the house is 1260 sq. ft. in floor area? Mitigation measures to reduce area of disturbance have not been addressed adequately. Page 19 Propane delivery is not adequately addressed - applicant may not pipe underground on lands other than his own without express written permission from the property owner. The distance at its closest point from the island to East Road is 85 feet, or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Propane lines and servicing is therefore not feasible. Page 20 What alternative areas of sanitary system have had dye studies, and documents substantiating all studies of this island should be attached. Page 22 Contract between property owner and Cutchogue Harbor Marina for access is not attached for consideration. Also, information has not been submitted to show how, where and what time periods and seasons, contractors, back-hoe operators, and other building machinery or delivery trucks will be able to gain access by water. Will heavy equipment operators be using boat or barge access from and to the westerly section of East Creek, or other sections? Page 50 Noise levels of generator(s) with high and low time periods were not submitted. Effects of shutting down of generators has not been documented. Page 4 - November 4f 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Commencing at Page 52 - System Impacts Recharge figures may not be calculated on current standard requirements for reverse osmosis system should be re-confirmed with Health Department. Page 54 Need to address effects caused by nitrates into salt water at different tide levels - particularly storm tides, etc. Page 56 No currently valid Health Department permits or substantiated dye studies were documented for alternative sanitary system locations. Also need to furnish report on dye study when tide level is more than median. Page 68 Reference is made that since the "lot" is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered by the applicant's consultant to be a buildable lot. A lot is not a buildable lot until all valid approvals and permits are obtained, and proof has been submitted as to its single-and-separate ownership as required by the Zoning Code, and compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. The lot cannot be guaranteed a buildable lot by merely complying with one or two provisions of law. It should be confirmed that at the present time, no permits are currently in effect from all town, state, and county agencies that would render the lot a buildable lot for purposes of a residence. It should be confirmed that the use of this island, or "lot", is presently for boating and docking enjoyment, which has permit approval; for the property owner and his guests. Page 74 It is noted that "...6400 sq. ft. will be cleared for house and septic system construction... 5140 sq. ft. will be revegetated...." 6400 less 5140 sq. ft. leaves 1260 sq. ft. The planting schedule submitted as Appendix P shows a gravel area and deck areas around the dwelling which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. These figures do not agree. The 1988 survey map shows that the.house would be 1300 sq. ft. although other references are for a 1260 sq. ft. house. What is the square footage of gravel areas, patio areas, and deck areas in addition to the square footage of living area? %Page 5 - November 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck OTHER Reference must be made to this property as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, also known as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of the Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland area within 500 feet of all bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29 Year 1988, Suffolk County and was enacted by the County Legislature. Reference should also be made to all areas under which variances are being requested, which should include: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees at less than 75 feet from the high water mark, from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles, and the Suffolk County Health Department. In the event of new bulkheading with proper permits, other variances may be necessary (i.e. zoning code, Section 100-239.4B which requires a minimum setback at 75 feet from bulkheads or retaining walls). SURVEY - An up-to-date survey, with on-site surveying inspections, is requested in light of the hurricane damage and storm damages in the Town of Southold within the last two years. The survey map is shown that the property was lastly re-surveyed in December 1988, prior to the hurricane-storms. ACCESS - Additional information is required for decision-making to include: delineation of the points of access; water routes for access; the distances by water; ingress and egress of emergency vehicles; the time periods for fire and emergency vehicle response; the depth of water and dock suitability for sole access. These areas were not addressed as requested. * * r The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for acceptance by the Town (Town Trustees as lead agency). Based upon this review, the DEIS has not been accepted. Review of revisions by the applicant would be expedited in order to commence the public comment process for this project. Dated: November 27, 1992 BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD.P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN The OPEN SPACE Council P.O. Box 275. Brookhaven, NY 6 a U D July 18,1993 ~ u Mr. John M. Bredemeyer III JUL q Southold Board of Tbwn Trustees TAM. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: DEIS-titutave Wade OR Eugene's Creek Deer Mr. Bredemeyer, Our specific comments on this project are w follows: 1. On page 14 this document refers to the storm of December 11, 1992 as a 100 year stone and concludes that "simx no serious damage was incurred that future stone damage is unlikely". We believe that this site's proximity to the Little Pecomc Bay and a fetch area reaching from south of Robin's Island makes future damage from a stung southwesterly wind very Italy, especially if the row closed breach it ever opened. Please provide a projection of the coastal processes b be expected from a hurricane which could generate such extreme conditions. Include effects of washover on the structural mtegrity of the dwelling, the washout of sewage systems and the deposition of the resultant debris into the waterways and salbnarsh. 2. The DEIS is confusing on several points regarding the installation and maintenance of the composting toilet system. Where and how will the composted materiel be disposed of? If Mr. Wades family or other future owners of this proposed dwelling become disenchanted with a composting toilet how would sewage be pmarped from the system and transported off island? On page 60 the DEIS irdicates that recharge of "freshwater effluent" into samitary system wild retard saltwater intrusion. Yet we are lead to believe that cesspools will handle "gray water" only and that the reverse osmosis system will provide freshwater for only cooking and drinking not for bathing. Please clarify. 3. Please note that Northern Hangers will also hunt over upland sites especially when adjacent b marsh. (p. 63) 4. This reviewer, when a resident of Cutchogue, personalty observed Piping Plovers exhibiting nest defense behavior in June of1989 on the beech south of this site. Has The Natm:e Conservancy been contacted regarding any other reported sitings or nesting observatons? 5. Drawings provided appear b include a garage. Under the current state of affairs no vehicular access is being allowed. Is this area to be expanded into living space or eliminated from the plan? OSC-sounam (inane Weft DES ure. 6. Provide chemical ambvis of Miforgenite b be used on site. Is it treated savage sludge and does it contain heavy metal rune? 7. Provide amlysis and estimab of quantity of anifteze required for chiller-bear system proposed for this project 8. The fire safety precautions proposed by Fin Marshall Deruds M. Corcoren include bsl& i m of an alert system, a sprinkler system and connection b a central station mordtibg system. The first too "ft ms appear b warrant connection b an elxuical system. Hoy is the electrical generator b be arranged b handle this situation? The central station connection usually requires a dedicated phone line. Is this b be albyed across the Trustee's property or vM a cellular system be needed? 9. The vegetation plan provided relies heavily on non-move species. Only native plants should be considered for vegetating this sensitive sib. 10. Amore indepth history of the sib such as earlier aerial phobgrephs or hiabric maps should be included. Has Mr. Glover's tile b the "bland' been verified? V11at did the 'island' consist of prior b the fift of the yesbra channel? In conclusion, free find the proposed plan umcceptable because it crews a ney structure in an unstable, vuhlerable end environmentally sensitive location. We believe that the bngbffi effects and polential consequences of this consuucoon have been understsbd. Thank you for the opponurdly b comment Please keep us advised. r tfully, / e1 . Morris, Cw ~U for the Board of DhwM f 0 L130 Edward A June Hussey OF SOUTN01.0 105.5 Fleetwood Rd TOWN___ - Cut.chogue NY 11935 - July 1., 1993 Southold Town Trustees Main Rd Southold NY 11971 Dear Trustees; This is to advise you that we, as property owners in I-leetsneck, are strongly opposed to the erection or construction of any building on the property adjacent to the Fleetsneck. Property Owners Association beach prop- erty and presently owned by Mr. Wade. The property i question is not suitable for for the purpose Mr. Wade intends to use it for; notably a domicile, utilities are not availabe as well as water and waste disposal, access is difficult and presents problems for delivery of supplies and equipment.. Mr Wades' intent to use propane or a similiar potentially dangerous gas for heating and cooking engenders unsafe shipping and handling procedures which are against fire dept regulations. =sincerely, L A7, yy~ l -A-cs. 19. eas11 Bugle% ,R• R. 1, 50 Ea,twood 12. eutclio9ue, CNew V04 11935 lx-- r '9- • ~ s -7 -w ~ ~ : "7 ° a,&. . ~ ~ - '414 POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD l©~, ( ADMINISTRATIVE PECONIC, NY 11958 I) 516-765-2600 TELEPHONE 516-734-602 Stanley Droskoski EMERGENCY DIAL 911 FAX 516-7ETOWLNOF a POLICE D John M. Bredemyer, III, President Board of Town Trustees SOUTHOLD Town of Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York 11971 June 29, 1993 Dear John, In reference to your inquiry for action known as Gustave Wade: I have reviewed the text that was submitted to this department and find that the construction of the single family residence will not have any effect nor will it impact the operation of this department. Respectfully submitted, ' ~ ~'LGGGG ~ , Stan e sk i i` Chief of oe ANTHONY G. NOWACHEK L+ REPLY ADDRESS 962 Willis Avenue P.O. Box 500 Mineola. New York 11501 Mattituck. New York 11952 O O (516) 2946760 s1A. - 0 my 2, 1993 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MR. JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Matter of proposal of GUS WADE and Draft of Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. President and members of the Board: As the attorney for the FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSO- CIATION, INC., for and in its behalf, its composite member- ship of property owners and neighbors, the reasons, legal and other, were advanced in opposition to the above at the hearing on June 24, 1993. The Board and its counsel should note all of its prior deter- minations which were judicially upheld, and that the same were made inter alia on proposals of the nature and type here- in submitted. The proposal, akin to a " geyser " sends an un- equivocal message that it is no more than an endeavor to undo and rescind all prior determinations making obvious the stark reality of a statement that would, if given any credibity, would not only adversely impact the environment, but would set forth the destruction and eventual annihilation of the environment. Legally, there is no positive and conclusive evi- dentiary and probative data and information to dispel the fact that the proposals in the statement negate the adversity manifested, displayed, anticipated, expected and finally to be realized. The Board must remain aware and cognizant of the violations charged by the Department of Environmental Conservation and consider whether the disposition of same by a Consent Order was fully and totally complied with. Notwithstanding request of the DEC as to such compliance, to date a reply to such re- quest was not received, and it behooves the Board to obtain that data. The Board must take into consideration the total lack of access to the subject premises as that proposed is contra the mandate of the Town Law and was determined and adju- dicated as such. The matter of the value of the subject premises, notwithstanding appraisals, at most is the cost basis of the owner, with no basis for increment in value under principles and guidelines utilized in evaluating realty. MR. JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Re: Matter of proposal of GUS WADE etc., - continued - The Board is urged to find that there is no new basis for the application and the proposal therewith,the statement of impact on the environment, though intended to " open " a new avenue for the proponent, is on its face " Prima Facie " a statement unfounded, unproven and non-realistic as a showing of non-adversity to the environment, but to the contrary a self- serving statement evading and avoiding the adversities to the environment, evidencing its destruction and eventual annihila- tion. Please take notice, the the FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSO- CIATION, INC., a not for profit membership corporation, com- prised of a large membership of property owners in the area known and referred to as " Fleet's Neck ",and which is the owner in fee of the beach facility in the immediate area of the subject premises, has in prior proceedings intervened and been a party in same, deemed and designated as a party of members that would be adversely affected as would its pro- perty owners as members and users of the beach facility, by any determination in the matter contrary to its position, and accordingly does hereby appear and assert its intervention as aforestated. Trusting your due deliberation and serious consideration in the matter of the proposal and the statement, the undersigned hereby requests that all notices and correspondence be directed to the association at the address set forth below as a party in interest. Thank you kindly for your courtesy in the matter. t e y truly y rs, C;p ANTHONY OWACHEK AGN:na CC TO: FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., P.S.: Notices and correspondence to be directed to: FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., P.O. BOX 554 Cutchogue, New York 11935 FLEET'_ ECK PROPERTY OWN SOCIATION, INC. P.l~-f3 ' 54 CUTCHOGUE, N Y , 11935 R July 1, 1993 MR. JOHN BREDEMEYER, III D lS R President LS D BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Town of Southold - ` S Town Hall 53095 ai Southold, nNewaYork 11971 TOWN OF SOUTHOLO Re: In the matter of GUS WADE and his Draft Environmental Im- pact Statement Dear Mr. President and members of the Board: This will confirm my attendance in my Official capacity of the above captioned membership corporation at the hearing in the above referenced matter on June 24, 1993 placing on record the definitive and unequivocal opposition to the proposal. Addi- tionally this will serve as confirmation of a large multitude of the association's memberhsip coupled with the oral recor- ded opposition of several of those in attendance. A review of the complete record comprising the numerous appli- cations and requests of Mr. Wade to your Board for the same re- lief with similar, akin or somewhat modified proposals, have not only been expressly denied but the denials were judicially upheld. As a bona fide not-for-profit organization which owns the beach facility that would be adversely affected by the grant of any such proposal coupled with the resulting adverse effect on the individual and property rights of its composite members and neighbors, it has been and shall continue to be an interested party and entity in all such proceedings as it had been since the inception of Mr. Wade's applications, ever committed to not only preserve and protect the environment in all its as- pects but to promote and enhance its quality, with committed intent and action resisting and restraining any effort by any individual, party or entity that would in the slightest adverse- ly effect the cherished environment. Trusting your due deliberation and consideration in the matter will result in an unequivocal denial and rejection of the pro- posal, with finding that same would in its totallity adversely impact the environment, I extend the thanks and appreciation of the membership, its neighbors and supporters. truly rs, CC TO: Ms. Jill Doherty,Clerk ARN:A~R_DKDEMPSEY of Board of Town Trustees File President o p 7 y 1, 1993 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11935 Dear Sirs: In reference to the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement prepared for Gustave Wade, Re: House on East Road. It truly would not be an asset to the Community of Fleet's Neck to build a house on .0347 acre with a propane- gas generated electricity, and no way for proper water to the purposed building(House). If a storm such as we have been having comes the first building on this point would be in the water in our creek. Is the Town of Southold taxes going to pay for this when it occurs? I'am sure they will not. The generated gas pump would echo up the whole creek and be a distrubance to all. We as residents of Cutchogue for 33 yrs are deeply concerned and disapprove of ---Gustave Wade Property Impact Bldg, etc.. Sincerely, Anthony T.Zarzecki Juneann Zarzecki i l~ - ~ TL , • AEG( r, f'.f13v1 / 1- Igo V1as~ 0- ( l5 V 1 Gui ~y~ ray ti,~s +1 77y-5 3g I Sure a Iq - TOWN OF S0 HOLD, Dean J~f to Id a /3 9d Tic c eeA TOUJt) CO-Znu l rv eyn l~ 5 c601( stn (a7~1r c u" sn V('il Ye e(,-,T ~~GL1 dot LZ Aj~ bT. tj: _ S/» c( l I fo7 - /lQ f[ f fD S t ~/Ca2 C ~n Cu ~z~ ~L<-2 , ova h~~~ti. tti+ u/a ems, Ct~ , 6~ ~ac% 71LZ.n i~ w~cz cz au rcip U id.~, cts cl, seu-I~T 6p) ,C. VY.C~%t ~ b7i - fhch CI~.Qe F`t~ . ~ ~G f / .s V?rLbc c I ~uh~ ¢ t is < r (t: ce 9~ 6e a cG, L~ fah x~ lien JZ 020-4 f'cv IS a,.l i ce-lI GCn d q1n~~ ~~~~1 G~ L~~ GLo3 e v~ -Ilv 6UCC~4 1 f U cc. -(72df ~/l~t~aep fY-A 77ti2 "t"1 c~0 G!1 r~ ~S-f~'777YI/J Y"L/I W ~e l man l l,co l Gl/1 04 IXCZ 7'11--e L/t ec !G ~/~Q G~ G~~ E~ vGGD--~ GC~~U lt~ LA J S eLuay U-~ , ~h J wac -f'L~r Steer 0 l _ sr. G~ L]/) _ On dew I I VD'r I~ A-(r W o JLe L/-t d tug w~ e Cl m; c z - - G?- r,{ LttA-) Q -fS In 11- S S i h ~4 o f (h Clu - i d i Su2W ((,d-) ca2Q vnu~f e c~l~ j~ An ~A,n Pik de,-T~'b Ie L4 , ~v~ eo o t C ~ii t r~irc F~~ or S~uu dos ar G1e~;naV I S rw wtt j 44b 7` Ciu o kszco l c.4 -4,j #00 C lLkl -ko i ld 0=' alp zr'k5 h", -fo _ rn`tn, L.VI'I se Icn N11ty ~2LeO GT<1 L(c~+tie. UC n~ ti~ h O~i1~ O'n el k~'Ck 4 tl lt-C fk, U C.1:/„t3., ' (4 r hcrv2w A f -h-y cfi nq --Db / Cf 75 fi 6v~ r C~ _ U f w, C C _ L,.1-s v + hP~ n _ h R eta Li6Lc3 ,1 ~Q C Lw a Gz of li o. re iil-'O', a~Q t,- 40 /n- Sa _l~f _ -1 s Goa A p - W bw'-t~ u./J-e 'y~`~ Y-~~Z,v.L9v J. ~ ? - 6> Cd ~cce -~,r L-O-~ SGs-C-A- f O to an i _ C c f7, ut / ~cu~1 4~T CT on c,( TeJP CuLe- \Cd L2 n ~ 0 h "LkA C o f /n ~ u/ 4N-an C" C( w L l Zt1~ t-VOA + Me,,r b 7~Qx2 ,nmcf - lkol -fo D yY C,,J~(-( 0'-J( d7b g /jl Q c 6, 1 fKOn~ et L c{Iv, ~cw~ -atom- LA, , ) (c) am 1 ViS1 4k,-Q_ qo ~k-fJ, o Sh.,, 7 t/I Y I G f/ J p o --L, _ 01~~ J? Y1~Gfny no- ~~~~~5 /h -~,J emu() w+~~ Yti s oV, s G, ~e 5 a o~ , c , IL" , ~Q L~ rte' l 14 f c,4 /2A,- -e c r - _ Siti c.e.~e-C7 _ q f'~ Sou NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 Sou hold Town Board of Trustees June 24, 1993 Soy~ hold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Application for Wetlands Permit Wade Property, 1000 East Rd., Cutchogue Dear Members of the Board of Trustees, The North Fork Environmental Council would like to state its opposition to the granting of a wetlands permit to construct a residence and retaining walls at this site. This application, as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS), demonstrates the lengths to which an individual property owner will go in an effort to build on property which is environmentally unsuited for development. Due to the Trustees' well-founded refusal to allow road access across its property, the proposal calls for water-access only. While to be applauded for ingenuity, this concept is both unworkable and unenforceable. It is only a matter of time before 4-wheel drive vehicles are surreptitiously used to gain access to this property. In addition, emergency vehicles, permitted by law to cross any property, would not ever need to traverse this area of wetlands if it were not for this proposed residence. The potential for flooding and erosion is addressed by the proposed retaining walls; one of 70 feet, the other 150 feet. While these walls may resolve the immediate problem of the house being washed away, the ultimate hydro-geologic impact of such walls remains unknown. We do know that man-made barriers in tidal waters can create costly problems. Once the town has authorized habitation and water access on this property, it will be legally obligated to bear the costs to maintain that access in the future. The impact on the surrounding community of this proposal cannot be taken lightly. Fleet's Neck homeowners were bequeathed a beach which is currently surrounded by open space and beautiful vistas. The property values of the area reflect this condition. The issue is not simply one of aesthetic appeal; this proposal will degrade the value of surrounding homes, thereby having a negative economic impact on the community. a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper 4f The DEIS states that no group or agency has been willing to purchase this property for open space. In fact, the owner has been offered a land transfer by the Trustees, and Southold Town has gone so far as to have the property appraised for the purpose of acquisition. These avenues should be pursued further. It should be noted that the Town assessed the property at $50,000 without a building permit, and $175,000 with a permit. This application should not be approved if the result is simply to cost Town taxpayers a higher amount for the purchase or trade of this parcel. Nothing can alter the fact that this is a proposal to build a house less than 40 feet from the high water mark, virtually in the middle of wetlands, and lying within the 100 year flood plain. Regardless of high-tech disposal systems, propane generators, and reverse-osmosis wells, these circumstances cannot be mitigated. Yes, in Southold Town we do have other houses built too close to wetlands, in environmentally sensitive areas. Let's learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. We respectfully request that you deny this application. Thank you. Sincerely, Lind/ V. Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental Council • i C C ~ s Leo - - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD moor i C QQ2 ,2 Je- dIr ly~ axCL) la2 ~tZl ?VA &A~l TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CZ1 bit 1 Lim p ff~ffOdff D JUL 1 5 I9M MORTON COGEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1395 Fleetwood Road Cutchogue, New York July, 11, 1993 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Dear Board of Trustees: I recently bought a home in Cutchogue at 1395 Fleetwood Road. The key factors that led to our purchase were: a) The peace and quiet of the location b) The visual serenity of the area with homes neatly built back into the trees. c) The natural beach. I suspect that the reasons why I have quickly fallen in love with the place are common with the other residents who share this won- derful spot. The proposed Wade construction is in conflict with all of the above. Individual rights are extremely important in our society yet the proposed home to be built by Gustave Wade, I feel, tramples on the rights of the other residents for the following reasons. 1.Will Peace and Quiet be preserved? The evenings at Fleets Neck are only disturbed by natural sounds of water and wild- life. This construction will force us to listen to the incessant hum of a propane fired electric generator running constantly. 2.Will Mr. Wade play by the rules? In the past Mr. Wade has bent the rules initiating construction without proper approval. Will he really install and use his double osmosis composting toilets instead of the septic tanks? Will he only access the property by water or will he trespass daily? Logic and past behavior lead me to the conclusion that these and other explanations provided by Mr. Wade are only for the purpose of getting a building permit. Once built there will be no way to police these absurd plans and the septic tanks 6 6 will be used and the property will be accessed by trespass. 3.Will common sense be applied? The property was purchased for about $22,000. Waterfront property is just not available at that price. Ipso facto Mr. Wade always knew this was not a buildable lot. 4.Do we really need to build houses on the beach? Beach space is such a precious commodity. Already the so-called clean fill on the Wade property has changed white sand on the town beach into brown gravel. In the future will the beach area on his property be growing flowers and grass lawns with fer- tilizer run-off into the creek? The beach should be left in its natural state as much as possible. It is possible to go on and on, yet I hope that you will come to conclusion that building this house is shoving the proverbial square peg in the round hole. It is wrong for legal, aesthetic and ecological reasons. The Wade house should not be built at this location. Sincerely, Morton Coge 1395 Fleetwood Road Cutchogue, NY M. Anne Howard TOWN CF SQUTHOLD 1395 Fleetwood Road Cutchogue, New York July 14, 1993 Southold Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Trustees: My husband and I recently purchased a weekend home at 1395 Fleetwood Road. Since that time, we have become aware of Gustave J. Wade's application to build a house on the East Road beach. I am not an attorney nor an expert on the environment, so I can only comment on my observations so far as a new homeowner in the Fleet's Neck area. After purchasing our new "old" home, we began talking with area contractors about remodeling our 1937 cottage. We were told by more than one contractor that any modifications to the outside of the house, particularly any extensions on the waterside of the property, would have to be approved from an environmental standpoint. In addition, we were told by the realtor and contractors that there were restrictions on how close to the water's edge a new house could be built on the vacant lot adjacent to our property (and these lots sit some 25 feet above the water!). With this brief introduction to what seems to be close control over building and the environment, I was shocked to learn that there was the possibility of a house being built on East Road beach. It appears that many rules are on the books, but they may not always apply to everyone--or there are ways to get around them if one has enough money, time and patience. We hope that the Southold Board of Town Trustees will review this application carefully and use good judgment in evaluating the impact of this house on the surrounding wetlands, neighborhood and town. We do not believe that the East Road Beach is a place to build another house. Sincerely, -141. a,,t _ cva M. Anne Howard u 1Um~ D 0~ 11JL 1 6 1993 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / ~ ~ ~ E~uf jir•?C l LiJ ~C .i /r~=' /'G1n: Ei f ~lf/~/~ C _ ~ CLri.t~ ,~ztrl{ZErc- <~L~~a-Lti-~<, rc. t,L-i :Lw c~ rcv: ~7~ ,.yGdt{;C. ~r A-..t_ i Ice L7L-r'LS<~-'YSi.'r-~/->ti.G.-,.l^/~e~'r..G-Ci.-.'tLz-r:.. /''LOM:C/~Gs`7'N,.FR~/Jn'a.E..T ' /J-4- fht~~ i ~(1y J~+tp-~L4>~,I.,`,~.~~G~ .~~=ov c-. /~f4.dtiGl .K-O% ~-<zsPw+''~. c7...~ .cMM-«~, -yN~ ..1 ~.~.•.Tie-~ ~T' `.e"<f I ,,L..:~.:vC.-,--e•~~LC :-~J ~.L.-`,_.C~,-,rf~'LZ„'Y =f~.~/_..I9 ~t.e+e_.i-ay2_c/ ~.att~'oc.<),<~ .~...r._,..y /y,,,ce< ./~~+Cw-~- s ~e~~t<x.<. L: .C,/.•a r~.~--.~ a-~/~~ FLOI._. /.GM~a....~K.. (J ~ ?r( : ~ ~Ktr.. I.. T-\- L*c. ~~1- y/ ~ 1.-~ ~-I.sti7 t:.<z.. !Yti~c..+ -..<-s~i =-r G+ ((NNr1/. uni•~v,.,~ ?f~.~_<i'-` / r ~ G~ a4~,~irs~r.' 'f ,L~..-~-,Y.3..L.c7 • /0),,,.<_,,,,_.F.c~o> f~ Tft, ~,.vr..<.c., o.LT _ fH `~'1{-~Cr/ .Lt l~tt'.2~ fL~-Lf.n1 t</~! C.,_.~._~;`2,./~ /~l7<-/._ ` ,_/c.~_t.:A~>v.'-..~-:.,-,~ C _ sl n v rho, [T!OWN m1 ~ i s Aso L OF SOUT14m n st•C crime' L' ~Li.c~G't~.r1-~~ a~6ti%~ < ~''?~vlKl _./c.;~LyCt ~ •-y-- ht~ Q y yu~Z v~vu-O~fY~-avV•SY~J`f`~G~G t Cw(.ti(d. ) U~r l-. ~O itiQ, 2L.ec~ , d / ~r/1.~ a wow r V ? ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -l/ IL Gv VoJC / r l 4z T/fE &-o PLC ~,~-.,tx' ,max. ~~~-g~z . TIUGNTy yf f~~S /fGo S~7'- OUT J?~ Lea L cl i9 TE JUL f,E D/ox/AE_ "e,47 TffE y/i( . j~F,~F rv ARE ~a yEr%s ,C .09 TE e H v~ ,~F-C/A!/s E Tr/E C'os~~i"~cJ/cs ~lGfi~T yB v wff A) /o v T.Q y 7-6 1 w 7 A& 7 yov ~vr~F~ yov (Tip y 7`0 u f1 v yo U TRY TG W)(17~F- Th'Zt- /`/6W r Yvv u~yE,J yov 7 R Y T~ .E,vFc Rc~ 7f'~ )6E&-or/9 Tioios 7 -'s C/31:7 7111-- X Z ~2 -42- ZIAl 7a~-o • ROfFSOUTHOLD Written Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statem for the East Creek beach owned by the developer, Gustave J. Wade, reviewable by the SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES July, 1993. SUMMARY The Board of Trustees must find that the instant application to build a house on the subject property is frivolous and undeserving of the serious consideration it has received. There is only one reasonable purpose such a comprehensive Environmental Impact review process may serve, that is to determine the underlying issue. The instant proposal will be followed by others year after year, unless there is a conclusive finding that the subject property is not, and will never be, adaptable for residential use. TRUSTEES ROLE The trustees role as reviewers of the EIS is twofold. As lead agency pursuant to New York State Environmental Conservation Law, and also as executives of the Southold Town wetlands law. The disclosure required by SEQRA includes discovery of both natural and cultural impacts and taking a hard look taken at both of them. This state law mirrors the international policy initiated with the US National Environmental Policy Act. Closer to home, Southold Town Wetlands Law reflects our national policy of "No net loss of wetlands". The property in question is in its entirety either wetland or what should be considered supporting area for the wetlands. The particular location of the subject property is unique in being perhaps the functional center of the largest, most naturally productive and also intensively developed creek system on the East End of Long Island. Wildlife, surrounding property owners, baymen, and recreational visitors all utilize this key resource. Any residence on the property would be inappropriate. The property is not adaptable for residential use and such use would have severe adverse impacts on our environment. MONEY In terms of financial impacts, Applicant's speculative venture can not be held to rise to the level of an investment backed expectation, however the surrounding property owners paid a premium for their residences in consideration of the well planned, orderly Fleet's Neck neighborhood. The cummulative adverse financial impact on the community's property values of residential development on the beach would be in the millions of dollars. The existing dock, house pilings and dispersing dirt by which the site is currently "improved" have undoubtedly already resulted in substantial economic losses to the community. The threat of a possible residence on the beach is a significant factor in the current deterioration of this still proud, but once prouder, neighborhood. THE DOCK The dock on the subject property is a nuisance. The subject property fronts on a sandbar and a narrow section of the channel therefore the riparian rights of this property should have been limited to water access via small boats from the beach. The existing dock exceeds the owner's rights to use this property. A dock is considered an accessory use under Southold Town Zoning Code. The current policy of the Trustees to uniformly permit docks as primary uses should be rectified. There are cases when an isolated dock is appropriate, for example, if an owner of undeveloped waterfront property also owns property in residential use in the same neighborhood, and a condition is attached to the permit that if in the future the two properties are sold into separate ownership the dock must be removed. It is entirely reasonable for the Trustees to determine applications for dock permits on a case by case basis. The specific reasoning in the decisions, both approving and disapproving, will form a flexible set of standards. Existing precedents may be held to have created vested rights in the owners of existing docks, but there is no legal basis to continue allowing docks without regard to the particular circumstances. THE DEIS The entire DEIS is based on a mistake, the applicant apparently believes he has a vested right to use the property for residential purposes, this is not the case. Considering the unusual variances from a standard building lot and plan, and the impacts identified in DEIS, it is clear that any residential use of this property is unacceptable and illegal. The applicant has the right to pursue an application for residential use of the subject property, and the Trustees have the right, and the duty, to deny it. The DEIS does not identify: #1. Acquisition history of the property, including prior owner's title and contract of sale. The alleged Building Permit of the prior owner (pg 4) was expired before applicant purchased the property and if his contract was conditional on a valid building permit then he must have purchased the property knowing that it was not a legal building lot. The DEIS alleges that "To forbid development without compensation is considered a taking and is therefore illegal." (pg 76) As necessary support for this claim the applicant should be required to disclose financial data such as the price he paid for, and terms of sale of the property. #2. The location of the subject parcel. Reference is made to surrounding properties (pg 39), but the Fleets Neck neighborhood is neither mapped nor accurately described. #3. The parcel was historically an "island" and it is currently accessible only by water, therefore a detailed marine chart of the entire creek system and harbor area, including the proposed access route would be appropriate. #4. It is unclear why in the DEIS the applicant states access will be exclusively by the dock which is on the north side of the property and yet the house is designed to front on East Road towards the west side of the property (pg 40). #5. Proposed access possible only at high tide; Depth of low water at dock insufficient for the boat described in the DEIS: draft 3', depth of water at dock 1.5' (Appendix W). There is no mention of dredging plans included in the DEIS. #6. Alleged precedents are not comparable (pg 41) #1 Frank Curran's house & accessory build 8.5' & 3' from bulkhead & prop line @ 780 Haywaters Rd. #2 North Dumpling Island. Both these locations are vastle different in the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the other island is out in the middle of the LI Sound rather than at the mouth of an extensive salt marsh system at the head of Cutchogue Harbor. Contrary to the assertion that approval would not induce other development (pg 78), if applicant is granted a permit to build on the subject parcel, then owners of comparable parcels will also be entitled to build. For example, the parcel on Fleetwood Road on which the neighborhood boat ramp easement is located, and another property just across the channel from that parcel, the miniature triangle of land owned by nine local property owners as tenants in common for the purpose of water access. Both these parcels share with the subject parcel the suitability for water access and not residential use. #7. Alternatives to residential use of the property. On the zoning map the parcel in question is on the fringe of the residential zone and was never intended to be included in the residential zone. Inspection at the time the applicant purchased the site revealed suitability for use only as open space. Fill and pilings illegally deposited by the applicant can not form a basis for changing legally permissible use. #8. The parcel was originally used for harvesting salt hay, why doesn't the DEIS consider potential for use as an aquaculture site? #9. Applicant states "The size of the development is as small as possible. The house will be no more than 1300 square feet in area." Thirteen- hundred square feet is significantly larger than 850 square feet, minimum building size in the adjacent residential zone (850 sqft +450 =1300). #10. The mandatory "No Action Alternative" (pg 76) does not include any description of current uses already available to property owner without further "improvement" of the property. The current use as a boat launching site is comensurate with the price applicant paid for the property. #11. The proposed electric generator (pg48) exceeds reasonable noise level in the context of a beach and would therefore be a public and private nuisance. The unhealthy noise generated would carry over water almost as far as the detrimental visual impacts of the proposed house. #12. Contrary to the implications of the DEIS, Suffolk County does not permit exclusive use of composting toilets (Appendix V). A composting toilet is permitted only as supplemental to a conventional system, and the FEIS must be judged accordingly. The DEIS is evasive on this issue. It is almost certian that; either the composting toilet would not be constructed, or it would be used for only a short time, then "retired" as too much bother. #13. The dock which now exists on the property was permitted at the generous discretion of the Southold Trustees. Since there is no other use existing on the property, the dock is now the primary use. Normally a dock is an accessory use incidental to a residence. Now the applicant proposes to build a residence, in effect as an accessory use incidental to the dock. A permit for a dock on property without a residence is not as of right. A permit for a residence on property with a dock is not as of right. There is no legal basis for the position that the use as dock site is insufficient or that there is a constitutional right to additional usage. # 14. The DEIS is inconsistent in that it states (pg 39) "The applicant has no intention of using any adjacent lands for any purposes." then (pg 46) "Immediately adjacent to the subject parcel is property owned by the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association. This is a private beach for use by the residents of Fleet's Neck. As property owners, Mr. Wade and his family may use this beach for recreational purposes." The applicant is not eligible for membership in the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Assocciation. #15. Despite the unobstructed solar resource available on site, neither solar water heating, solar space heating, nor photovoltaic electricity is considered. This point is not a suggestion to mitigate the unmitigatable impacts of residential use on the subject property, but as an indication that the allegedly environmentally sensitive plan, is merely a scheme for personal enrichment of the applicant. #16. The public use and enjoyment of the beach would be severely diminished by construction of a residence. Currently the beach is visited by fishermen and nature lovers from all over Southold. The open character of the area is significant to wildlife and also to people, materially and symbolically. The economic and cultural impact of construction would be destructive of the public welfare. CONCLUSION The DEIS is not the proper forum for a debate over the legal rights of the property owner vs the state, this issue is left to the courts for decision. Since it is apparent that the applicant intends to claim he has rights to do whatever he wants and that the state has zero authority to stop him, therefore it is appropriate to think ahead. of 4C The constitutional laws against "taking" of private property for public use without "just compensation" do not protect an owner's right to develop property. What is protected is an owner's exclusive right to use property "as is", developed or undeveloped. Therefore moratoriums can temporarily stop all development while changes in legal regulations are being considered and "non-conforming uses" are permitted to continue as long as they are not interrupted. The unanimous opposition to development of the subject property is not interested in taking property away from the applicant, applicant's plans to develop his property from a $20,000.00 plot of open space into a $300,000.00 residence would be destructive of public health, safety, and enjoyable community and environment, and the rights of the public, would constitute a taking of surrounding private property owners rights to protect the existing character, use, and economic value of their properties. If you have any question about the above please call me. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely yours, Benjamin J. Schwartz, Esq. East and Fleetwood Roads Cutchogue, NY 11935 [734-5093 o-727-1665] C"4 Pv- U I o Alva LL I ~l~ Qw p1n'w" > TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ly a"l,.i ~ v6 1 ,A„l loY S~r», D ~@ A TOWN OF SOUTH HOLD Marjorie & Roy Allen Box 1189 295 Track Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Southold Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Roar Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: G. J. Wade's application to build on the mast Road Beach. It certainly appears that the Wade situation is an example of a shrewd person, not without in- fluence, who, from the beginning, was confident he could circumvent laws and restrictions for his economic advantage. We would greatly appreciate your strong reject- ion of his effort. Very truly yours, Z9 7/15,93 19 am O IT WN OF SOUTHOLD ~s- . ~~L~~~~•/-,ICY /'ll oe_ AWL 77 1-2 Aig Y3 Q 9S- - TOWN OF SOU OLD -koll . i i Ate- ell d e }c aezez le' f;l G~ Gv C~he1L~. ~G2/ . t 7/, a ib tPw . y 4kv~ a,,,,) • Mary Anne Huntington 3175 West Creek Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 d 19 yi July 17, 1993 T - , Board of Trustees Town of Southold ,JUL 19 10 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 u Re: Gustave Wade Property Gentlemen: Since 1966, the residents of Fleet's Neck have been shouting "FOULI" to the use of the wetlands at the end of East Road as a building site. Time and again, we have shown proof that this parcel of land, gained legally or illegally was not suitable for development, no more than any other intertidal marsh site where spartina asternflora and spartina patens grow. The attached second generation photocopy of photographs taken in 1941 (photographed by Paul Stoutenburgh, Sr.) shows this parcel of land clearly defined as intertidal marsh proliferated with spartina altern flora. I am sure that a core sample would prove that this was intertidal marsh before human hand altered it. It also clearly shows the water way before it was filled in by Leander Glover in 1966. I have possession of the first generation photocopy which is infinitely clearer if you wish to see it, but the actually photos are missing. Compare these photos with the photos submitted at the Wade hearing, and you will see how, over protestations of residents, that the land mass changed to its present incarnation. 1, as well as my neighbors, would like to see this parcel, not only not built upon, but restored to its original state. I believe that the Board of Trustees has the spirit of the law and the law itself in their possession to see this reach fruition. Cordially, Mary ne Huntington r e Y x y -Fk 4 v a" 4 Y fi PROW ti4S ~ M.i\",'4~ ~Y'~a1 .1 9j ~tr~•.'...v.. %~a., ,'1 °i.~. 1 ~ •w...w. :h rte..! .~.Y. bJ.~":.v .A4:; . ` FLEET' ECK PROPERTY OWN SOCIATION, INC. P. 54 CUTCHOGUE, N V, 11935 July 19, 1993 D 0 D Board of Trustees Town of Southold JUL 19 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 TOWN OF S TRUC - I~ Re: Cutchogue Harbor Marina 9 Gentlemen: 7 ~3c b Z(~ < Fleet's Neck in the hamlet of Cutchogue is an old and well-established residentia area. The Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association, currently with 115 member- families, was formed, in 1958, "...to promote the welfare of property owners and the development and protection of their real and marine privileges and equities." Residents have co-existed peacefully with marina operations for decades, since their modest designs and operations had been kept within the character of the community, environment and Marine I zoning codes. In 1991 the current owners of the Cutchogue Harbor Marina began making questionable renovations. The following are issues we would again like to place on record pertinent to the activities of the Cutchogue Harbor Marina. 1. No site plan in place prior to issuance of building permits. 2. No SEQR statement requested although marina is clearly in a critical environmental area. 3. Building permit was granted for an "in-kind" renovation of restrooms. Converting the existing restrooms and marine repair shop to restrooms-- triple is size and content, adding laundry facilities and water/ electrical utility room does not constitute an "in-kind" renovation. 4. Restroom renovations performed by Board of Trustees member, Henry Smith. 5. Two cesspool rings were installed within 30 feet of bulkheading without permit or inspection. Violation issued September 18, 1992 still not resolved. 6. No pump-out facility or holding tanks exist. 7. No fresh water well exists on marina property. All water comes from a well in a private residence on West Creek Avenue. Automated underground lawn sprinkler system added. 8. Excessive and intrusive overhead lighting, stanchions and fixtures. Compliance to the findings of Building Department has been ignored. 9. Excessive noise from restroom ventilation system. 10. Discrepancies noted in recently submitted CMH site plan and the existing survey on file with Board of Trustees. The site plan submitted is technically not a site plan reflecting building use or physical features and amenities, but a survey and landscaping plan. 11. Question of Southold Building Department, Board of Trustees or NYS DEC permit(s) to expand the boat ramp. (No permit was posted.) continued • • r Board of Trustees page 2 of 2 July 19, 1993 12. The advertising and encouragement for transient trade and long-term boat "residences." Most motor yachts never leave their slips. 13. The establishment of a "convenience" store selling food stuffs, etc. without Department of Health approval and in violation of Marine I zoning code. 14. In addition to the allowable single residence (utilized by the manna manager), another building is used as a part-time residence and "clubhouse" e 4 jYfor marina principles and guests. 9-Marinas being typically wet businesses, residents are concerned that the excessive use of potable water for boat washing, restrooms, laundry, landscaping maintenance, manna residences and businesses will place an undo demand on our historically precarious residential water supply. Since July of 1991, the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association has sought resolution on these issues through the manna management and the various Southold Township, Suffolk County and New York State agencies. With the passage of time, it is more difficult to discern what is and what was, as the marina continues renovation, and operation without review and benefit of governmental approval and checks in place. Another boating season has begun, and it is business as usual with no attempts by the marina management to assuage resident complaints or meet the requirements set forth by zoning, building, environmental and health codes. Sincerely, 4eMa Huntington, esident Fleet s Neck Property Owners Association cc: Stephen Pinzino, Esq. FLEET' ECK PROPERTY OWN_ , SOCIATION , INC. P: 54 [ Q July CUTCHOGUE, N Y 91103 19, 1993 Ul 19 i593 D Board of Trustees j Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold, NY 11971 Re: Cutchogue Harbor Marina Gentlemen: It is our worst fear realized. The well at 1200 West Road (Ruth Moore) is dry. At a new site and at 40 feet they have still not found potable water. Other well disturbances have been reported in the area, including the replacement of one well, pumping problems and an excess of rust and minerals. We have drought conditions, but yet at Cutchogue Harbor Marina underground sprinkling systems go on several times a day and night; restroom and laundry facilities in use for transient and long-term boat residences; extensive boat washing; and not one, but two residences are currently occupied. There is no tangible proof that these problems are caused by the marina, but the circumstances are coincidental with the expansion of marina services and residential well problems that were witnessed last summer and exacerbated this summer. The resident at 1200 West Road has lived there for 20 years. She is a law-biding, tax- paying resident who is devastated, physically, emotionally and financially, by this condition. Her yard is ripped up, and at several levels there was unpotable, salt- water intruded water, with little hope remaining of finding potable water, or at best, at considerable expense to locate another well elsewhere on her property. The time has come for the Town of Southold to stop the paper- and foot-shuffling regarding the Cutchogue Harbor Marina. As we have indicated over the past three years, the marina has violated environmental, zoning, building and health codes, and it is business as usual for the marina while the residents, in proximity especially, are bearing the brunt of the marina's disregard for the law and the environment. Your timely response is necessary before other negative circumstances surface. Sincerely, Mary nne Huntington, President Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association cc: Scott Harris, Supervisor I•'. !-J VV 1V VY JJl,I X1-1 ~+'s {.J iv.~{, v\. f U. 14.475 5 F. pF 9 Fo0' ^ OF B /4~, 3 FL AREA sV7S S. r. /~!h O`~it - ~•c=- ~^ytl 14 CQ ~2C-O _?OAP24l_,}993 ,.\~11-w 1. ;r. IAN LS -s 10 FfE _'r.0U5L'I'1~:05F ~ / ~ II? - 5. :-,8 i_ ~s- ~ ~Qt~. y r 41 E3• _ pr_. .,c v.' v ! ,-:!`i• •N'_G, y \N l.LL 1f.~ C. 1-- _ 1 Sy' fLM 18'3 Ifv~.L.(.~ t-~ I ' III , E 0.1 t~,. J~/;lti' ~~-~fir. ~ _.+'ta'_, r~l lb-r 7"it 1!t OEr7> : ~A'•) Il•- . ~_J S1 i' 1 ,-'t •'r' ~ ~.Y ~ i if , ,,l i ~ l" ' _ ° ` - J . a •`f . t•l'`' 6+~~ SCALE 20°1 .'~1 J ! 2.0,6 CCA JE sSr.r .,E N~ ' ~L WRH 9". o4C-'A?Hlfy'-- `w.A' O° Mur~ ~l` I . .'1 A _ FY-i r v 6 LCA 5T4'iNf~F~? 1 3~9 vAIVANIZL-O V 7iE 2005 90 O.!. P7 •;o p p CMGry, A i . ,V^.TE wA.LE2 CPoCL _E h E Zo ~torr~l Wit.; ! T1 rti t~A~ 00 5/"g" F3OLT 6 F_LLC eR } ' ti s~ ~ ::.tom TIE> 2D(14') - MAP Ai'-lc k L' a` L AMENtJEC- C B~~fEAD N'A.N ...°_IJF t.. TLJ..c~ n. 1991 A~iZB 1~Ji Al {~clr =',I 11,6 nIALER O •t)1:% y ti , ! is o~ i ii 5~fA7NIY~G~L~)?v;..i Lb L5 WE D t. I1 S~~ LAND `'JQ' ~ JU - 1 4 %M _ - b 96 survey Is a viotalion of secon Tas d do Now York MM I mAp t '_P_f,2o%-r2-r1r E&MOGM LM a roncifteurve ymp nelWeM on MW WN'"oft W ~SUiZ'J YED Ff3f2 ¢ embawdwligetealbo Wdred t bW.rYClNeeopY Cr+- 6-~ f(` J L~ Kl ` mpww a~M1 r L.L f 1. IS ween.WWraae / - - one Wiwwnil0:d . 1 - mbwlpinses of the _ - , . are ots "meseq ?A~•(z~i I r -H"IGP •rL TWIN Of 50U rHO a IN. Y - - tea y Tv 'AL AQeN T4-O. H. W M 14.475 S F Ham, f t9 L~An B tK r PQOPDgE0_R Att3teG Q t~i " J d --._.T pQf UPLA O = 9,900 S.F. fop pF 110 Z eg c EAr ~ : x900 ,S or, - _ ' UNDIST:.SZ•GSYV 3JJC `a. l`. _ _ - - 'S ~VQ-Bt } . i 1 WET•LP.Is:vS `4r4'T5_.r. `L Z. r~7 X o? TOTAL UNDISTURBEL AREA / ~r tv2eF~ 32'. AQSAro qE t v of ~+yq3 Up[ANC } WErLP;,1DS : 7!-75 S r, c~A¢EO iPa1 .1 s, ~ k` o OIL- i - ~5 . y ~,B -s " _ ~4~p [MP'JiCUS 5:1?xFAfE Z!3x _ 1: *JELL PTA a s i (7FLtC5+8805_F c3 _ _ ~ _ - _ •~t 1 PGdL- Q. G. 5Y9T~1y- - i~ C' 1 y, J.^ f \ _ , l ~ .may p ~ {NFL ~C.r ~ ~ `•,.J ~ 1 t? t 4 1r ~ Alm [a SCALE-20=1" v1/. ( ' " 2'•6.6 GCA :p,ry)E R 9~IFd'1VIeJ5 WO Qs+-'~+^~V Gr 7y WITH 1"r6 GG SRtNGQtt 3k Off. re MODS 7'0 O.C. M a oe%VK4t4 ~a A g W i'U •j ' L : ScW~ iPIGt _c3`r } 6<6` WALE2 / C POCL ?2!E ANCE L54, 6C'J7tt_01 ; ~ tN~TH S'^E) r ~ TJtn(N T2V51"E~5 P~ . i f VALL 00 5j8 9fJLT ~`6 FL LLC7?NEt2 C .~i~ ~4j 1 f 1l p Y 49 ~a ~-i TIE 200 `/t - I SAP AMtN JEu' A~IAQ.IU t{~~ / 1 ' r 5.7~ ~J .+-j.4 oil CH ~ . ~uG _ - g°y~ oe~cMAr.t rA A°Q_ 19,1% 1 APQ 2, ;IMAY 4S ;49C .Sri "Z PILE X6'16 4ALER of. Nf, .-1fi it s ti. q~ Y>"''4 ,,"'Ll'{t - t i G::FATNIiiG(W'rui.. * Or of I X LAND Lc4 ' A1+G J;Ali- -a re~~~ I D~7'J! MLAt4 C-UA /V L/ V pOFF04 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS OGy SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman y Z Serge Doyen, Jr. p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. 'f' pt P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold Mr. Roy Haje, En-Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS of 11/2/92 APPLICANT: Gustave Wade SITE: Property near the End of East Road at Fleet's Neck Cutchogue, Town of Southold Based upon review, it is the opinion of the Board of Appeals that the document as submitted November 2, 1992, is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review. Included herein are specific comments pertaining to the document which outline deficiencies which are in need of additional discussion, clarification, documentation, and/or answers prior to circulation to outside governmental agencies and public comment. I. SUMMARY The summary should, of course, be amended to reflect changes in the text based upon the following: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Commencing at Page 4 - Background and History a) With regard to permits, permit and permit renewals were not attached. Expiration dates for each agency permit were not furnished. Building permits are renewable for dwellings under construction only; therefore, the building permits referenced could not be renewed and apparently had expired some time ago. Separate permit applications and reviews are subsequently required. b) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental permits were not listed of record prior to 1982. No mention is made of effect of building construction without N.Y.S. D.E.C. permits. 'Page' •2 - November ~ 1992 • Re: Review of Pro ed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck c) Background and history as well as the physical conditions of the site and the surrounding lands at the time of zoning (1957) and at the time of purchase, to the present time period, need to be addressed. d) Physical changes to the site and surrounding area during all specific time periods were not adequately described in detail, i.e. destruction and types of wetlands being replaced with the stone blend, gravel, and other materials onto the wetland area between East Road and the "island," and onto the island upland areas, etc. e) Reference is made to the claim that the island is no longer considered an island. This is questionable since the owner (Town) of the lands did not authorize the wetlands to be filled in and did not authorize the island to become a part of the mainland. Document should confirm ownership between the "island" and East Road to be other than the applicant's. Reference was made that this island is no longer being considered an island. Clarification of this statement is needed, substantiated by documentation as to how this was arrived at, which shall include the Town's anticipated re-opening of the channel at the end of East Road. Pages 6-8 Reference was made to certain "accusations in a court injunction" concerning a Town building permit in 1984 - 1985. Copies of all Court Determinations should be attached, and reference should be corrected to show that Court determined building permit was ineffective and construction could not begin. It should also be noted that a building permit could not again be issued unless all other agency permits were obtained and in full force and effect, as well as obtaining recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles to the island as provided under New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Status of all agency permits, including those now expired and not issued, must be listed. Copies of currently valid permits (if any) should be attached in Appendix. This document must confirm that there are currently no valid permits from any governmental agency concerning the construction of a dwelling, particularly since references mentioned are misleading. Commencing at Page 15 Effects by adverse changes in weather conditions, flood high tides, moon tides during storms, removal of unauthorized fill between island and East Road have not been addressed. • 'Pag6 '3 - November 1992 • Re: Review of Pro ed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Page 16 How will owner, service companies, etc. gain access to house during freezing of creek and bay areas around island? Will neighboring property be utilized? Page 17 To what depths and what methods are being used to clear 6900 sq. ft. of land as proposed (see December 15, 1988 survey)? Why is 6900 sq. ft. of land area needed to be cleared, rather than substantially lesser areas if the house is 1260 sq. ft. in floor area? Mitigation measures to reduce area of disturbance have not been addressed adequately. Page 19 Propane delivery is not adequately addressed - applicant may not pipe underground on lands other than his own without express written permission from the property owner. The distance at its closest point from the island to East Road is 85 feet, or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Propane lines and servicing is therefore not feasible. Page 20 What alternative areas of sanitary system have had dye studies, and documents substantiating all studies of this island should be attached. Page 22 Contract between property owner and Cutchogue Harbor Marina for access is not attached for consideration. Also, information has not been submitted to show how, where and what time periods and seasons, contractors, back-hoe operators, and other building machinery or delivery trucks will be able to gain access by water. Will heavy equipment operators be using boat or barge access from and to the westerly section of East Creek, or other sections? Page 50 Noise levels of generator(s) with high and low time periods were not submitted. Effects of shutting down of generators has not been documented. Pagd'4 - November 1992 • Re: Review of Pro ed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Commencing at Page 52 - System Impacts Recharge figures may not be calculated on current standard requirements for reverse osmosis system should be re-confirmed with Health Department. Page 54 Need to address effects caused by nitrates into salt water at different tide levels - particularly storm tides, etc. Page 56 No currently valid Health Department permits or substantiated dye studies were documented for alternative sanitary system locations. Also need to furnish report on dye study when tide level is more than median. Page 68 Reference is made that since the "lot" is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered by the applicant's consultant to be a buildable lot. A lot is not a buildable lot until all valid approvals and permits are obtained, and proof has been submitted as to its single-and-separate ownership as required by the Zoning Code, and compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. The lot cannot be guaranteed a buildable lot by merely complying with one or two provisions of law. It should be confirmed that at the present time, no permits are currently in effect from all town, state, and county agencies that would render the lot a buildable lot for purposes of a residence. It should be confirmed that the use of this island, or "lot", is presently for boating and docking enjoyment, which has permit approval, for the property owner and his guests. Page 74 It is noted that "...6400 sq. ft. will be cleared for house and septic system construction...5140 sq. ft. will be revegetated...." 6400 less 5140 sq. ft. leaves 1260 sq. ft. The planting schedule submitted as Appendix P shows a gravel area and deck areas around the dwelling which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. These figures do not agree. The 1988 survey map shows that the house would be 1300 sq. ft. although other references are for a 1260 sq. ft. house. What is the square footage of gravel areas, patio areas, and deck areas in addition to the square footage of living area? P.age'5 - November 1992 Re: Review of Pro ed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck OTHER Reference must be made to this property as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, also known as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of the Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland area within 500 feet of all bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29 Year 1988, Suffolk County and was enacted by the County Legislature. Reference should also be made to all areas under which variances are being requested, which should include: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees at less than 75 feet from the high water mark, from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles, and the Suffolk County Health Department. In the event of new bulkheading with proper permits, other variances may be necessary (i.e. zoning code, Section 100-239.4B which requires a minimum setback at 75 feet from bulkheads or retaining walls). SURVEY - An up-to-date survey, with on-site surveying inspections, is requested in light of the hurricane damage and storm damages in the Town of Southold within the last two years. The survey map is shown that the property was lastly re-surveyed in December 1988, prior to the hurricane-storms. ACCESS - Additional information is required for decision-making to include: delineation of the points of access; water routes for access; the distances by water; ingress and egress of emergency vehicles; the time periods for fire and emergency vehicle response; the depth of water and dock suitability for sole access. These areas were not addressed as requested. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for acceptance by the Town (Town Trustees as lead agency). Based upon this review, the DEIS has not been accepted. Review of revisions by the applicant would be expedited in order to commence the public comment process for this project. Dated: November 27, 1992 BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard E Goehringer, Chairman v w f x Serge Doyen, Jr., `p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold FROM: Board of Appeals DATE: July 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS, as amended May 5, 1993 Property of Gustave Wade at Cutchogue On June 11, 1993, a copy of the DEIS prepared by En-Consultants was received by the Board of Appeals for review and comments which will be accepted up until July 19, 1993. We offer the following comments and requests, which include some references also previously noted in our November 27, 1992 report (copy attached for your convenience and use). 1. The status of the applications pending before all agencies should be reported. Also, a request is made to correct this for the record, and the fact that no building permit may be issued until all agency approvals have been obtained including approval which is necessary by this Board under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for safe and adequate access by fire and emergency vehicles. 2. Effects by changes in weather conditions at flood high tides and moon high/low tides, storm tides, and the requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road will need to be addressed. 3. The preparer has not confirmed alternatives for service companies and fire departments to gain access to the proposed house during freezing of the creek and bay areas immediately surrounding this land. There is mention of a one-year lease with Cutchogue Harbor Marina which may be terminated at any time. This lease is noted to be non-assignable and is strictly for the owner's boat. Will covenants for such access to the applicant's property be furnished for perpetual use, and how does the property owner plan to transport equipment, delivery items and vehicles to the property for emergency services, construction purposes, and otherwise. 1 of 2 Page 2 - July 13, 03 • To: Town Trustees, Lead Agency Re: Review of DEIS - Gustave Wade Property 4. The record needs to be corrected to show a distance from the applicant's land to East Road at 85 feet or more (not 65 feet as suggested). 5. Noise impacts need to be addressed. This is necessary at least concerning noise levels and disturbances made in the use of generators and pumping stations at the site utilized for propane, electricity, water, and other purposes. Confirmation as to the number and location of the pumps and their generators are requested in addition to information concerning noise impacts. 6. Minimal reference is made for possible access for backhoes and other equipment by barge. The points of location and proof of such authorization from property owners has not been provided and is necessary in order to access from upland areas for not only backhoes but also for maintenance and cleaning of cesspools, heating, etc. 7. other concerns with reference to statements made by the prepare, Dennis Corcoran, and others concerning proposals for fire safety, as well as questions about sufficient and safe access by emergency or fire vehicles will, of course, be continued at a public hearing before the Board of Appeals as required by Town Law, Section 280-A, and further considerations are mandated which are not a part of the SEQRA process. Further, an accurate map showing water routes for access by vehicles and for equipment will need to be submitted and considered. Questions are outstanding by this agency concerning time periods for fire and emergency responses for water emergencies, the depth of water and dock suitability at low tides during transports, etc. 8. As noted in our written comments of November 27, 1992 on the prior DEIS submission, this property is located in.a "Critial Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, and also referred to as "Peconic Bav and Environs " This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland areas within 500 feet of the bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29-Year 1988, Suffolk County, and was enacted by the County Legislature. It is requested that all Notices of filing and procedural requirements be amended as a Type I Action. 9. Page 17 makes reference to a new, updated survey dated April 17, 1993 which has not been made a part of this DEIS. An original print is requested for coordination and use to all involved agencies. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject DEIS for final acceptance by the Town. 2 of 2 1' 1' `^U~FO( APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS on SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman r r"n F , y Serge Doyen, Jr. p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 ~ , New York 11971 Y GG Robert A. Villa Southold Richard C. Wilton 4 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold Mr. Roy Haje, En-Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS of 11/2/92 APPLICANT: Gustave Wade SITE: Property near the End of East Road at Fleet's Neck Cutchogue, Town of Southold Based upon review, it is the opinion of the Board of Appeals that the document as submitted November 2, 1992, is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review. Included herein are specific comments pertaining to the document which outline deficiencies which are in need of additional discussion, clarification, documentation, and/or answers prior to circulation to outside governmental agencies and public comment. I. SUMMARY The summary should, of course, be amended to reflect changes in the text based upon the following: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Commencing at Page 4 - Background and History a) With regard to permits, permit and permit renewals were not attached. Expiration dates for each agency permit were not furnished. Building permits are renewable for dwellings under construction only; therefore, the building permits referenced could not be renewed and apparently had expired some time ago. Separate permit applications and reviews are subsequently required. b) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental permits were not listed of record prior to 1982. No mention is made of effect of building construction without N.Y.S. D.E.C. permits. Page'2 - November a 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck c) Background and history as well as the physical conditions of the site and the surrounding lands at the time of zoning (1957) and at the time of purchase, to the present time period, need to be addressed. d) Physical changes to the site and surrounding area during all specific time periods were not adequately described in detail, i.e. destruction and types of wetlands being replaced with the stone blend, gravel, and other materials onto the wetland area between East Road and the "island," and onto the island upland areas, etc. e) Reference is made to the claim that the island is no longer considered an island. This is questionable since the owner (Town) of the lands did not authorize the wetlands to be filled in and did not authorize the island to become a part of the mainland. Document should confirm ownership between the "island" and East Road to be other than the applicant's. Reference was made that this island is no longer being considered an island. Clarification of this statement is needed, substantiated by documentation as to how this was arrived at, which shall include the Town's anticipated re-opening of the channel at the end of East Road. Pages 6-8 Reference was made to certain "accusations in a court injunction" concerning a Town building permit in 1984 - 1985. Copies of all Court Determinations should be attached, and reference should be corrected to show that Court determined building permit was ineffective and construction could not begin. It should also be noted that a building permit could not again be issued unless all other agency permits were obtained and in full force and effect, as well as obtaining recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles to the island as provided under New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Status of all agency permits, including those now expired and not issued, must be listed. Copies of currently valid permits (if any) should be attached in Appendix. This document must confirm that there are currently no valid permits from any governmental agency concerning the construction of a dwelling, particularly since references mentioned are misleading. Commencing at Page 15 Effects by adverse changes in weather conditions, flood high tides, moon tides during storms, removal of unauthorized fill between island and East Road have not been addressed. Page 3 - November 2~ 1992 . Re: Review of Propo ed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Page 16 How will owner, service companies, etc. gain access to house during freezing of creek and bay areas around island? Will neighboring property be utilized? Page 17 To what depths and what methods are being used to clear 6900 sq. ft. of land as proposed (see December 15, 1988 survey)? Why is 6900 sq. ft. of land area needed to be cleared, rather than substantially lesser areas if the house is 1260 sq. ft. in floor area? Mitigation measures to reduce area of disturbance have not been addressed adequately. Page 19 Propane delivery is not adequately addressed - applicant may not pipe underground on lands other than his own without express written permission from the property owner. The distance at its closest point from the island to East Road is 85 feet, or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Propane lines and servicing is therefore not feasible. Page 20 What alternative areas of sanitary system have had dye studies, and documents substantiating all studies of this island should be attached. Page 22 Contract between property owner and Cutchogue Harbor Marina for access is not attached for consideration. Also, information has not been submitted to show how, where and what time periods and seasons, contractors, back-hoe operators, and other building machinery or delivery trucks will be able to gain access by water. Will heavy equipment operators be using boat or barge access from and to the westerly section of East Creek, or other sections? Page 50 Noise levels of generator(s) with high and low time periods were not submitted. Effects of shutting down of generators has not been documented. -Page 4 - November 0 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Commencing at Page 52 - System Impacts Recharge figures may not be calculated on current standard requirements for reverse osmosis system should be re-confirmed with Health Department. Page 54 Need to address effects caused by nitrates into salt water at different tide levels - particularly storm tides, etc. Page 56 No currently valid Health Department permits or substantiated dye studies were documented for alternative sanitary system locations. Also need to furnish report on dye study when tide level is more than median. Page 68 Reference is made that since the "lot" is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered by the applicant's consultant to be a buildable lot. A lot is not a buildable lot until all valid approvals and permits are obtained, and proof has been submitted as to its single-and-separate ownership as required by the Zoning Code, and compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. The lot cannot be guaranteed a buildable lot by merely complying with one or two provisions of law. It should be confirmed that at the present time, no permits are currently in effect from all town, state, and county agencies that would render the lot a buildable lot for purposes of a residence. It should be confirmed that the use of this island, or "lot", is presently for boating and docking enjoyment, which has permit approval, for the property owner and his guests. Page 74 It is noted that "...6400 sq. ft. will be cleared for house and septic system construction... 5140 sq. ft. will be revegetated...." 6400 less 5140 sq. ft. leaves 1260 sq. ft. The planting schedule submitted as Appendix P shows a gravel area and deck areas around the dwelling which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. These figures do not agree. The 1988 survey map shows that the house would be 1300 sq. ft. although other references are for a 1260 sq. ft. house. What is the square footage of gravel areas, patio areas, and deck areas in addition to the square footage of living area? Page 5 - November 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck OTHER Reference must be made to this property as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, also known as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of the Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland area within 500 feet of all bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29 Year 1988, Suffolk County and was enacted by the County Legislature. Reference should also be made to all areas under which variances are being requested, which should include: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees at less than 75 feet from the high water mark, from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles, and the Suffolk County Health Department. In the event of new bulkheading with proper permits, other variances may be necessary (i.e. zoning code, Section 100-239.4B which requires a minimum setback at 75 feet from bulkheads or retaining walls). SURVEY - An up-to-date survey, with on-site surveying inspections, is requested in light of the hurricane damage and storm damages in the Town of Southold within the last two years. The survey map is shown that the property was lastly re-surveyed in December 1988, prior to the hurricane-storms. ACCESS - Additional information is required for decision-making to include: delineation of the points of access; water routes for access; the distances by water; ingress and egress of emergency vehicles; the time periods for fire and emergency vehicle response; the depth of water and dock suitability for sole access. These areas were not addressed as requested. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for acceptance by the Town (Town Trustees as lead agency). Based upon this review, the DEIS has not been accepted. Review of revisions by the applicant would be expedited in order to commence the public comment process for this project. Dated: November 27, 1992 BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN TRUSTEES o~~SUFFO(,~c SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President goy SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President o° .4 Henry P. Smith a Town Hall John B. Tuthill 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 it June 11, 1993 U ,iI Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Gus Wade SCTM #1000-110-7-28 Dear Mr. Goehringer, Attached herewith please find a revised notice of completion of Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the matter of Gus Wade reflecting extension of the public comment period until July 19, 1993. Si cerely, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmd l TRUSTEES c~~fFO(,~f SUPERVISOR C0 John M. Bredemeyer, III, President SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President o - ' "-1'- Henry P. Smith u' = Town Hall John B. Tuthill 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 May 27, 1993 En-Consultants Roy Haje, Pres. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Gus Wade SCTM #1000-110-7-28 Dear Mr. Haje: WHEREAS, The Southold Town Board of Town Trustees ("Trustees") are lead agency in the action known as Gustave Wade ("Action") situate located on east Road in Cutchogue; AND WHEREAS, A Positive Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") was issued for the Action; AND WHEREAS, the applicant's agent has submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the action; AND WHEREAS, the Trustees have thoroughly reviewed the DEIS and have found same to be adequate for public and agency review; NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Trustees deem the DEIS complete, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Trustees hereby publish the Notice of completion of Draft EIS and notice of SEQRA Hearing or Public Hearing ("Notice") in the local papers and post the Notice on the Town Bulletin Board; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Notice and DEIS be forwarded to all involved Agencies; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public hearing on the DEIS will be held on June 24, 1993; and written comments on the DEIS will be accepted up to July 19, 1993. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. truly yours, ohn M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmd cc: ZBA Gus Wade ' `~,oJ~ra(y~~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS } i Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Y °n Z Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa ~1 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 INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO: Jim, Bob, Rich and Serge FROM: Jerry RE: Gus Wade - DEIS, Cutchogue Site DATE: June 3, 1993 Please find attached a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with cover letters from the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency. The Town Trustees deadline for receiving written comments is noted to be by July 5, 1993, or attend the public hearing on June 24, 1993. The Chairman is requesting your review and comments at this time. Please let us know your comments by Tuesday, June 22, 1993 in order that we may furnished comments in writing by the June 24, 1993 public hearing on the DEIS. You may, of course, attend the public hearing if you prefer. Your review and comments are requested. Thank you. lk TRUSTEES o~pSUFFO(,~-co SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President ='2' Gyp SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President co Henry P. Smith G Town Hall John B. Tuthill y t~ 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 D 71 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 26, 1993 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, N. Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer, Attached herewith is a Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing or Public Hearing and a copy of the Draft EIS for an action known as Gustave Wade. The Southold Trustees encourage the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, an involved agency, to submit written comments pertaining to this action by July 5, 1993 or attend the public hearing on June 24, 1993. Sincerely, John M. Bredemeyer, III, President a Fp~.~JUN- 1 Ig93 State Environmental Quality Review!'~' Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and - - Notice of SEQR Hearing or Public Hearing Lead Agency: Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: May 26, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 and Local Law, Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Office of the Town Trustees, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until July 5, 1993. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on June 24, 1993 at 7:00 pm at Southold Town Hall. Name of the Action: Gustave Wade Description of the Action: Applicant proposes to construct a single family residence consisting of 1300 square feet on a .347 acre parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York. Additionally, the applicant seeks to construct two navy-type retaining walls of 150 and 70 feet, respectively, deposit 35 cubic yards as backfill, install two composting toilets, a Sceptic system and a reverse osmosis water supply well. The site contains wetlands and is adjacent to Eugene's Creek. Location: East Road, Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York Potential Environmental Impacts: The proposed project (1) will result in a physical change to the project site; (2) will result in an effect to unusual or uniqque land forms found on site; (3) will affect surface and/or roundwater quality; (4) may cause substantial erosion; (5~ may effect endangered and threatened species• (6) will effect the aesthetic resources of the site; ~7) will effect the quantity of existing open space; (8) will effect the existing transportation system; (9) will effect the character of the existing community; (10) ma cause prolonged fire rescue and/or protection; (11~ will effect access to the property. A copy of the Draft EIS may be obtained from: Contact Person: John M. Bredemeyer, III Southold Board of Town Trustees Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York, 11971 Telephone Number: (516) 765-1892 n P"AYL-5KW ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR GUSTAVE WADE Location: 1000 East Road Town of Southold County of Suffolk Lead Agency: Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 1 Contact Person: John Bredemeyer, President Southold Zoning Board of Trustees (516) 765-1809 Prepared by: En-Consultants 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 Date of Acceptance: 1 Last Date for Comments: i TABLE OF CONTENTS page DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4 A. Project need, Purpose, and Benefits 4 1. Background and History 4 2. Public Need and Municipality Objectives 12 3. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 13 4. Benefits of the Proposed Action 13 B. Location 14 C. Design and Layout 17 D. Construction and operation 23 E. Approvals 24 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 25 A. Geology 25 B. Water Resources 27 C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 30 HUMAN RESOURCES 38 A. Transportation 38 B. Land Use and Zoning 39 C. Community Service 45 1 D. Cultural Resources 47 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 50 i A. Erosion and Siltation Impacts 50 B. Septic System Impacts 50 ' C. Groundwater Impacts 60 D. Flooding Potential 62 • E. Ecological Impacts 62 F. Wetlands Impacts 65 G. Conformance to Land Use Plans 66 H. Visual Impacts 67 I.Impacts of the Dock 68 ' MITIGATION MEASURES 68 A. Geology 68 ' B. Water Resources 69 1 C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 70 D. Land Use and Zoning 71 E. Cultural Resources 71 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 71 ALTERNATIVES 73 A. Alternative Designs 73 B. Alternative Sites 75 C. Acquisition 75 D. Alternative Size 76 E. No Action 76 F. Alternative Technologies 77 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 77 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS 78 ' REFERENCES 79 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 81 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES page Figure 1 Location Map 15a Figure 1.5 Water Route Map 15b Figure 2 Soils Map 30a ' Table 1 Zoning Requirements 40 ' Table 2 Permissible Noise Exposures 49 Table 3 Wastewater Characteristics 51 LIST OF APPENDICES ' Appendix A Building Permit issued to Leander Glover Appendix B DEC Tidal Wetlands Permit ITW-10-82-0557 Appendix C Original (Mushroom Type House) Site Plan Appendix D Site Plan showing Rectangular Home Use ' Appendix E SCDH Permit Appendix F Southold Building Permit #13244 Z Appendix G DEC Notice of Violation ' Appendix H Consent Order Appendix I Site Plan showing Bridge Appendix J Dock Plans Appendix K DEC Dock Permit ' Appendix L Army Corps of Engineers Permit Appendix M SEQR Positive Declaration Appendix N Proposed Site Plan ' Appendix 0 Building Plans Appendix P Landscape Plans Appendix Q Arkla Gas Fired Chiller-Heaters Information ' Appendix R Reverse Osmosis Well Information Appendix S Test Well Results ' Appendix T Historical Information Appendix U Correspondence between applicant and Trustees concerning possible transfer of development rights Appendix V Letter of approval for composting toilet Appendix W Contract with Cutchogue Harbor Marina Appendix X Letter from Dennis Corcoran fire specialist 1 SIIMMARY ' The proposed action consists of the construction of a single family residence consisting of 1300 square feet on a .347 acre parcel in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York. The site contains a fringe of wetlands and is adjacent to Eugene's Creek, a ' 183 acre tidal body of water. A 150 foot navy-type retaining wall, 35 cubic yards of clean fill, a 5-pool linear septic system, and a reverse osmosis water supply well are also proposed. A second navy- type retaining wall is also being proposed which will be located on the property line next to the septic system. This wall will be ' approximately seventy feet in length. Also, to make the residence more environmentally sound, two composting toilets are being proposed to replace the standard flush toilets. A dock and catwalk ' were approved and have been constructed on the site on October 17 & 18, 1991. ' The proposed project will be totally self sufficient. Electrical energy for heating,air conditioning and general domestic use will be generated by a propane-driven generator. The self sufficiency is necessary due to the limited access to the site. Proposed ' access is by water. The dock will serve as sole access to the site due to its unusual status as an "island" and the Southold Town ' Trustees refusal to allow access across their adjacent property. ' 1 Because the site contains wetlands, the lead agency has directed the applicant to investigate many areas which could be adversely impacted by the proposed project. These include the potential for erosion and/or siltation to the adjacent Eugene's Creek from construction; alteration of ground and surface water quality from substandard sanitary setbacks; alteration of groundwater flow due to the proposed well; the potential for flooding; impacts to ' species -existing on the site; impairment of wetland functions; conformance to land use plans; visual impairments; and the effect ' of the dock on navigation in Eugene's Creek. Several mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposal in order to minimize any adverse environmental impacts. These include elevating the septic system to at least 2 feet above the water table; capturing storm water runoff into a drywell; minimizing the area necessary to be cleared for construction; taking erosion control measures during construction; maximizing ' setbacks from the wetlands; using an environmentally sensitive septic system design; installing composting toilets; using propane ' as fuel; revegetating areas cleared for construction; and choosing a small house size to minimize impervious surface area and visual ' impairments. ' Alternatives to the proposed plan include building a "mushroom" 2 type home rather than the rectangular, allowing road access across the Southold Town Trustees property, or allowing bridge access over the Southold Town Trustees property. Alternative sites have been ' considered in the past, and acquisition may be considered in the future. The "no action" alternative is discussed but is not a ' feasible option for the project sponsor. Several alternative technologies will be considered by the applicant, including water ' saving fixtures and composting toilets. ' This document has been prepared at the request of the Southold Board of Trustees which must issue a wetlands permit. The Southold Zoning Board of Appeals must also issue a variance to New York State Town Law, Article 16, Section 280-a. This variance is needed as no conventional vehicular access to the site is available. Permits from the Southold Town Trustees (Wetlands), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Tidal Wetlands), and the Suffolk County Department of Health have been applied for. A building permit from the Town of Southold will also be required as the final regulatory requirement prior to the construction. ' 3 i • • i DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ' A. PROJECT NEED, PURPOSE, AND BENEFITS ' 1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The property being discussed was zoned in 1957. At that time the property was an island. In 1966 the area between the end of East ' Road and the island was filled in with the spoils from a dredging ' project in Eugene's Creek by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. No record of what approvals, if any, were granted to 1 do the work are available. This man-made land bridge is now claimed by the Town Trustees. Thus the subject property is actually i connected to the mainland, and yet it is still considered an island by the Trustees who maintain that they may one day re-create the island by dredging away the "bridge." In 1981, Gustave Wade purchased the property at the end of East ' Road (1000 East Road) in Cutchogue from Leander Glover, Jr. Prior to this purchase, Mr. Glover held a building permit from the Town i of Southold to construct a summer cottage on the same property (see 1 Appendix A). All permits, old and new, are listed in the appendices. Glover's permit was issued in 1971 and was simply 1 renewed each year through 1980. Mr. Wade acquired a building permit in 1984 from the Town of Southhold to construct a one family ' dwelling. A glitch appeared as it came into light that Mr. Wade 1 4 i • • 1 i would need a variance from New York Town Law, Section 280-a. i Before 1982, there are no known records of the previous land owner, 1 Mr. Glover, obtaining any N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation permits. In July, 1982, Mr. Wade applied to the New i York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter referred to as the DEC) for a tidal wetlands permit to construct a ' single family dwelling, 120 feet of railroad tie retaining wall, 1 gravel drive, and 25 cubic yards of top soil to establish plantings. The application also requested variances for house and 1 septic system setbacks. It was determined at this time that an administrative hearing was necessary to decide whether a permit i could be issued. DEC Administrative Law Judge A. Marshall Irving i presided over the hearing from which a positive decision resulted. Permit number TW-10-82-0557 was issued on December 21, 1982 (see 1 Appendix B). It granted a variance of 38 feet to the required building setback of 75 feet and 50 feet to the required septic 1 system. The original plans are included in Appendix C. As can be seen, the original house was of the "mushroom" type, that is, the 1 living quarters are elevated above ground by means of a concrete 1 column. i During 1983, Mr. Wade decided to build a conventional rectangular home rather than the "mushroom" type, assuming that the shape of 1 the structure was inconsequential as long as setbacks were 1 5 1 ' maintained. He had plans drawn which complied with his DEC permit (see Appendix D). It was these plans which he submitted to the ' Suffolk County Department of Health (SCDH). The SCDH denied the ' permit application due to the high water table and probability of salt water intrusion into the well. A Board of Review hearing was ' subsequently held at the County Center in Riverhead. During this hearing the SCDH stated that they would approve a reverse osmosis ' type water-supply well. SCDH permit number 13-SO-04 was issued an ' March 19, 1984, and is included as Appendix E. ' On June 27, 1984 Mr. Wade was issued building permit number 13244Z from the Town of Southold Building Department, which is included in ' Appendix F. Upon receipt of these permits, Mr. Wade began construction by ' driving pilings for the rectangular home on October 2, 1984. Concurrently, piles were driven for a navy-type bulkhead. Mr. Wade ' decided to construct a navy wall rather than a railroad tie wall because his builder advised him that a railroad tie wall would not hold up in a storm. The DEC inspected the site shortly thereafter, ' and issued a stop work order because a request for modification to the original permit had not been submitted for the navy wall. The ' DEC issued a notice of violation of the Environmental Conservation Law Act Article 15, Sect. 15-0505-1; Article 24, Sect. 24-0703; ' Article 25, Sect. 25-0401-1 (see Appendix G). At this point ' 6 1 1 ' construction was halted. i The DEC permit was formally suspended in January, 1985, pending 1 resolution of the alleged violations. These violations included a charge that approximately 178 feet of timber bulkhead was ' constructed in an unapproved location and in an unauthorized design; that fill was placed in an unauthorized manner and 1 location, and that a one-family dwelling was constructed in non- 1 compliance with plans submitted in conjunction with the permit. Mr. Wade was fined $2,000 for his violation. 1 On March 28, 1985, a hearing was held at the DEC in Stony Brook, 1 New York, regarding this matter. Stipulations to resolve this 1 matter were outlined, and a consent order (see Appendix H) was signed in January, 1986. During 1986, the stipulations outlined in the consent order were ' carried out. These involved removing the existing bulkhead and 1 pilings associated therewith, replanting grasses along the adjacent Southold Town Trustees property, and removing fill in excess of 35 1 cubic yards. Upon completion, the DEC permit was reinstated. An extension was applied for and granted, causing the permit to expire 1 on April 30, 1988. 1 At the same time, Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association filed a 1 ' court injunction against Mr. Wade and the Town of Southold stating that Mr. Wade's building permit was issued illegally. This accusation was based on the contention that Mr. Wade's property was ' actually an "island", and that the Building Department did not take Article 16, Section 280-a of New York State Town Law, titled "Permits for buildings not on improved mapped streets" into consideration when issuing the permit. Section 280-a states that "[N]o permit for the erection of any building shall be issued ' unless a street or highway giving access to such a proposed structure has been duly placed on the official map or plan A hearing was held resulting in the determination that Mr. Wade obtain a variance from Section 280-a. This variance can only be ' obtained from the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals (hereafter ' referred to as the ZBA). ' Mr. Wade's property, however, is in fact no longer an island. To the west of the site, where Eugene's Creek used to be, is now ' filled land owned by the Southold Town Trustees. This portion of Eugene's Creek was filled with dredged spoil in 1966 and is now classified as "upland". At a meeting held on January 25, 1985, the ' Trustees denied Mr. Wade's application for an easement to install his driveway across Trustee property. The Trustees deemed the ' easement to be "in direct conflict with the interests of the public at large", because they were considering reopening the creek ' channel. This has yet to be done and may in fact never be done. ' 8 ' • • ' They also referred to a quitclaim granted by a former owner of the ' property giving the Trustees "all right, title, or interest" to the filled channel. ' On March 26, 1985, the Town of Southold passed Local Law 6-1985, ' requiring a Town of Southold Wetlands permit to be filed if a proposed building is within 75 feet of wetlands. This is now contained in the Town Code 97-13, Paragraph A, Subparagraph 3. ' Because of the delays caused by access problems with the Southold ' Town Trustees, a request to extend the DEC permit was submitted in early 1988. This request was granted, and the permit was extended to April 30, 1989. At this point, the DEC changed the permit ' number to 10-88-0299 because of a change in their system. A request for extension was again submitted in March, 1989, due to further delays on the part of the Southold Town Trustees. This extension was granted, extending the permit to June 30, 1990. ' However, a letter was received from the DEC stating that it was ' unlikely that the permit would be extended in the future. ' Plans were drawn in February, 1988, to construct a prefabricated steel bridge to span the Trustees property (see Appendix i), ' reasoning that this would relieve the easement problem and the need to obtain a variance from the ZBA. An application to construct the bridge was submitted to the DEC and the Trustees in July, 1988. On 9 1 ' • ' November 7, 1988, a long form EAF was submitted to the Town of Southold at their request. The application to the Town Trustees was modified to add the house, 120 feet of retaining wall and 35 ' cubic yards of fill associated with the sanitary system as was provided for in the original DEC permit. This application was ' subsequently denied in December, 1988, on the basis of a prior 1983 decision of the Town of Southold Trustees. This decision was made ' without a hearing. A court suit followed, resulting in a denial of ' access via bridge over the Trustees' property. This decision was appealed by Mr. Wade at the Appellate.Court in Brooklyn, but the ' earlier decision was upheld. ' Because of this, Mr. Wade was forced to turn to water access to his ' property. Plans were drawn showing a proposed dock and catwalk (see Appendix J). DEC and Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permits ' were applied for and received in August, 1989 (see Appendices K and L). The Town of Southold Trustees permit was applied for and ' approved in October 1989. During 1989, Mr. Wade applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for ' relief of Section 280-a. ' A permit application to construct a one family dwelling was submitted to the Town of Southold Trustees along with a short and long EAF in January, 1990, because the previous permit had been ' 10 1 ' revoked in the appeal by Fleet's Neck Property Owners' Association. This application was formally withdrawn in February, 1990, because it was deemed that relief from New York State Town Law Article 16, ' Section 280-a was needed from the ZBA before permits could be issued from the Town. On July 17, 1990, a positive declaration was issued by the then ' lead agency under SEQR (see Appendix M), the ZBA. The positive ' declaration required the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared. A scoping meeting was held on August 15, ' 1990, at which an outline was drawn describing the content and form of the DEIS by the ZBA's consultant, Cramer and Voorhis, Inc. 1 ' On Feb. 2, 1992, the Southold Board of Trustees received a review of the DEIS prepared by Bruce Anderson, environmental consultant. ' Mr. Anderson's review contained similar comments and questions, as well as several other important points, to the review prepared by Cramer and Voorhis Associates through the Zoning Board of Appeals. Because there can be only one lead agency and because it was determined that the Trustees had broader review responsibilities ' and environmental expertise it was decided that the Southold Board of Trustees would solely assume the position of Lead Agency. In late 1990, a transfer of property with the Town of Southold was ' considered. SEQR time limits were postponed while this option was 11 1 pursued. The parcel that the Trustees recommended for transfer was on Long Island Sound in Orient. Mr. Wade found this property unsuitable because it did not lend itself to dock access or ' boating, due to the rough wave conditions and rocky shoreline, therefore the proposal was not pursued. 1 On February 26, 1993 a scoping meeting was held at the Southold ' Town Hall. Gustave Wade and his consultants met with the Town Trustees in regard to the possible reopening of the creek. It was determined at this time that a second retaining wall be proposed in order to maintain the cesspools in case the creek was ever reopened. r ' 2. PUBLIC NEED AND MUNICIPALITY OBJECTIVES As the construction of one single family house is not a "public" project, there is no "public" need for it. Rather, the intention is to provide a home for Mr. Wade and his family's personal use. 1 The project site lies in the R-40 (one acre) zone. However, it falls under Section 100-244B of the Town Code, which permits relief of the zoning requirements for substandard lots. The site consists of .347 acres. Since it predates current zoning and is held in single and separate ownership, it must be considered as a legal lot as evidenced by the previous issuance of a building permit and as r per Section 100-244B. 12 3. OBJECTIVES OF THE SPONSOR The objective of Mr. Wade is to build a single family dwelling for personal use. The dwelling is shown on the building plans in ' Appendix N. This house will be accessed by water. The plans call for a timber dock which has already been constructed in order to dock the boat used to gain access to the property. The plans for the dock are included on the site plan in Appendix N. Although the dwelling is likely to be used seasonally in the near term, it will probably become the applicant's retirement home as it is being built in compliance with the NYS Building Code and has the capability of year round occupancy. II 4. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The obvious beneficial impact is to allow Mr. Wade the reasonable use and enjoyment of a single and separate, residentially zoned piece of property. Mr. Wade has patiently tried many courses of action and invested large sums of money in order to build on his property and ultimately must be granted its reasonable use. It would be unreasonable as well as unlawful to deny him this right. The Town of Southold would also benefit economically from this project. Construction will require the services of local 13 ' contractors. Once in residence, Mr. Wade and his family will require the services of local retailers including but not limited to grocery stores, restaurants, banks, and marinas. This added t patronage will add to Southold's economic base. Mr. Wade will also pay higher taxes to the town on his improved property. j B. LOCATION The project site is located at the end of East Road, in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York. A location map is shown ' in Figure 1. The site is bounded on the north by Eugene's Creek. To the west and south lies property owned by the Southold Town Trustees. The Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association owns the adjacent land to the east of the site. The affects of adverse weather conditions on Mr. Wade's property such as unusually high tides and storms are minimal. The site was visited on December 11, 1992 during an intense storm. This storm ' was considered a 11100 year storm" and since no serious damage was incurred future storm damage is unlikely. In the event that the ' Trustees decide to remove the fill between Mr. Wade's property and East Road the subject property would remain intact and unaffected as a navy-type retaining wall is proposed along the southwest property line. This wall will be approximately 70ft in length. The purpose of the wall is to keep Mr. Wade's property from eroding and 14 also allow the Trustees to open the creek at any time. Access to the site is to be by water due to the Trustees refusal to ' allow Mr. Wade permission to traverse their property. A dock built in October, 1991 is shown on the site plan, it will be used to gain water access to the site. This dock has been approved by the COE, DEC, and the Town of Southold, and is suitable for sole access to the site. Mr. Wade will dock his boat in a leased slip at Cutchogue Harbor Marina on West Road in Cutchogue when he is not using his home. This marina will also provide parking for Mr. ' Wade's vehicle. The water access route will be directly from the marina to the site running parallel to both West and East Roads. The distance is approximately 3000 feet. A water route map is shown in Figure 1.5. Emergency access to the site is to be by land. By law emergency vehicles have the authority to traverse public as well as f private property when necessary. Therefore, in the event that an emergency situation should occur at Mr. Wade's property, quick and efficient access to the site would be very feasible. I During the winter months, access to the site may be restricted due to ice forming in Eugene's Creek. If the ice is thick, the site may not be accessed by boat until the ice has melted. The climate on Long Island is moderate due to the surrounding water bodies. The 15 i v . r. UTHO 1197 a 1 dL•pu iaCOHIC L •Ni H~ 0 L D ~ d I BAST ,y _ CUTCHOGUB e 'I ;:sue A, amw l1M'- FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP (from Hagstrom Suffolk County Atlas,' 1980) ' l5a 1 ,r 1 . n s EAST CUTCHOGUE " •RaywaErr G~ 1 - • p.. « - q i { ~11S.ti~wlrlw-_~ a -d 1 FIGURE 1.5 WATER ROUTE MAP (from Sagstrom Suffolk County Atlas, 1980) Arrow indicates water access route from marina to site I 15b bay does not freeze over very often. For this reason and the fact that Eugene's Creek is subject to daily tidal flushing, ice is not expected to remain in Eugene's Creek for extended periods of time. In any case, Mr. Wade need not use any adjacent properties for access. Ice damage usually occurs over an extended period of time ' rather than suddenly. Therefore, in the event that damage appears imminent, measures will be taken to ensure that the dock is maintained properly. Depending on the severity of the damage, displaced pilings can be reset or replaced entirely. In the event that ice damage becomes a major problem, a prevention method such ' as a bubbler system could be installed. This is a simple process whereby the water surrounding the pilings is aerated resulting in ' a constant flow which prevents ice formation around the piling itself. The site area lies within the R-40, or Residential Low Density one acre, zone, but is governed under Section 100-244 for nonconforming ' lots. In this zone lot coverage may not exceed 20% of the lot, and ' structures may not exceed 35 feet in height. The proposed project is in conformance with zoning regulations except for access. It is ' in keeping with the character of the area as many parcels are smaller than one acre. Eugene's Creek lies to the north of the site. According to James McMann at the Trustees office in Southold, it is a 183 acre tidal 16 ii ' body of water including Haywater and Broadwater Coves with a depth range of 3 to 8 feet and a tidal range of 2.5 feet. It is classified as SA by the DEC, meaning it is suitable for year-round shell fishing. Its primary use is for recreational boating and swimming. Eugene's Creek is tributary to Little Peconic Bay which is also as SA in this area. r C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT The site consists of .347 acres or 14,475 square feet; 9,900 square feet is upland and 4,575 is wetlands, as surveyed by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. December 15, 1988. The site was resurveyed and amended again on April 8, 1993 by Roderick Van Tuyl per request of the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold. The proposed impervious surface area is 1300 square feet. The amount of land to be cleared } is 6400 square feet. Presently, the property is entirely open space. After construction, 8075 square feet of undisturbed area 1 will remain, plus 5100 square feet of open area which will be revegetated yielding a total of 13,175 square feet of open space. ' The house will be supported by pilings which are already in place. This type of construction will minimize disturbances to the soils ' underneath the house. The 6400 sq. ft. which must be cleared includes not only the area of the house itself but also the area around the house that will be landscaped. This figure also includes 17 i the area for the retaining wall and the septic system. If the second wall alternative is used it will increase the amount of disturbed area by approximately 1200 sq. ft. The proposed building is a single family detached residence. It will be elevated on pilings which are in place on the site. The building plans are included as Appendix O. The proposed house will consist of 1300 square feet of living space, be 28 feet in height. The site plan is included as Appendix N. The proposal also calls for the construction of 150 feet of navy- type retaining wall including returns to be located entirely landward of the marsh fringe. The location of the retaining wall and a cross-section are shown on the site plan. Thirty-five cubic yards of clean fill are proposed to backfill the retaining wall. A second navy-type retaining wall is proposed which will be ' approximately 70 feet in length. It will be lined with a geo- textile impervious 40 ml plastic membrane. It is to be located on the southwest side of the property. The purpose of this wall is to ' keep Mr. Wade's property from eroding into a reopened waterway, should this ever occur. The septic system will be directly behind ' this wall. Another purpose of the wall is to prevent leachate from travelling transversely into any newly created waterway. 18 ' A catwalk and floating dock were built to permit access to the site. These structures are shown on the site plan in Appendix N. The catwalk is supported by pilings and covers 100 square feet of ' marsh and 88 square feet of water. The ramp covers 56 square feet of water. The total extension into Eugene's Creek is 76 feet. The site will be landscaped according to the landscape plan in Appendix P. The added vegetation will increase the stability of the site. Topsoil including peat moss and cow manure along with natural dune vegetation including Beach Plum (Prunus maritima), Beach Rose (Rosa ruaosa), and Bayberry (Mvrica nennsvlvanica) will be used as well as the other species noted on the landscape plan. ' Heating and electricity for the house will be provided entirely by ' propane gas. This makes the house entirely self-sufficient and alleviates the need for access over the Southold Town Trustees ' property for outside utilities. ' A propane chiller, manufactured by Arkla, will provide the heating and cooling system. Mr. Wade will personally attend to his fuel needs. He will transport the propane in 1001b tanks on his boat to ' and from his house. Again it should be stated that Mr. Wade has no intention of using any adjacent properties at any time for any reason. Propane usage will be kept to a minimum both in the winter and summer seasons as the residence will initially be used for ' occasional weekend visits and vacationing, times when propane will 19 ~I not be needed in large quantities. Information on the chiller is included in Appendix Q. Impervious surfaces will be limited only to the roof of the house. Rain will be captured by a drywell as indicated on site plan and recharged. The National Urban Runoff Protection Study (NURPS) finds that recharge of runoff to the groundwater is the best management technique. No parking areas will be constructed on the site as ' it will be accessed only by boat. ' The proposed sanitary system is a linear 5-pool design, with each ' individual ring to be placed directly alongside the next, as shown on the site plan in Appendix N. It is located along the southern ' edge of the property to maximize the setback from the wetlands. It will be 37 feet from the wetlands line staked by the Southold ' Town Trustees at its closest point, 58 feet from high water, and at least 2 feet above seasonal high water table. This design has been approved by the DEC and SCDH in past permits for this property, and is presently being applied for again. ' The system is to be located at the furthest possible point from the wetlands. No alternative locations would be preferable as it would ' reduce the distance from the wetlands. 'i ~ 20 ' • According to SCDH standards, a minimum of 6 feet of sand and gravel must be present below the bottom of the leaching pool. Leaching pools must be installed in open areas to allow for easy access. According to the SCDH, leaching pools are designed to receive the ' full day's flow. In the case of a single family residence, that flow is 900 gallons per day. The leaching field area is ' determined by one square foot per gallon of sewage per day, therefore, Mr. Wade's leaching field area would be approximately 900 square feet. It should be noted that the applicant is going to install ' composting toilets which will drastically reduce the volume of effluent generated. The composting toilets will treat the human waste and the septic system will receive the gray water. The ' composting toilets are waterless, in other words it is a dry system. The system has a blower which produces a strong air flow ' which in turn speeds up the decomposition process. The wastes are collected and retained in the composter, along with additions of ' carbon-rich bulking agents like peatmoss or pine bark mulch. The ' combination of wastes and the bulking agents promote and sustain aerobic bacteria. The bacteria decompose the waste products into ' safe, odorless water vapor, carbon dioxide and a small amount of compost. The composting process reduces the volume of human wastes by 95%. The stable compost can be removed about once a year and 21 used as fertilizer. One composter can handle up to 65,000 uses per year. The water supply will be of the reverse osmosis type due to the high level of chlorides present in the groundwater. This well and ' pump are no different than other wells. A high pressure filter is contained within the home to filter out contaminants. For this ' project, only drinking water will be filtered. Water used for washing and showering will not be filtered. This type of system was approved by SCDH for this property in the hearing held in ' Riverhead in 1983. More detailed information on a similar reverse osmosis system is included in Appendix R. The system that is ' proposed for the site is much smaller than the system referred to in Appendix R. However the same basic functions are the same. The system uses reverse osmosis membranes to ultrafilter the water removing salts and make the water safe for use. The pump for the water well will be powered by a propane driven generator. This generator can run at 4000 watts and is very compact. ' The dock is necessary to provide access to the property. Since Mr. Wade will dock his boat at Cutchogue Harbor Marina, no new docks or parking areas will be necessary to provide access. Mr. Wade Is contract with Cutchogue Harbor Marina will allow his use of their ' 22 parking facility. A copy of said contract is included in this document, appendix W. D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ' The total construction period for the house and retaining wall is anticipated to be approximately 6 months. This estimate is based ' on construction occurring during normal working hours. Minimal disturbance to the natural processes of the site will occur due to construction. Equipment will be needed to construct the sanitary ' system and retaining wall(s). This equipment will access the site via a barge that will be towed from New Suffolk to the dock. Barge ' travel should not pose a problem because it will remain consistent with the sizes of other boats that travel the same waterways, although if necessary, deliveries can be made at high tide in order ' to ensure adequate access. Once equipment has arrived on site it will remain in the areas designated for clearing and construction ' so as not to impinge on areas that are to remain in their natural condition as proposed. A backhoe will be staged on site directly above the area where the 5-ring leaching system is to be installed. ' This area will be roughly 40 feet long, by 8 feet wide. Materials resulting from the installation process will be used to backfill ' the 4 foot wide by 150 foot long space directly behind the navy wall. Since the pilings for the home are already in place, only ' the building materials are necessary such as; lumber, sheetrock, 23 ' pipes, plumbing fixtures, appliances and whatever else is needed for a home. Debris generated as a result of construction will be removed from the site via boat. ' Maintenance of cesspools, heating, and other equipment will be a continuous process. In the event that repairs need to be made, all necessary supplies will be brought in by boat. 1 ' Because of the nature of the vegetation to be used for landscaping, minimal fertilization of landscaped areas is expected. In any ' given year only one 50 lb. bag of milorganite 100$ organic fertilizer will be used. There will be no detrimental effects on the environment as a result of fertilization as nutrients will be fully metabolized and will not run-off or enter the groundwater. The plant species proposed for landscaping are low maintenance and ' will require few nutrients. ' E. APPROVALS Applications now pending before the Town of Southold are 1) ZBA ' application for access relief, and 2) wetlands permit from the Southold Board of Trustees. An application will be made for a building permit at a later date. The expired Tidal Wetlands permit must either be extended or a new permit granted from the DEC. That agency has not yet advised the applicant which route must ' 24 I ' be followed. A permit is also needed from the Suffolk County Health Department. ' The dock was constructed by authority of permits received from the Army Corps of Engineers, the DEC, and the Town of Southold ' Trustees. II ' ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' A. GEOLOGY ' The project site is immediately underlain by morainal outwash deposits associated with the Harbor Hills moraine laid down during the Pleistocene glacial period. The outwash deposits consist of ' stratified fine to coarse sand and gravel, and contain the upper glacial or water table aquifer. These deposits extend ' approximately 150 feet below the site. This aquifer is highly conductive so water or other liquids pass through very quickly. ' Below the upper glacial aquifer lies the Magothy aquifer. The Magothy consists of fine to coarse sand mixed with interstitial ' clay. Hydraulic conductivity averages 70 feet per day in the aquifer. The Magothy is 450 feet thick below the site. ' 25 ' The Raritan clay is immediately below the Magothy aquifer. The Raritan is a confining unit which allows very little water to pass ' through. It is 200 feet thick below the site. ' The Lloyd aquifer underlies the Raritan clay. The Lloyd consists of fine to coarse sand and gravel. It has a moderate conductivity of 20 to 70 gallons per day. The Lloyd is 350 feet thick below the ' site. ' Bedrock lies at 1150 feet below the project site. It is ' crystalline rock of unknown thickness (Jensen and Soren). ' The site appears on sheet 17 of the Suffolk County Soil Survey as ' a tidal marsh area, as shown in Figure 2. Tidal marsh is found along the shorelines of calmer embayments and tidal creeks. ' Intertidal wetlands are inundated by daily tidal flow. High marsh is not but is subject to flooding during abnormally high moon ' and/or storm tides. Based on the test hole data, it has been concluded that the soil ' underlying the site is suitable for the various aspects of this project. Information on the soil characteristics is included in ' Appendix E. Tidal marsh usually has an organic mat on the surface that ranges ' 26 1 ' from a few inches to several feet in thickness. The organic mat overlies pale-gray or white sand. In many places the profile of ' the marsh is made up of alternating layers of sand and organic ' material as a result of sand deposited on the organic mat during abnormally high storm tides. The Soil Survey's description of a tidal marsh is not especially ' applicable as only a fringe of tidal marsh is present as identified by the Trustees and shown on the survey. The site actually consists of 9,900 square feet of upland dune environment in ' addition to 4,575 square feet of tidal marsh. According to the Soil Survey, dunes generally consist of uniform, sand-sized ' particles. They have adequate strength for embankments and ' settlement is slight. Dune land generally is used in immediate coastal areas for highway and building locations because it is the highest land. ' The topography of the site is indicated on the site plan in Appendix N. Slopes on the site are between 0 and 10%. B. WATER RESOURCES The site is underlain by the Upper Glacial or water table aquifer. This aquifer consists of undifferentiated Pleistocene outwash 27 ' deposits associated with the Harbor Hills Terminal Moraine. ' Groundwater on Long Island is derived entirely from precipitation. ' Average precipitation in the Town of Southold is approximately 45 inches per year (Cohen et al. 1968). Of this, approximately 25 ' inches is lost to evapotranspiration. Direct runoff accounts for about 5% of annual precipitation. Ultimately, about 20 inches of ' annual precipitation is recharged to the groundwater. According to the Water Table Contour Map prepared by the SCDH in ' 1982, the depth to this aquifer is between 0 and 3 feet below the site. The groundwater flows toward Little Peconic Bay as ' determined from the Water Table Contour Map. However, the ' immediate flow from the site is most likely in the direction of the nearest water body, Eugene's Creek. Presently, each house on East Road and in the surrounding area has a private water supply well. There is no public water available in the vicinity of East Road. ' The depth to seasonal high water in the area of the sanitary system and drainage leaching pool for Mr. Wade's proposal is 8.5 feet. Water from a test well (labeled "well point" on the survey) was ' tested in 1984. The results of the test are given in Appendix S. ' 28 ' As can be seen, the water exceeds New York State limits for iron and chlorides. It is for this reason that a reverse osmosis system ' is proposed. The system will effectively filter the iron and ' chlorides from the water so it will be suitable for drinking. The site is bounded on the north by Eugene's Creek, a tidal body of water whose range is approximately 2.5 feet. It is classified ' as SA and is presently open to year-round shell fishing. The site ' is also included on the NYSDEC official tidal wetlands inventory map 712-542 and these wetlands have been plotted on the survey of ' the property, as shown in Appendix N. Eugene's Creek empties into Little Peconic Bay. The creek ran along the west side of the property as well, making it a true island but that waterway was ' filled with dredging spoil in 1966 by the Trustees. ' The site lies entirely within the A-4 zone as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 94 for the Town of Southold. ' This is an area which lies in the 100-year flood plain. First floor elevations in this zone must be at least eight feet above t mean sea level. There is only a 18 chance in any given year of ' flooding at this site to 8 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1992 (mean sea level). The proposed plans are ' in compliance with flood regulations. A portion of the FIRM is shown in Figure 2. ' 29 1 Erosion and siltation should not pose a significant threat because of the minimal wave action in Eugene's Creek. This is addressed further under "[S]ignificant Environmental Impacts". ' C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY Vegetation on the lot is sparse and on the dunes consists primarily of hairgrass, Deschamosia flexuosa; switchgrass, Panicum sop.; dune grass, Ammophila breveliaulata; goldenrod, Solidago semPrivirens; and various upland weeds. One mulberry tree, Morus spp.; red cedar, Junioerus virainiana; and a few small black locusts, Robinia pseudoacacia; are found toward the north side of the property. Saltworts, Salicornia spp_, may be found toward the northerly side of the property as well. The true wetland fringe consists of salt marsh cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora. and, at a slightly higher elevation, salt hay, Spartina Patens. No endangered plant species were observed in the area. ' Surveys were conducted and observations made on the wildlife in the area and it was concluded that the site and adjacent areas are not very productive for an abundance of wildlife due to the sandy nature of the soil and the sparse vegetation. The following lists are intended to give a substantial overview of those animals using the parcel or nearby creek and bay for foraging, shelter, or r 30 ~i '1i • ` z ~ - 3n HaA t 4 R: Rag I~ A t .sr HaA HSA dA M Has -HaA RI e \ s. PIA L+ , . t TT r c to ~ ' ~ ~MiA• •7=: Kimoga t• In kc.; Point r~N a d_ i FIGURE 2 SOIL MAP ' (from Soil Survey of Suffolk County, 1975) 30a i breeding. The lists are not exhaustive and may omit certain transitory species present only during short periods. a. Mammal Population The following species of mammals have either been identified on the ' site or are expected to occur on this site due to their known occurrence on adjacent or similar sites and habitats consisting primarily of sandy, grassy soils near water. Common Name Species Raccoon Provcon lotor Eastern Mole Scalopus aauaticus Eastern Cottontail Sylvilacrus floridanus White-footed Mouse Peromvscus leucopus House Mouse Mus musculus Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Opossum Didelphis marsupialis b. Reptiles and Amphibians The following species of reptiles and amphibians have been identified on the site or are expected to occur due to their known occurrence on adjacent or similar sites and habitats consisting primarily of floodplains and marshes. Common Name Species Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousei 31 Eastern Box Turtle Terrepene caroling Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis c. Avian Population The following avian species have either been identified on the property or are expected to occur on this site due to their known occurrence on adjacent or similar sites and habitats consisting of brush areas near water. Many of the waterfowl species are migratory and their presence within the adjacent waters is transitory in nature. Common Name Species Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Belted Kingfisher Meaaceryle alcven Rufous-sided Towhee i 1'0 ' ervthrophthalmus Flycatcher Empidonax sp. Grey Catbird Dumatella carolinensis Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufrum Purple Martin Procne subis ' Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Eastern Phoebe Savornis phoebe Horned Lark Eramophila alvestris Barn Swallow Hirundo rustics Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor Carolina Wren Thrvothorus ludovicianus 32 ' Long-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Cedar Waxwing Bombvcilla cedrum Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Common Grackle Ouiscalus auiscala White-throated Sparrow Zonotricha albicollis Evening Grosbeak Hesperinhona vespertina Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Birds which might be found utilizing the shoreline of the property include: Common Name Species ' Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Common Merganser Mergus merganser Oldsquaw Clanaula hyemalis Surf Scooter Melanitta gerspicillata Black Scooter Melanitta niara Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Spotted Sandpiper Actitus macularis Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Herring Gull Larus argentatus Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Common Crow Corvus brachvrhvnchos 33 r • • r r Marsh Hawk circus cvaneus Mallard Duck Anas nlatvrhynchos r Mute Swan Cygnus olor Canada Goose Branta canadensis Common Tern Sterna hirundo r American Oystercatcher Haematoous oalliatus Great Blue Heron Ardea herodis r Common Egret Casmerodius alba ' Snowy Egret Earetta thula Piping Plover Charadrius melodus d. Finfish The following fish species are expected to occur due to their known presence in local waters. Common Name Species American Sand Lance Ammodvtes americanus Common Eel Anguilla rostrata Weakfish Cynoscion reaalis Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus Striped Killifish Fundulus malalis Sheephead Minnow Cvnrindon varieaatus Three Spined Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Windowpane Flounder LophoDsetta maculata ' Northern Silverside Menidia menidia Tidewater Silverside Menidia bervllina Toadfish Onsanus tau 34 Fluke P ara1ichthys dentatus Bluefish Pomotomus saltatrix Sea Robin Prionotus carolina Winter Flounder Pseudonleuronectes americanus Striped Bass Roccus saxatilus Northern Puffer Snaeroides maculatus Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus Blackfish Tautoaa onitis Bergall Tautoaolabrus adsuersus e. Crustaceans and Molluscs The following species are expected to occur due to their known existence in local waters. Common Name species Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis Hard Clam Mercenaria mercenaria Ribbed Mussel Modiolus demissus Soft Shelled Clam Mya arenaria Razor Clam Ensis directus Stout Razor Taaelus plebius Parchment-tube Worm Chaetouterus va_rionedatus Blood Worm Glyicera dibranchiata Greenish Clam Worm Nereis virens ' 35 Trumpet Worm Pectinaria gouldii Sand-tube Worm Sabellaris vulgari ' Mud Snail Nassarius obsoletus Marsh Snail Melampus bidentatus Periwinkle Littorina littorea Common Boat Snail Crepidula fornicata Rock Barnacle Balanus balanoides r Green Crab Carcinus meanas Seaweed Hopper Grammarus locusta Marine Sowbug Idotea baltica Fish Lice Lironeca ovalis Large Hermit Crab Paaarus pollicaris Small Hermit Crab Pagarus longicarpus Marsh Fiddler Crab Uca uugnax Marsh Fiddler Crab Uca puailator Spider Crab Liginia emarginata Lady Crab Ovalipes ocellatus Mud Crab Panoneus herbstii Horseshoe Crab Limulus nolyphemus Mud Shrimp Oranaon vulaaris Grass Shrimp Palaemonetes vulgaris Threatened and endangered species lists prepared by the DEC and the Nature Conservancy were explored for species which may inhabit the j subject parcel. No species from the area other than the marsh 36 hawk, the osprey and the piping plover were found on the lists. An osprey nest is located approximately 1000 feet to the north of the site. Impacts to the marsh hawk and osprey are discussed under "[s]ignificant Environmental Impacts". The site contains 4,575 square feet of wetlands as flagged by Southold Town Trustees on March 28. 1991. Vegetated wetlands have the ability to utilize significant amounts of nutrients in production of plant material (Cramer and Voorhis, 1985). In this way, wetland vegetation can "fix" many pollutants in their tissues. Fine materials such as silts and decomposing organics found in wetlands soils tend to trap heavy metals and other pollutants. This helps keep them from entering the water table. Care must be taken, however, not to release too many pollutants into the wetland system, as this would cause a degradation to the system. According to 6NYCRR Part 661, Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations, tidal wetlands are one of the most vital and productive areas of the natural world and have many values. These include marine food production, wildlife habitat, flood, storm, and hurricane control, recreation, cleansing ecosystems, sedimentation control, education and research, and open space and aesthetic appreciation. 37 i High marsh or salt meadow tidal areas receive only occasional tidal flooding occuring along with extreme lunar tides and occasional storms. Photosynthetic productivity is lower than that of coastal t fresh marshes and intertidal marshes. Flushing of the biological products of the marsh to the estuary is less efficient than in coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes, therefore high marshes are a little less important in that respect, although they are very important for marine food production. Due to the size and location of high marshes, they are important for absorption of silt and organic material and flood, hurricane, and storm control. High marshes do play an important role in cleansing ecosystems, but because of their lower level of direct tidal influence it is not f as critical as with coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes. The above wetland benefits as they pertain to Mr. Wade's ' plans, should not be altered in a way that is harmful to the natural processes of that particular environment. HUMAN RESOURCES A. TRANSPORTATION Access to the site is to be by water as the Southold Trustees have denied access over their land by vehicles. A dock will serve as a landing place for the owner and his family. There are several 38 ' other docks located in Eugene's Creek so the use of the boat in the area is consistent with prior uses. The boat used to access the site will be kept at Cutchogue Harbor Marina on West Road in Cutchogue. At 26 feet in length it is consistent with the other boats kept in Eugene's Creek. Because other boats of this size are able to use Eugene's Creek without restriction, Mr. Wade should have no problem maneuvering his boat in the creek. It should be stated that Mr. Wade will be using the dock as sole access to the property. The applicant has no intentions of using any adjacent lands for any purposes. B. LAND USE AND ZONING The project site is presently vacant open space. The surrounding area consists of residential homes, some occupied only seasonally, others year-round. Although some of the lots are larger than the lot in question, most are smaller and thus below the current one acre zoning requirement. Because there are no water or sewer mains in the area, each home must have its own water supply well and sewage system. The existing zoning in the area is R-40, one acre low density residential. The parcel, being held in single and separate ownership which predates current zoning, is included under Section 100-244B of the Town Law. This section grants relief of current 39 j zoning requirements to substandard parcels. Requirements of this zone are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 ZONING REQUIREMENTS Minimum Requirement Proposed Lot Size (sq. ft.) 0-20,000 14,475 Lot Width (feet) 188 Lot Depth (feet) 80 ' Front Yard (feet) 35 50 Side Yard (feet) 10 10 Both Side Yards (feet) 25 45 ' Rear Yard (feet) 35 62 Livable Floor Area (sq. ft.) 850 1300 Although the subject lot is below the current 40,000 square foot zoning requirement, it is "grandfathered" as a single and separate ' parcel which predates current zoning and is thus governed under Section 100-244B. Yards have been measured with the front facing ' East Road. A search for other parcels in the Town of Southold which have been ' developed with homes closer to the wetlands than the normally ' 40 • • mandated 75 feet was conducted on March 13, 1991. The search was virtually fruitless due to the methods of keeping records at Southold Town Hall. Since their files are kept by name, there was no reasonable method of isolating parcels of this type. Southold Town officials did mention two parcels which do not meet setback requirements. One was a property at 780 Haywaters Road in Cutchogue owned by Frank Curran, that has an existing bulkhead. ' The structures on this property do not meet setbacks and have received variances from the ZBA. The house and accessory building on the property are 8.4 feet from the existing bulkhead. The accessory building is only 3 feet from the property line. Another property mentioned was that of Dean Kamen on North Dumpling Island in Fisher's Island Sound. None of the structures belonging to Mr. Kamen on this island meet setback requirements. The house on the island is only 40 feet from mean high water (MHW). The septic is a five pool design, and it is 75 feet from MHW. There is also a boathouse located at MHW. Apparently these structures were ' built without permits. The fact remains, however, that these structures exist on a parcel similar to Mr. Wades. The Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board's Area wide Waste Treatment Management (208) Study recommends that the following steps be taken in order to attain self-sufficiency in respect to water supply in the Town of Southold and Hydrogeologic Zone IV. ' 41 ' 1) Plans for sewering should be initiated where density is three or more units per acre. 2) A monitoring program should be instituted in order to ' determine water quality. Where it is determined that pollutants are present or may be expected in excess of groundwater standards, sewering should be initiated. 3) Sewering should be initiated in those areas where on-lot systems are subject to failure and cannot be upgraded due to soil conditions, high groundwater, small lot size and other considerations. 4) Vacant land should be sewered at the present SCDH designated density of approximately two dwelling units per acre. Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code states that a community sewage system method of sewage disposal is required when any of the following conditions are present: (1) the lot is located within an existing sewer district, (2) the lot is located in an ' area where the subsoil or groundwater conditions are not conductive to the proper functioning of individual sewerage systems, and (3) the lot is located outside of Groundwater Management Zones III, V, and VI, and the lot is less than 20,000 square feet in area, unless the lot will have a population density equivalent to or less than ' that of a realty subdivision or development of single-family residences in which all parcels consist of at least 20,000 square feet. 42 An individual sewerage system may be approved if the following conditions are met: (1) the lot is not located within an existing sewer district and is located where subsoil and groundwater conditions are conductive to the proper functioning of individual sewerage systems, (2) the individual systems comply with SCDH and state standards, and (3) water facilities requirements stated below are fulfilled. ' According to Article 6, a community water system method of water supply is required when any of the following conditions are met: ' (1) the lot is located in an existing water district, (2) the lot is reasonably accessible to an existing water district, (3) individual wells cannot provide an average yield of 5 gallons per minute of fresh, potable water, (4) groundwaters are non-potable or hazardous, and (5) the parcel is less than 40,000 square feet in area. ' Individual systems may be approved if the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel consists of at least 40,000 square feet, (2) the lot is not located within an existing water district and is not reasonably accessible thereto, and individual wells can provide an average yield of 5 gallons per minute of fresh, potable water, and (3) the individual system is in compliance with SCDH and state requirements. i ' 43 0 The Long Island Segment of the NURPS makes the following recommendations in regard to surface waters where existing quality ¦ is currently satisfactory. ' 1) Preclude any additional direct discharge of stormwater runoff into surface waters, using all available means for detention and/or recharge to reduce bacterial loads. 2) Protect stream corridors from encroachment, so that the stream reaches that will become dry because of the lowering of the water due to sewering will always be available for stormwater detention and recharge. 3) Inform local officials and the public regarding the nature and cost of the nonpoint source controls that must accompany further development or redevelopment and of needed changes in current practices relating to dog waste clean-up and disposal and public feeding of waterfowl. The proposed project is in conformance with all NURPS and 208 Study i recommendations. The lot is not in conformance with Article 6 ' regulations insofar as it does not consist of at least 40,000 square feet. However, the SCDH has approved a reverse osmosis type potable water well and a 55 foot septic system setback in the past for this project. That permit has now expired but will be re- applied for. ' 44 II C. COMMUNITY SERVICE Although Mr. Wade has no children of school age, any future owners who do, would attend schools in the Mattituck-Cutchogue School District. This school district consists of three schools, Mattituck Elementary and High School, Cutcho3ua West, and Cutchogue East. The student population in this district is approximately 1200, according to Lee Elwood of the Mattituck-Cutchogue School District. Mr. Elwood stated that the school district could easily handle any school age children who may dwell in the proposed house. Police protection for the site will be provided by the Town of Southold Police Department. one additional residence should not overburden the Police Department. The Cutchogue Fire District has told Mr. Wade that it would have no problem with protecting his property. Although the owner does not intend to utilize adjacent properties for vehicular access, logic and conscience dictate that emergency vehicles would not be included in such a ban: or at least the firemen would not be prohibited from extending hoses across town property. If, however, such a ban is strictly enforced, other alternatives are available to protect the house in case of fire. ' Mr. Wade has consulted with Mr. Dennis M. Corcoran, a expert in ' 45 ' the field of fire protection and an active First Assistant Fire Chief. A letter indicating possible alternative fire protection ' systems is located in appendix X. ' The hospital nearest to the property is,Eastern Long Island ' Hospital, located in Greenport. Any medical emergency would be referred there. It provides emergency service for the east end of ' the North Fork. The recreational facilities closest to the site are Goldsmith's Inlet Park, North Fork Country Club, and Cedars Golf Club. There are numerous parks and other facilities located on the North Fork which will be available for Mr. Wade and his family's use. None will become overcrowded due to use by Mr. Wade's family. ' Immediately adjacent to the subject parcel is property owned by the Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association. This is a private beach for use by the residents of Fleet's Neck. As property owners, Mr. Wade and his family may use this beach for recreational purposes. It will not be necessary for any public utilities to be connected to the site. This is due to the fact that the proposed project will be entirely self-sufficient. The details of the utilities are discussed under the section entitled "Design and Layout". ' 46 ' The nearest public water supply company is located in Greenport. According to officials at Greenport Water, the nearest water main ' to the Cutchogue property is on South Harbor Road, Southold. This ' main is approximately 4.55 miles from the site. The distance from the site makes public water cost-prohibitive. Solid wastes will be taken to the Southold landfill until it is permanently closed. The landfill is located in Mattituck and is ' the only depository for solid wastes in the town of Southold. Mr. Wade will conform to whatever disposal practice is adopted by the town after the landfill is closed. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project site is very visible from both East Road and Eugene's Creek. It appears as an undeveloped dune/marsh community. The site provides scenic views which are known to be important to the community. The Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Association uses the adjacent site for recreational purposes. The Association has ' indicated that the construction of a home on the property in question would inhibit their recreational use of their property and obstruct scenic views. As there is no delineation between the ' Fleet's Neck Property Owners' Association parcel and the Wade parcel, it appears as one parcel to the casual observer, and in fact may be used or at least traversed, without consent, by persons ' 47 I 1 ' other than the owner. I Impacts of construction on the site are discussed under ' "Significant Environmental Impacts". According to the new York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, there ' are no known archeological resources in or adjacent to the project area. A letter to this effect is included as Appendix T. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, noise levels in residential areas must not exceed 70 dBA. There is no reason to believe that levels exceed this standard in Fleet's Neck. Interior levels must not exceed 55 dBA. The noise levels of generators with ' high and low time periods will consist of a 4000 watt generator used for construction which will have a 78 decibel noise rating which is approved by OSHA for operators within 12' of the ' generator. This generator will be enclosed in a steel cage to protect it. This will also reduce the noise level well below the OSHA requirements of 78 decibels. The house will have its own permanent 4,000 watt propane fired generator. This compact generator will be located on the west side of the house (10 ft away) facing East Road. The generator will be ' enclosed in a steel box that is 3 ft by 4 ft. The box will be buried 2 ft into the ground. The generator will not be prone to flood damage because the ground at the location is 8.5 feet above ' 48 sea level. The noise level of said generator will be approximately 48 decibels due to the fact that the steel box will be lined with a sound deadening insulation and will be buried half way into the ' ground. ' The Department of Housing and Urban Development lists the following standards for external noise exposure for new construction sites: ' general external exposure must not exceed 65 dBA for more than 8 hours per 24 hours. The Department of Labor Occupational Noise Exposure Standard is listed in Table 2. II, ' TABLE 2 ' PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES Duration per day, hours Sound level, dBA ' 8 90 ' 6 92 4 95 ' 3 97 2 100 1.5 102 1 105 0.5 110 0.25 or less 115 49 III ' Construction noise levels are not expected to exceed these standards. 1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. EROSION AND SILTATION IMPACTS ' The potential for erosion and/or siltation into Eugene's Creek as a result of site construction is minimal. Minimal clearing will be required to construct the home, so runoff from clearing will be negligible. The low bluff will be stabilized by a retaining wall ' which will be located entirely behind mean high water. No toe ' scour is anticipated as the site is protected from significant wave action and exhibits a marsh fringe. The marsh fringe will persist ' after retaining wall construction, as the wall is far enough back from the wetlands so as not to harm them. This will also ensure ' that no detrimental impact will occur as a result of waves generated by northeasterly winds in the colder seasons of the year. ' B. SEPTIC SYSTEM IMPACTS ' Wastewater generated per single family residence will have the following characteristics: i ' 50 TABLE 3 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ' Parameter (mg/1) Mass Loading (gm/cap/day) Total Solids 115-170 680-1000 Volatile Solids 65-85 380-500 Suspended Solids 35-50 ' 200-290 Volatile Suspended Solids 24-40 ' 150-240 BOD 25-40 200-290 ' Chemical Oxygen Demand 115-125 680-730 ' Total Nitrogen 6-17 35-100 Ammonia 1-3 6-18 Nitrates and Nitrites >1 >1 Total Phosphorus 3-5 18-29 ' Phosphates 1-4 6-18 Total Coliforms 1010 i ' Fecal Coliforms 1010 Values for a typical residential dwelling, equipped with standard ' 51 ' water using fixtures and appliances, excluding garbage disposal, generally approximate 44 gallons per day. ' * Coliform concentrations are presented in organisms per liter of sample. Organic chemicals contained in certain household products have been observed to contaminate the groundwater underlying highly developed residential areas on Long Island. The main route that these ' chemicals take to enter groundwater is probably through on-site ' domestic wastewater disposal systems. Leaks from underground storage tanks and spills on the surface are other possible ways ' that chemicals may contaminate the groundwater. ' The bulk of effluent is sewage which is the waste product of metabolic processes of the human body. During life processes, nitrogen compounds are released from animal bodies through urine ' and feces. Urine contains nitrogen resulting from the metabolic breakdown of protein. The nitrogen in urine exists principally as urea, which hydrolyzes rapidly to ammonium carbonate. Feces contain appreciable amounts of nitrogen as well as protein. This ' protein converts to ammonia (ammonium ion) by bacterial action under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions. Therefore, nitrogen in septic tank effluent appears predominantly as ammonia. Most sewage constituents except nitrates are bound up within a few feet of the leaching rings by bacteria in the soil. Nitrates, ' 52 • ' however, can enter the groundwater unless acted upon by (predominantly) facultative bacteria under the low dissolved oxygen ' (DO) conditions (Reynolds, et. al, 1979). For a time, Suffolk County Department of Health experimented with nitrification- denitrification systems, which were supposed to eliminate available nitrates, but no longer requires their installation, presumably due to problems in properly maintaining the system. ' The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan, (the 11208 Study") published in 1978, addresses the question of ' groundwater transport and contaminant diffusion. Cleary, the Princeton researcher responsible for describing the groundwater ' aspect of the project was able to produce a model that fully described the interplay between groundwater flow velocities and contaminant diffusion. Cleary found that the movement of groundwater was measured in years and decades, and his model demonstrated that non-conservation pollutants introduced into the ' groundwater regime "undergo decay at the point of entry, and they will not be found at any substantial distance from the source". ' In addition, Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality by Canter and Knox was consulted. Their findings show that biological ' contaminants including viruses, as well as phosphorus, metals, and organics are likely to bond with soil particles and thus not enter t the water table. ' 53 1 1 ' Regarding the studies conducted by SCDH and Brookhaven National ' Laboratory as mentioned in the critique and comments by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, it was found that in a single family residential area, there was no contamination by enteric viruses. Similarly, studies which introduced viruses into a small on-site system resulted in findings that showed viral movement through the aquifer for at least 50 to 60 feet horizontally. These findings, ' with regard to Mr. Wade's site show that the potential for bathing areas and shellfish waters to be contaminated in the vicinity of ' his property is minimal. The proposed sanitary setbacks are adequate and have been approved. Therefore, in the event that ' contamination does occur, it will be minimal and within the safe limits for water quality as set by New York State. According to the SCDH, the maximum observed distance of travel for bacteria in sand dunes is ten feet from the septic system. However, ' it is expected that coliform bacteria will be substantially removed within the first foot of soil outside the leaching pools. The t movement of bacteria in a homogeneous porous medium such as sand is and mechanical filtration of poor as a result of adsorption bacteria cells. A naturally occuring mass of bacteria in the first few inches of soil, known as the clogging mat holds back the effluent so that it enters the soil very slowly. The clogging mat I 54 I ' removes almost all the bacteria. One study' concluded that 120 cm (3.9ft) was sufficient to minimize the possibility of groundwater ' pollution by fecal coliforms from septic tank effluent. The study ' indicated that fecal coliforms were seldom found in samples collected 120 cm below the discharge point. Other references indicate substantial removal within the first foot of soil, with nearly complete removal within 2-4 feet of the discharge. This is consistent with the SCDH requirement that a minimum of 2 feet of soil be present between the bottom of the leaching pool and the groundwater table. Bacteria from sanitary waste usually live for ten days in the soil, often less in sand. Because bacteria are likely to bond with the sand grains, it is unlikely that any will ' enter the groundwater system. If some bacteria do enter the system, their numbers will be small and highly localized. It should ' also be noted that the proposed system will only be receiving "gray ' Water" from baths, showers, and laundry wastes. Toilet wastes which represent the most significant source of coliform bacteria in ' household sewage will be handled separately utilizing a composting toilet which will have no discharge to the ground. Coliform levels in gray water are expected to be significantly lower than these ' found in sanitary sewage. In fact, coliform levels in gray water are typically between .0001% and .00001$ of those found in sanitary ' The movement of fecal coliforms and coliphages below septic ' lines Journal of Environmental Ouality (8)(1) 121-125,1979 ' 55 ' sewage. ' There is some concern regarding septic system impacts in relation to future plans of the Trustees to possibly reopen the creek channel. Presently, according to President John Bredemeyer ' of the Southold Trustees, the project is in a suspended state due to insufficient funds, and the fact that Trustee John Bednoski, who originally requested the project is no longer on the Board. In the ' event that the Trustees plans change and a project of this nature arises, it will be addressed accordingly. 1 Bacteria which reach the groundwater in large amounts have the ' effect of rendering shellfish unfit for consumption when they enter the bay. As previously stated coliform bacteria are substantially removed within the first foot of soil below the leaching pool. If ' any bacteria do reach the water, they will be diluted so the resulting impacts will be minimal to non-existent. In addition, the ' installation of a navy wall along the southwest property line will prevent groundwater from flowing directly into the creek channel. ' The navy wall will be installed with an impermeable liner on the ' inside. ' According to the 208 Study, viral contamination on Long Island is not extensive. Little is known about the transport of viruses in ' the subsurface. Some viruses are removed with solids from the ' 56 1 sanitary waste and thus pose no threat. Canter and Knox contend that many viruses bond to soil particles. Viruses can be removed A from the system more quickly in areas of low flow rate and low Ph. Although the flow rate on the site is reasonably high, the Ph of sand is generally moderate. This will help prevent viruses from reaching the groundwater and Eugene's Creek. organics are also likely to bond with soil particles before ' reaching the groundwater system. The main concern of organics entering the hydrologic cycle are (1) toxic effects, (2) ' bioaccumulation in shellfish and fish, and (3) tainting of fish and shellfish by hydrocarbons and other organics. The 208 Study states that only the first is of real concern on Long Island. However, in this instance few organics will reach the water table due to soil bonding. Those that do enter the system will be diffused by the ' existing water and thus pose no toxic threat due to their low concentrations. of some concern are the everyday household cleansers, degreasers and cesspool treatment products which contain chlorinated solvents. ' When used in excess they can pose a threat to the environment. The use of these types of products by Mr. Wade will be kept to a minimum, so that there will be no detrimental effects on the groundwater or surrounding waters of Eugenes Creek. Alternative products which are non-toxic and biodegradable are available and 1 57 I will be used to the greatest extent possible. Routine cesspool pumping occurs approximately every 2 to 3 years when the total depth of sludge and scum exceeds one-third of the liquid depth of the tank. However since Mr. Wade will be using composting toilets this procedure will probably be unnecessary because the septic system will deal with gray water only. In other words, the wastes going into the septic systems will come from the sinks and showers so the wastes generated will be virtually solid free. An excess of metals in the sewage effluent could be toxic to fish in the bay. It is highly unlikely, however, that toxic quantities of metals will reach the bay from this development. Metal particles bond with soils before reaching the water table. Any metals reaching the water table will be in small quantities resulting in minimal impacts. Long Island has a history of problems with nitrogen and phosphorus. These two elements stimulate plant growth, which often leads to other problems. Canter and Knox explain that phosphorus is easily ' retained in the soil by chemical changes and adsorption. Because of this, they conclude that phosphorus contamination from septic systems is not a major concern. Canter and Knox also refer to extensive studies which confirm that minimal concentrations of phosphorus escape from septic systems. Phosphorus contamination more often than not does not reach the water table. ' 58 i The allowable limit for nitrogen in drinking water according to Cramer and Voohris as published in 6NYCRR Part 703.5 is 10 mg/1. Nitrogen in the water can cause more problems than eutrophication. Nitrites are toxic to humans and animals when ingested. This is not of concern here, however, because most of the nitrogen from the septic system occurs in the form of ammonia. From the above Wastewater Characteristics Table, total nitrogen in the sewage r effluent leaving a typical home ranges from 35 to 100 mg/1. According to Canter and Knox, much of the ammonia will be adsorbed onto the soil. This will reduce the nitrogen level which reaches the groundwater. Any nitrogen reaching the groundwater will be diluted and dispersed while traveling to the water table. II Overall, the sanitary sewage resulting from the proposed action will have a minimal or no impact on the water quality in the area. Mr. Wade's proposed home will be equipped with composting toilets. The composting process reduces the volume of human wastes by 95% and it produces a stable compost. If the unit were used 30,000 times a year it would produce four cubic feet of compost. These ' toilets are waterless so there will be nothing entering the ground from this system. This system is environmentally sensitive, as it does not waste water and does not pollute the ground. Because these toilets are waterless the amount of water used in the residence will be reduced dramatically. The water from showers, washing dishes, etc. will use the septic system. The amount of water used 59 should not exceed 200 gallons a day at maximum. The septic system is designed to receive 900 gallons a day. Therefore, with approximately 200 gallons being generated a day the system will not be used to its full capacity. The septic system will deal with gray water only. Which is relatively free of solids. The waste water will pass through the first of five leaching pools, causing minimal impact to the surrounding waterways and groundwater. Underlying the leaching pool system is 8 feet of sand and gravel already existing on site to ensure proper and safe filtration of effluent leaving the residence. Most of the contaminants ' associated with sanitary sewage will be bound in the soils near the septic systems, where they will undergo biological and chemical ' breakdown. C. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS The impact to the groundwater from the well is expected to be minimal. The water underlying the site already contains a high concentration of chlorides, which will be filtered by the proposed reverse osmosis well system. Reinjection of freshwater effluent from the system will retard salt water intrusion. i According to Nemickas, Bronius, and Koszalka (1982), average annual I 60 r recharge is estimated at 21.3 inches when total rainfall is 44.5 inches. This is based on long term rainfall measurements for eastern Long Island recorded at Bridgehampton. The lesser figure of 13 inches, which will be used for worst case discussions, was recorded during a low rainfall year. During an average year, approximately 1,647,072 gallons of water are recharged to the aquifer. During a dry year, 995,903 gallons are recharged. These ~ figures vary from year to year. Average water usage is 300 gallons per residence per day. Therefore, total water usage is estimated at 109,500 gallons per year or approximately 10.9% of the worst case recharge situation for the property. Under average recharge conditions, the water usage (assuming total consumption) would be approximately 6.6% of annual recharge. ' With regard to water volume and changes in hydrologic flow under the property, it is expected that the development of the site will cause no significant changes in groundwater movement. Assuming that a proposed well pumps at a rate of 10 gallons per minute (maximum) or less, and draws a maximum of 396 gallons per day on an intermittent basis, no significant impacts are expected. The upper glacial aquifer is the only source of potable water in the project vicinity. According to Perlmutter and DeLuca (1963), ~ 61 ' sustained pumping of the aquifer at rates of 50 gallons per minute or more will probably induce salt water intrusion. As the proposed ' well will most likely pump at 10 gallons per minute on an intermittent basis, it is highly unlikely that the proposed well will cause significant changes in groundwater flow. In addition, given that a significant percentage of water withdrawal is recharged to the groundwater after usage, it is expected that no ' significant changes in the aquifer will occur due to the proposed project. D. FLOODING POTENTIAL According to the Flood Insurance rate Map (FIRM), the site lies entirely within the A-4 zone as indicated on Panel 94 in Figure 3. This area lies in the 100-year flood plain. First floor elevations in the A-4 zone must be above eight feet. The proposed building plans call for a first floor elevation of 9.671. This is in compliance with flood regulations. E. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS An osprey nest is located approximately 1000 feet to the north of ' the site. The osprey is listed as an endangered species in New York. The proposed project should not impact the osprey nest j because it is more than 300 feet from the site. According to Mike 62 ' Scheibel, endangered species specialist at the DEC, as long as all construction and operation associated with the site is greater than 300 feet from the nest, the osprey is unlikely to be effected. Construction and operation of the proposed project will be approximately 1000 feet from the nest. The Marsh Hawk, or Northern Harrier, may occasionally utilize the ' marshy areas of the site, although none were observed. This species is listed as threatened by the NYSDEC. It has a breeding range from Northern New England to the Bahamas and a varying diet. Marsh hawks nest in shrubs or tall, weedy growths on the ground in habitats ranging from all types of marshes and open areas. Because of their varying diet and their large feeding range, these hawks would carry on undisturbed in the marshes near where the building is to be constructed. Since the hawks nest on the ground t in the marsh and hunt on the marsh, disturbance will be minimal because the building is to be constructed outside the marsh. The subject site is sparsely vegetated and thus would not be an ideal nesting area for the marsh hawk. According to Chris E. Liebelt from the DEC, the last piping plover nest recorded in the vicinity of East Road was in 1985. There are records of piping plover using the shoreline annually, and as of 1991 there were an estimated 191 pair of piping plover recorded 63 r along the entire coastline of Long Island. These birds breed from Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta south on the Atlantic coasts to North Carolina, west along the Great Lakes to Ohio and Illinois and to Nebraska. Winters are spent south from South Carolina along the coast to Mexico and in small numbers to the West Indies. Their feeding is done on wet sands or mudflats exposed at low tide. Marine worms, crustacea, and insects appear r to be their chief foods. They are early migrants in spring and leave very early in fall to winter in small flocks along southern beaches. There is expected to be no harmful impact to the piping plover as a result of Mr. Wade's plans due to the fact that there are no birds using the site for nesting. The few that happen to I use the shoreline for feeding will not be impacted because all construction as well as the finished house will be set back far enough from the beach to pose any threat. j The other species that may be found on the site are common species. None of the aquatic species will be disturbed by the development, other than for recreational purposes such as fishing or clamming. r Some of the animal species may be displaced because of the presence of humans, but this should not be extensive due to the fact that the site does not support an abundance of wildlife to begin with. The more tolerant species, such as the opossum and several bird species, will probably remain in the area. 64 ' • Since the site will be landscaped with natural vegetation does not require extensive use of chemicals, the flora and fauna of the area will not be subject to chemical pollutants. The septic system will not have an impact on the plants and animals for the reasons previously mentioned. It should be stated once again that the septic system will handle only gray water, human wastes will be composted and removed. ' F. WETLANDS IMPACTS Of the valuable functions of wetlands listed under "Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology", none except recreation, education and research, 1 and aesthetic appreciation will be impacted because the wetland area as well as adjacent wetland areas are to remain undisturbed except for the proposed catwalk which has already been approved. Because the catwalk is raised, marine food production, wildlife habitat, flood, storm, and hurricane control, cleansing ecosystems, sedimentation control, and open space will continue undisturbed. The proposed retaining wall will be placed landward of the marsh r fringe and therefore will not adversely impact it. To some, the construction of the house will be visually and aesthetically obtrusive. At present the house pilings and the dock are the only 1 man-made structures on this appendage of land. The appearance of the land will change once a 28' high house is built. While this certainly will alter views of the bay from other parcels, the only ' 65 1 way to preserve the current conditions is to purchase the lot for open space purposes, which no agency or group has been willing to do. G. CONFORMANCE TO LAND USE PLANS The site lies in the R-40, or low density residential, district. The buildable lots in this zone must be at least one acre. ' However, the lot is "grandfathered" because it predates current zoning. Thus the zoning requirements are as found in the section 1 entitled "Land Use and Zoning". r Many of the lots in the immediate area are less than one acre in size. Because the lot is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered a legal lot as is evidenced by the past issuance of a building permit. The proposed plan is in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. I There has been some discussion of reopening the creek channel in the future but so far no plans have been made to do so. Mr. Wade r has proposed to build a navy wall along the south west property line. This will allow the trustees to reopen the creek channel at any time. The purpose of the wall is to retain Mr. Wade's property ' and preserve the sanitary system and prevent direct leachate entry into any hypothetical newly created waterway. 66 H. VISUAL IMPACTS The project site is very visible from East Road, Eugene's Creek and Fisherman's Beach. The site is known to be important to the community due to its scenic views. The proposed house would stand out visibly, however, it would not obscure views entirely due to the fact that it is only 28 feet in height and 1300 square feet of living space. 1 There are approximately 9 homes on adjacent lands from which Mr. Wade's proposed house would be viewed. Other viewers would be any boaters that traverse Eugene's Creek. The exterior finish of the t house will give the appearance of a typical New England style home, not unlike those seen on Cape Cod. The exterior of the proposed house will be a natural cedar shingle that when weathered, will be ' a silver-gray color. The roof will be a slate-gray. It will have an aesthetically pleasing look and will fit in well with the color and texture of the landscape as well as the established neighborhood dwellings. 1 Mr. Wade bought the property fully intending and understanding that, it could be built upon. There are many examples of very visible homes in the Town of Southold, including the shores of Long Island Sound and Orient Point. One house in particular that is presently being constructed is on Fishermans Beach, directly 67 I ' opposite Mr. Wade's site. Compared to Mr. Wade's proposed house, the Fishermans Beach house is much larger. I. IMPACTS OF THE DOCK All permits for the dock were received, and it was constructed in October, 1991. The dock consists of a raised catwalk extending to r a ramp and floating dock. It is included on the site plan in ' Appendix N. ' Construction of the walkway 3.5 ' above the marsh ensures the continued light impingement and growth of vegetation below. The ' impact of the float on the creek bottom is minimal and in fact can attract small fish and invertebrate seeking shade and shelter from predators. MITIGATION MEASURES i A. GEOLOGY Excavated material from the placement of the septic system will be used to re-cover the system. Excess material will be used to elevate the system so that it is at least two feet above the water table. 68 B. WATER RESOURCES With respect to groundwater quality, stormwater runoff will be ' directed to a drywell for retention. Through this method, runoff which may contain contaminants will be further filtered by the soil before entering the groundwater. This technique is recommended for capturing stormwater runoff in the NURPS study. ' Because only a minimal amount of clearing will occur on the site, much of the sandy, highly permeable dune environment will be left as open space. The permeable area allows for recharge of rain and runoff so it does not enter the bay directly, but is filtered by i the sediments of the site. With respect to surface waters, erosion control measures will be taken during construction to ensure that siltation does not occur in Eugene's Creek. Erosion control would involve the placement of ' hay bales around the construction area, so that loose sediment does not wash away during heavy rains. ' The septic system is deliberately set back as far as possible to maximize the distance from the wetlands, so that minimal ' contamination will occur. Fill excavated from the septic system will be replaced to cover it and ensure that the system lies at least two feet above the water table. The five-pool linear design 1 69 of the system spreads the pools over a large surface area, which allows for a greater height above the water table. This will minimize the impacts to the water table. The installation of a lined navy wall along the southwest property line will also protect the surface water in the event that the creek channel is reopened in the future. Propane is proposed as the means of heating and electricity for the ' house. Propane is environmentally safer than the conventional use of oil. If the propane tank should leak, the gas would escape to the air, whereas oil leaks contaminate soil and water. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY . Clearing for construction on the site will occur only in the area ' and amount necessary to build the home and septic system. Areas not used for construction will be left in their natural state. ' There will be no permanent displacement of plant species because after construction, disturbed areas will be replaced emd revegetated with beach grass (Ammophila breveliaulata) and other common dune plants. The area will be landscaped in a fashion similar to the landscape plan given in Appendix P, excluding the ' driveway. The plants used for landscaping will help to stabilize the dune. Many of the plant species are typical of dune ' environments. These include Beach Plum (Prunus maritima), Beach ' 70 Rose (Rosa ruaosa), and Bayberry (Myrica nennsvlvanica). D. LAND USE AND ZONING The proposed plan has been designed in accordance with existing ' land use plans insofar as was possible. A building of minimal size has been proposed to reduce visual impairments of scenic views. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Construction will occur only during normal business hours so that noise will not bother the surrounding neighborhood. Excessive t noise will only occur during the construction phase of the project. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ' In order for construction to begin 6900 square feet, of the 9,900 square feet of upland, must be cleared. Of this area, 5100 square feet will be revegetated and 3,000 square feet will be undisturbed. Some of the flora and fauna will be displaced from the site due to construction and presence of humans in the area. Revegetation cannot occur on the area where the house will stand. Some animals may be permanently displaced from the site. 71 i • • i The use of an in ground septic system will be necessary because no public system is available in the area. There has been some concern that the septic system will have an adverse impact on the wetlands and water near the site. The septic system will only deal with gray water because of the composting toilets. Although some contaminants may reach the water table, they will not have a significant impact. This has been shown in the discussion under "Significant Environmental Impacts". Local residents have enjoyed the scenic benefits of the site in the i past due to its undeveloped nature. However, the owner now seeks to develop his property. The plan proposes a minimal house size ' which will preserve some of the scenic qualities that the site offers. Wetlands will remain undisturbed, and minimal clearing will disturb the upland environment. Setbacks have been chosen to ' minimize impacts to sensitive areas of the site. ' ALTERNATIVES A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS 1 72 ' • ' Three alternatives to the layout described above and depicted in Appendix N are presented. These include the "mushroom" home, road access across the Trustees adjacent property, and bridge access across the Trustees property. The "mushroom" home will change the shape of the home from conventional rectangular to one where living quarters are elevated on a pedestal. It has been deemed that the septic system, water ' supply well, and home location cannot be altered because movement would place these structures too close to the wetlands. The ' location and type of well and septic system as they are is fixed by the D.E.C., Town and S.C.D.H. regulations concerning setbacks to water/wetlands,and separate from each other. Plans for the "mushroom" option are shown as Appendix C. ' The "mushroom" home will require the pouring of concrete and the importation of additional construction equipment to the site. It will also require extensive disruption to existing topography in order to remove existing pilings to construct the new home. ' Building the "mushroom" alternative will cost the applicant considerably more than the proposed plan as the existing pilings ' would have to be removed and a concrete pad poured. ' An access alternative is vehicular travel across the Southold Town ' 73 ' Trustees property to the west. A bluestone driveway could be built to connect to East Road with very little impact to natural ' resources. The Trustees denied permission to utilize their property in this fashion and stated that they may dig out the old spoil to recreate the waterway. Therefore, unless this position is changed, this alternative is precluded. Driveway access would permit the applicant the use of conventional means of electricity ' and heating. A driveway would provide easier access for the construction equipment and emergency vehicles. Plans for the driveway option are shown in Appendix C. Another access alternative involved a land bridge across the ' Southold Town Trustees property. If bridge access were granted, the Trustees would be at liberty to reopen the filled channel of Eugene's Creek at any time. As stated above, bridge access would permit the applicant the use of conventional electricity and heating. It also would provide easy access for vehicles. Plans for the bridge are shown in Appendix I. However, this option was also opposed by the Trustees and therefore abandoned. ' B. ALTERNATIVE SITES The possibility of a transfer of land was explored in late 1990. The Southold Town Trustees offered a land transfer with a parcel in 74 ' Orient-by-the-Sea. This property was unsuitable for transfer because it would not allow the applicant a place to dock his boat ' due to its situation on Long Island Sound. In addition the Southold Town Board deemed the property in Orient to be worth considerably more than Mr. Wade's property in Cutchogue, and asked Mr. Wade to ' pay the difference in cost. This is a secondary reason that this proposal was unacceptable. 1 ' C. ACQUISITION The Town of Southold has expressed an interest in acquiring Mr. Wade 's property in the past. The town had an appraisal prepared by Lew Edson to determine the value of the property. His assessment was $50,000 without a building permit, and $175,000 with a permit. Mr. Wade hired an impartial appraisal firm, Asset Appraisal Center, Inc., to appraise the property in December, 1986. Their appraisal was for $225,000. Because of the huge discrepancy in appraisals, Mr. Wade is unwilling to consider purchase by the town unless a mutually acceptable price is agreed upon. The financial condition of the Town make the likelihood of acquisition minimal. The DEC ' has a Tidal Wetlands Acquisition program but that too is virtually without funds and not likely to be refunded due to the State's huge ' budget deficit. Mr. Wade is not in a financial position to donate the parcel to a public or quasi-public agency. ' 75 1 D. ALTERNATIVE SIZE ' The size of the development is as small as possible. The house will be no more than 1300 square feet in area. A smaller house would not meet the owner's living requirements and would not ' significantly reduce any impacts. ' E. NO ACTION ' Finally, the no action alternative must be considered. This alternative would require no construction to occur on the site. No adverse environmental impacts would occur due to the no action alternative. If no development were to occur, the public would not lose any of the aesthetic or recreational value associated with the ' site. Mr. Wade, however, would lose the right to use his land. This land was legally purchased with the intent of building upon it, and is zoned for the intended purpose of the proposed action. To forbid ' development without compensation is considered a taking and is therefore illegal. F. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ' 76 ' Water saving fixtures can be installed in the house. Flow reducers on showers can significantly reduce the amount of water consumed. 1 ' There were two options for retaining walls. One was the original railroad tie wall, and the other is the requested navy type ' retaining wall. Both have been approved by the NYSDEC in other instances. In comparing the two walls it was concluded that there ' is no more environmental impact installing one type over the other. There are no superior alternative locations for the retaining wall. The proposed location was found to be best suited to the overall ' construction plans. ' IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ' The only irreversible or irretrievable commitment of a resource is the material used in the construction of the home itself. This material can never be returned to the environment from which it ' came. ' Other resources which will be utilized on the site can be ' reclaimed by the environment in time. These include groundwater, surface water, soils, vegetation and wildlife. Other resources which will not be permanently affected by the ' development are transportation, zoning, and cultural resources. ' 77 II , • • ' GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS ' Approval to construct upon this parcel will not induce growth ' elsewhere. each application is reviewed on its own merit based upon a unique set of circumstances, facts and conditions. ' REFERENCES Burt, William H., et. al. 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Canter, L.W., and R.C. Knox. 1986. Septic System Effects on Water ual't . Lewis Publishing, Michigan. r Cohen, P., Franke, O.L., and B.L. Foxworthy. 1968. An Atlas of Long ' 78 t • • ' Island's Water Resources. New York State Water Resources Commission Bulletin 62. t Cramer and Voorhis, Associates. 1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Single Family Residence Meadow Lane Mattituck. ' Flood Insurance Rate Map Town of Southold New York Suffolk County, Panel 94. 1983. National Flood Insurance Program. Henderson and Bodwell. 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, ' Manhasset Glen Plandome/Flower Hill New York. Jensen, H.M., and J. Soren. 1974. Hydroasology of Suffolk County, Lona Island. New York. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, U.S. Geological Survey. Johnson, J. 1987. Protected Fishes of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society. Kreissl, J.F. 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows. U.S. ' Environmental Protection Agency. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Hauppauge, New York. Martin, Zim, and Nelson. 1961. American Wildlife and Plants, A Guide to Wildlife Food Habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. 1978. 208 Study. Hauppauge, New York. ' The Nature Conservancy-Long Island Chapter. 1984. Review of High Priority Species to Consider on Long Island and in New York City. ' Nemikas, Bronius, and Koszalka. 1982. Geohydrologic Appraisal of Water Resources of the South Fork, Long Island. New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2070. ' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-Division of Fish and Wildlife. 1979. Endangered Species. ' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Protected Native Plants. 6NYCRR part 193.3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1977. Tidal Wetlands-Land Use Regulations, Part 661. ' 79 ' Perlmutter,N. and F. DeLuca. 1963. Availability of Fresh Groundwater. Montauk Point Area Suffolk County. Long Island New York. U.S. Geological Survey. Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to Birds East of the Rockies. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston. ' Quindry, T.L. (ed.). 1973. Standards on Noise Measurement. Rating Schemes, and Definitions: A Compilation. U.S. Department of Commerce, NBS Special Publication 386. Reynolds, R. et. al. 1979. Nitrogen Removal in a Subsurface Disposal System. Water Pollution Control Federation. Suffolk County Health Department. 1990. Article 6. Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Suffolk County Health Department. 1982. Contour Map of the Water Table and Location of Observation Wells in Suffolk County. New York• ' U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk County. Other References ' United States Environmental Protection Agency, Project Summary. EPA/600/52-91-010 June 1991-"Movement of Bacteria through Soil and Aquifer" ' Small Flow Clearinghouse West Virginia University (September 1988) ' Small Flow Clearinghouse West Virginia University (April 1992) ' 80 ' PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Bredemeyer, John. Southold Town Trustees. ' Elwood, Lee. Mattituck School District. ' Fisher, Anthony P. H2M Group, Melville NY. Greenport Water District. ' Reynolds, Roy. Suffolk County Health Department. Scheibel, Mike. New York State Department of Environmental ' Conservation. ' Van Tuyl, Colin. Land Surveyor. McMann, Jim. Southold Town Trustees 1 1 ' 81 1 • • APPENDIX A rOEH NO. _ " TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE ' SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ' BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) ' NT 514 0 Z Dote E . 197 I Permission is hereby granted to:~ J t- Cc.uv~ r _ ' to n.... F y%S F3!... c..7 : rf G A of p US ~.......A.S.....i°........... AC N f/c vSt- at premises loccted at ii 0 !-1 1100 A' i /i'0 A GU C f,'UC-UL- Pp Y_..... pursuant to application dated 9.......rE 3 19..~, and a roved b the Buii=ing inspector. G~ ' Fee .Building Inspector V4 t ?S/-4 ~ jr ,'(~..rl y,~<:1jy'+h•r f: ..w M': n~ ~2 1. a~ j v.! v R}YC*; Yt, f / •',Y' 4.~\ M , 1 R ~4 F .i•a• yt^ r~'Ji r.i. r s }•i {(<1i>, 14, y, ~ /~J c/i~~yf ' ? i ~ ~ r 3•~ '1.": g .'i: 't. s . ; a 1 u ~<h 1~ 1 .t t ~;r: iq~T?+S.^!' .ii v :.f r 45 ytt ~ FAil* 11 rtC e. DAIE i ! HAS- J 1 S t 1 , y: '1 a 1••ci•.l' ~`t ~f 'k _..W ` µggs( ' • r 'Y~`~ r}'3, .t IV a: ®DR ~f~. r < 5. -Si..yy~f ` S _ Z!yy4', y}t a)) -Y•I il~nJa` ~+,.4 fir. c.. •w.!' ..v' ~.w Y~`-T~ °AlF tr _e 'nt `'t y+ ••.v 1" frAy 7.: t ,This no~ce.t ~clplci nA•~ r~ csi~Q ssrid returned•di De~" ;E~ ,:,f . 'of occupancy 13 omplFltigr ~3~ P fRR'SG.f~.1 r+.' + I ? o.F' s ~ ~:'3 a 7~~`'.~ ~SF ~ ~y ...1,,~•, BUILDING -I • ~ ~ M1~ •si ~ ' .r,k^~' •~U~~ s• .4 ?i1~?v-~i,~~`•~•f.~}} (..'r y s S j.Vt3dfu# k'WN 5' c y.vti'-+=-44P. F-~; 9' .17,•k_ rte. ••'t3: fitV kf = do ~aN.. r+.`;^t ,1C'--,' ' • ^~'::.-'o ''t''-'`SZ['/ j1.. i yf .Y'•}+~A ~~9 /t .7_S-P. h~v' '5111.• t ~ • ~ ~ 4f~,- , I. {.'~~i'- .t ..1 , !.t'Y~~'TM t1i.~S.~+. n.t` , ~=;F~•~~n'tiR r4 ~ . 7,i' is :Y IW-lU-tfPUSS/ PERMIT ¦ APPENDIX B UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSER ARTICLE 15, (Protection of Water) ARTICLE 23, (Tidal Wetlands) ARTICLE 24, (Freshwater Wetlands) ® ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Hazard Areas) PERMIT ISSUED TO Gas Wade ADDRESS OF PERMI TTEE _ 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon, New York LOCATION OF PROTECT (Section of stream, tidal Welland, dam, building) S O S adjacent to c ogue Harbor and Haywaters Avenue, Town of Southold, Suffolk Count . DESCRIPTION OF PROTECT Construct one-family dwelling and appurtenances and 120± feet retaining wall, Place 35± cubic yards of fill. COMMUNITY NAME (City, Town, 'v iliage) TOWN Hamlet of Cutchogue Southold COLNTY FIA COMMUNITY NO. DAM N0. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE Suffolk County Dec. 30, 1984 GENERAL CONDITIONS I. The permittee skull file in the office of the appropriate Regional 8. That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any dal ~Permrt Administrator, a nonce of intention to commence work at least 48 or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused hour, in advance of the time of commencement and shall also notify him result from future operations undertaken by the Slate for the conservati, promptly in writing of the completion of the work, improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or rig The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized compensation shall accrue from any such damage. r•presem.arlve df me Department of Environmental Conservation who may 9. That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby autho odor [fie work >usuendrd if the Public interest so requires, is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and Signals as may be 1 3. As a condition or the issuance of this permit, the applicant has ac- scribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maim: epled expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal respon- by and at the expense of the owner. Iblmv for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whom- 10. All work carried out under this permit shall be performed in aI' ever suffered, arising out of the project described herein and has agreed to dance with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike manner -demnlfy and save harmless The Stale from suits, actions, damages and 1osrs or every name and description resulting from the said project. 11. If granted under Articles 24 or 25, the Department reserves the to reconsider this approval at any time and after due notice and hearin a. Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted continue, rescind or modify this permit in such a manner as may be four malt be removed evenf., without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the be just and equitable. It upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, ed of the waterw•av if flood plain of deep holes that may have a tendency to modification of the Wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, to>r mpurv to na:Ipahle channea or to the banks of the waterway, applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in Anv material to be ceposired or dumped under this permit, either in time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may red' one wdrerwav or an sore above nigh-water mark, shall be de remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore posited or dumbed site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of IM- Iucalltr shover up me lrlw,nR hereto attached, and, it so prescribed within or benrnd a good and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such York on account of any such removal or alteration. a~ odl prevent escape of the rnate•IaI into the waterway. 12. This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant 5. Therehall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of Pill rk herein auth alZPQ to perform the permitted work of as authorizing the impairment of any rig title or interest in real or personal property held or vestA in a person nu 1. That of future operations by the State of New York require an alteration party to the permit. n the positron of the structure or work herein authorized, or it, in the opinion 13 The the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable permitted is rand ritbts for obtaining any other permits, . lands, easements and rightol.way which may be required for a c trurtion to the free navrxatfon of said wafers or flood flows or endanger project. health, safety or welfare of me people of the Stale, or loss or destruction of the natural resources of the Slate, the owner may be ordered by the Depart- ta. It granted under Article 36, this permit is granted solely on the bap I or 10 remove or altef the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused of the requirements of Article 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law n•by without expense to the Stale; and if, upon the expiration or revocation Part S00 of 6 NYCRR (Construclion in Flood Plain Areas having Special Fk this permil, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the Hazards - Building Permits) and in no way signifies that the project will wdhafoaSP hereby authorized ,hall not be completed, the owners shall, free from flooding. "four rfoenve to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or 15. By acceptance of this permit the permfltee agrees that the per portion of the uneomule•ted structure or fill and restore to its former is contingent upon strict compliance with the special conditions on on the navigable and float caparity of the watercourse. No claim shall reverse side. ob!"=le against the State of Cew "irk - account of any such removal or aison. 110-4 19/7Si (SEE REVERSE SIDE) it SPECIAL (-ONOITIONS 16. Applicant shall ob#m any permits required by thAwn of Southold, for construction in an A-4 (el8) flood zone, prior to commencing construction on the site. 17. The shoreline of the site and the tidal wetlands vegetation located thereon shall not be altered and shall remain in a natural state. 18. variance of 38± feet to the required building setback of 75 feet and 50± feet to the required septic system setback is granted. WF ISSUE DATE PE IT ADMI ISTRAT 1ADDRESS Z•2[~ 50 Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233-0 Louis Concra Chef Permit Administrator Appendix c -r - 7-D f- 0 - r o.. a e r ro ~f 1'. Y y S a 1, r.9 Y _ 4 _ ,D' TQVVI,,~ OF 13-' j TJ H AQEA -J ! 4?7gar • S a. _<J( .o sE c.EH,~EO - ! 3 - - r r, r•, r - A TO JJ '~T7i TP 4P'J(~..'0 NE~ o Pp5E~ 5. r. / . , i~`• , ` ®A 3 s- r~ HE 6 J _•,"Oust iMPELV!O'JS 5t4gFACE m F goFF 2 T - WELL y f~ ' r FGQ r J. SY`-r ,.a~S E. Al y a SEPTIC / _-YT 'w./1 F$ SC ALE( 2E( 6 o j l NG'rE,' i T At{Cx INE AS aCt,V-E B ~ a s r~ , ~ _ '']~LLC4 R1~1DE ~~E7E~~y'yUTF-Gs.G i 6^6 +JP.LER- y' MWN TrzvsTEE- f,--",c 2819, b f to' Sa' 6 FGL~O1vE[.. C 1\ ~G' V 2 .I AP AiiE . M OF _rr - Att. 9$9, AUG :2 89, -'E QC ald' AJG. y .?r' 5.3A?+1 #6_.;-i? a `ni Li,.. Ct h 6~•6• r/P.LE~[. ''A:rr `Sy_~ t ! IF igba [+s~~t,.`~k t ~C Y/ 00 C:- X % ~ L7%`•' ,".r _±_r~.~": .•:":a t :i::,~'."~_:!:.~c M~Ari t:^ rE=4._c,~J 'ems so ~9 i "m mater ^^,.17 aad'serace sPe vr~oc - c o~ APPENDIX E 9"%" for t"" rasleeaee Val isisoT the s and ertLa Arlselk . D I ~•e s*Q+O.+YOII N4. t ' - r'te` AO ~ ' '~-:S.e _ - • 2 h T ~.Y ~ele~ i . _.:w: 6= a raze) .i /fir, ` '•rir•:.a~~_- .:+~~.al.. ~2•.~ '"-+~•t •1• - - 274.0E 1^MC'0) Z C/lt a7 (-150) ' / .4~ INN y 7bwlt - yr~r s•. , + _ ` Z E.~T, ~CLa4G ! f 41 _ .a Brava! draw t ` - r=$+/: »-:i-... ,~'y: _ _ ::w': _ -.t~„ _ _r._. {75.0) 1 „ yt = -i}- - 'Siv:.:~•:,, ° _ - . . 9.1 ($O). //D.O _ O s• 6.9s Vote 'ip> -e~ 1 - FK i - v. •?.G.,-:r rte.. r 1 < r- `at;z.;~.,., Beaar~r -i. - - S sy - ~ L~ / _ „•M. ,+r-_ f•~._ S : 're'"'-= `•:~.y~v`- • •.a: •ISSaef ..r.mrr follow O. •~.'-1' OGE%~T ~ \ s. - - ' ~ ~R': OD j ~ _ ~"es~.~ l ' SuL7 :.EY~c F e:pT ~ LZ / •-w~/-•_•- .E,_, ..•aw.sa: '~~lf.:ry 10 -Aim VVA F., A4 )ll' ~CaiC -:?EQSiY S ~ D ~-,-oaf-~tiei ' Z 0 _ wear si+eYLO.'i ir.OrIL~MGY.~' %F1_:6?J-ZOo_ _ a s:- 'C, . - + "g t - P rM?m_ un 7;,x/58.2 6ii in~ JfTfi ~/e _ ~vv~, bns are / ee ar ./C',(Ct -ro mean ?C1a /Cf/`o ~ / TZtI 19*!•~ a!'$: A190 ry•'ON; %S r.•~/Q."17 ° L/~{o a. COa;iI' G. r ` Cr LG1ld ~/Or_ rc A. 007 //C, B/oc F E G~rf Ole o .Z.S ~ p_" ~F. c c c+ ~:+.~-e iA' - ~1 c .1 1 _ : p.:.. • niz:• ~~r~; %Vew ~ r ~c • - • APPENDIX F X& 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Y BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. r BUILDING PERMIT t (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) ~ 244 Z Date ...~.~:».a 19»$~ N. 13 Permission Is hereby granted to G.t:» .....W a.d-...~•• r It to .....4.1e~a.A/ -Sr .....~s4..» .....~w`^..[ ( »Q4 » at premises located at ...1.D.°~~•~" .............»..»....»»»....»................_....:1..».......»..» t • county Z-- » Lot No. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Block Ah!1R.13 19..4..1., and approved by the pursuant to application dated Building Inspector. Fee S.~ v r ' uliding Inspector • • APPENDIX G NEW YORK STATE MPAIMMENT UP ENVIRONMENTAL CONS.ri,1.'AT1UN Division of Law Enforcement Bldg. 40, SUNY Stony Brook, MY'. 1.1794 (516) 751-7900 NOTICE OF VIOLATION OG~6S~, /98~ / Date of Violation: --7"Z ~ QuTOHOyccE 7/ rntc~~a" -r Location: EA&r B.Ja O< E.,45T Rdor~ GO - o55T Permit Number r (if applicable): `rw - /O - S-z bear / 17.31 41 1W;44 OtcGNB y PATH/ EA6T ,u4,¢r7~ Po.¢.T1 ^j v / . Records of this Department indicate that you are in viaix.tion of ti;. Environmental Conservation Law (E.C.L.): /V/ Article 1.5, ?rotection of Waters, Section -O'!G , 0505- 1 //Article 24, Freshwater Wetlands, Section 24-0703 /r/ article 25, Tidal Wetlands, Section 25-0401 -i in that you caused, or permitted to be caused: P~C.4 ~~.t6r./T OF ~i ~L. /~.Ar-i_+,¢+•1t.L i(-T 7YiE ivE t~T+cQ.-w~ ,.T.r GXG655 OF 774,0 47s'r Gu' VZ).T Av 51f+ 17 PE.P, t` . A. God CaAmTiGkC-%4Cq,: OG A~PauY..tt ~ng•~y /90-= A.,. OF 7iA4'&B,0 ~ssw tC/f~A~ ^bT 4WAVv6J st/;7w 6t4Aoc;7-,--b OF WAZw A.CdQ~ciT-roll' r-~JG. O,J &/1c/&7 wirM 1'60ve 3. ACCOW1Jb ,r,}c6ru~.~r7'oF ~;ca. sa 1F 1~.o`a"'J~ '4-.w-ow1..0U S. r, Try jE^.,Tcr2 A u/,LT~.Qia1A?, A violation of this/these Article(s) of the ~.C.L. a nc:::= atle fine of not more than $3,000 and/or 410,000. 1 'fou are hereby directed to cease your operation at r~r rer.ted tior. immediately. Failure to do so may result - in :-ol and possible criminal prosecution. Additional erree._:aac:. _s department will soon be in contact with you to ro;;o_:•e .-.:attcr. { Siuccrei•; , e. S-A~~ /-74 Lnviro:::ze.:tal r.scrvat: x :cam r PASO: jlb cc: C. Hamilton ' (?&47+C7- W;7}F A4L. aJA~E_-77 orcG*/ f~iS /~rrO~t?,i /t,. -,7-Arl4ps S Cl.ri •J of C<o.., r cw?dn/ I AZ.4; tJ ,~Oi4a / C c~TG . / O Qs a 6 / AJ V -r4 - 7 3 4 - ve U . ~ 4 w c ~s ii tL~. , tied C-'r- or v'i • L.i o • - • APPENDIX H _71MIZ OF YORK 1 ?ARTMEN": OF EA'VIROMIETMAL CONSERVATION . . X In & r•;atter of the Alleged Violation of Articles 15, 25 and 71 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, by ORDER 01; C.Ia = GUSTAVE J. WADE FILE INO. 1-127 (Suffolk County) Respondent . . . . . . . X WHEREAS, . 315-0505 of the New York State Environmen.a: Conservation Law requires a permit for all dredging and fi__:ng the navigable waters of the State of New York; and WHEREAS, §25-0401 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law prohibits the excavation and removal of any material, or the dumping or filling of any material without tze requisite permit; and WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC has documented a violation of said statutes in that Respondent caused or permitted to be caused, the construction of approxi;aa-. 178 feet of timber bulkhead in an unapproved location and unauthorized design in non-compliance with permit #10-82-0557, e further, that Respondent caused or permitted to be caused, the placement of fill in a location and in such a manner that it e..*.: and disturbs the waters and wetland areas in ritincompliance wit: permit #10-82-0557; and WHEREAS, Respondent, G~pstave J. Wade, sometime on or before October 29. 1984, violated 325-0401 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, in that he caused and/or per- :it-to be caused, the construction of pilings for a one-family dwel. in non compliance with-plans submitted in conjunction wit'.'. per=. #10-82-0557. WHEREAS, Respondent has affirmatively waived its right tc public hearing in this matter in the manner provided by taw and. having consented to the'entering and issuing of this Order, ac.- to be bound by the terms and conditions contained herein; i i NOW, having considered this matter and being duly advised, !it is Ii ORDERED, that with respect to the aforesaid violations, th is hereby imposed upon Respondent, a penalty in the sum of Two IThousand (52,000) Dollars, said penalty to be made payable to this Department upon execution of the Order; and it is further- II 14 ORDERED, that in those instances in which the Respondent 11desires that any of the provisions, terms or conditions of this Order be changed, it.shall make written application, setting forth the grounds for the relief sought, to the Commissioner, c/o Joan BI Scherb, Regional Attorney, New York State Department of is t furtheirsity of New # Stony Environmental Brook Se Now t York 11790 and it State York ORDERED, that any change in this Order shall not be made or become effective, except as specifically set forth by written order of the Commissioner, such written order being made either upon written application of the Respondent or upon the Commissioner's own findings; and it is further ORDERED, that this Order shall be deemed binding on Respondent its successors and assigns and all persons, firms and corporations acting under or for it, including, but not limited to those who ma} in eStat At l the £prthe es to location or at any other conducted his carry on any dent, whether or Dated: Albany, New Yo9rrkk HENRY G. WILLIAMS Commissioner of Environmental Conservation ` r By HAROLD D. BERGER" Regional Director I To: Mr. Gustave J. Wade 41 Willoughby Path East Northport, N.Y. 11731 john V. Ts. Klein, Esq. Suozzi, English 6 Klein, P.C. 160 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, New York 11501 ' i CONSENT BY RRCpONDENT Respondent acknowledges the authority and jurisdiction of t. Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New Y, to issue the foregoing Order;..waives public hearing or other pro ceedings in this matter, accepts the terms and conditions set fo in the Order and consents to the issuance thereof. GUSTAVE ' . WADE i ~ STATE OF NEW YORK) s.s.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) i' On the day of ~,C'ca`y 1986. before me personally ca ' `ea:L`~cs<'~ 4.0- ! to me known, who be'n4 dujy~.pworp, depos and saixl~ that he resides at ¢ ,!`1a ezr.~ l?, - ztx~ crtCivZ+~t i'-. that ht'is the individual described !A and which executdd,the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed'sar. MAURW: TOLP Relwy PUNC. e' Now Ymt Ra 90AM070 • N=.: ? C.u-ty 7+ My CM090 to upim w.ama 30. ism' I 1 SCHEDULE A ^ Compliance Schedule for GUSTAVE J. WADE ' Immediately, Respondent shall make applicati for any modification to permit #10-82-0557 and this applicatic shall be referred back to Admin strative Law Judge A. Marshall Irving. Within thirty (30) days Respondent shall remove the of the date of execution existing bulkhead pile.. of this Order, Within thirty (30) days Respondent will stabilize the of the date of execution edge of the roadway from the of this Order, barrier to the edge of the Trustees' property by revegetatinq this area with am grass which will protect the az from erosion. liithin thirty (30) days Respondent will provide of the date of execution topographical information from ' of this Order, licensed surveyor of this area in order that the Department staff may use this to deterninc what fill must be removed. Within sixty (60) days Respondent shall have removed of the date of execution an approved upland site, all f- of this Order, which has been determined o, t: Department to be in excess, of - 35 !cubic yards permitted in ' permit 010-82-0557. (continued- r i , cruFnnr.F A (Cont'd.) GUSTAVE J. WADE (The determination by the Department shall be made on the ' basis of the topographical information supplied by Respondent, or if said topographical information is not supplied by Respondent within th time period specified above, by 'flagging of the excess fill to b determined by Departmental representatives accompanied by a authorized representative'of the Respondent.) Upon completion of all Respondent's permit #10-82-0557 ' remedial work required shall be reinstated and shall in the above paragraphs remain in effect for a period of of Schedule A, two (2) years from the date of the original expiration date of the permit. It is understood that permit #10-82-0557 authorizes only the construction of the unique 'must room' house (cantilevered from a pylon) as requested by the perm: application herein, approved by the Decision Conference report c ' ALJ A. Marshall Irving, and depicted in appendices *C" and "0" of such report. i I ~PPENDIX I u: ~ y ~r v,x.r,4'9a'A._~ ..sr.N akt2w~ y _ ,J,P ra eK: o t t . u-?[:: Fut S~ f ~ . - e.' ~ os•'+ ' ..q,;g 'a^ - 5. .s.,:-i" f x zs r :3,.r y :~x ~r`Y F: u .ti.T" _ ~ r < t _ ° xn r _ 3. .t ^sr7" :fin.? qcH n "LL. r i'+l}R'y„ «r ~ . ~ rit ~.y,"~ ~z~. ..r 1r`*~: ~ ~ .ar-µ`R ~~"III„ r G • u'- ~ y. ~ IQU _ --'+~-ias , .i,y„~-,1., Fes, ~S.~s: ~ ,.....S:nE rF = .'4r S•~/,' ~ u :rtr~''~ a„ ,>Re . 1'~ r v r . JQ `'i:; '1' ~ i'yr~h, r i s3 - ;•~ir. .rV~ a.: s~. i-Tr a ±S " a.-• s'~ ~'~c¢_ ~ i.::N~r §1i I ~ .v COIL Is ~ _ Ave _ ! a m°d err . aRrai f., ` , ~ - - . .vg 4^L"'"k ~^r " z ra ~ .~°i x ^Y t ti l ~ ' v~.02N6~Y ~r ~ r r+ } . 'tea ~ - ,i~+ ~ 4. ~ . 5 a ~p N .l~ - .xd'•' -:yam 2 q`k" e- ' A!N LUW7 . ~ CIO E ` tt ' 1 tf t' Q SYSTEM. _ a 4/ t L' j ~L• -#S'2C1P O_ jf ~'w IS EP7_ s. °s t 1 ~rrIE?~_ •V> .A r` r19. ~~'`/~yfl~ '.11 ~r r3 y K `9 A 1 1 .ems ,RIQ~ O m i _r . Yv i _ ,4• 'v^I ^~,o- '`r'P.yylt,~'._'="`as.~a'd~++ ..i-'. 1 Q•~. " ,t - / . `NCr-cRR n!^ec+type rr .r n 6t . h~~rr r y - V~ ° rvarr rl a vo,"oegE. ¢ yj,': Prr i 4. >+S~ p'c't :h G ~j'a•' +t- - r _ - to S s of Shls nod, RAP ` r ` {i , v --[,M.' E?+a to a~ scwMM[: bicyf , _,1C+ _ "+cc seai nu by ,1 + y v TT~~'" u .a a Y v8 alid true a po popy ' T C•'J8r k r tt ~L +jc a s - 7, 1,1 Crap m~tkh~asner5o fw hereon R y. _F a.*'+ the eu. end on kuh exec r hisb.,.,, memw . _i V'.~.._ r,r1'e@9p/ti}e ~i.:tt<Y~ Merl( V - 1IQTUf'' ES =cEiTtCiiV:'i iti V" SC~1=A ! t:. r~l r \ t r ' L ra sas cre not tranefereWer lip' F"Irp - f A AISN ' - y - 2 $ c „p W ff FS .y ~ r .ray d~ a - yM1~-.s.. Fr f` "....,s ~ <a• t a r~.~'~`' i ~ -X t~~ ..:~{w. . k:.~ .jiA.i,.~Aw. 7' -v. ' ' >A1'*~'Y+ 's. *y`<~ .F~ 1 4 ,'.~•t'.. yi. ,e r ....i s'jt"'* "~:t-,.t . - ~J y±' j~„ e ?:4 ssv` k : - ~'S .f. " y - y~ ~ v.: ^\'C. J.. 'O _t _ 't y. ~r, ~YLS~:~l _ t J- Na.~l~.a ."4-`Y A Y • `9~ • ru .~i' aS .Y ''a 'T'^ Y~- i~ t. l 'Il `f,' ry: : i'*A +I- : •s`,r ,~'3 a.+",X~:_ SX• r i !~^,'W - d. rE+e S K. "^'F"t:+ r n E ' 2 y ~2a/`e F t si , _ w sv. P - 4 , s vl~ _ t t k' M1~ ~y £ ?F +Jr rt, s -r~ E k,'. r _ 11.+!. xp ZZ, ' ~ ri^~ ~,a ~ .r ~ r F •ry _ i` ' '.~i s"M1 S •S,[~p~~dy..~~^-`I a, ~~J~~~, ",r 5 ,~}t K .a: ;?a ~A ~ { - ,~.F ~ _ u"~3~ .,35. _ a n. z r . sa..+=+ ry ' ^ a .2-: d = rd `ft~ t : •vtr...•~' •-r y w ? y j , V ° v y f. w lam:. - ^F- r iP t S Cif i ~~1 ( v wt.~nWAI or / r Y .~mwa tJ M %OCUM 7201? 0.A th - r~ ' ` - !lf m" LaLa a Nsl• Ymk SEttF w . ¢ fM raGiaa of>hia anrvev Jean F= ^-~r i s 11,~ `Ma IaM - aurcaYOr 5 t Mf bairMq tt + ' - b e? ' ^ . s 6 4 9.,., •Alapag n4aU 9Mf q ~f i' / t - 7 T Ah"'~e st •1" ea uel el•ay nm F~c[a• ~aA^Q r; / : 'y" 4^ ' • `".'wri 'c4' r- bhe a valid vil may. s; t t K Fs paarornaaa h*aJ-A at . Wft ar an3 cz n ~tf rte. .6 CAaa \ 1~. 40 ` jJ~ 1 ~N CaTpBfly GalfTnt ? VS1 }3. P w% f sh ~ ~ ~c \ a(0 ~ y r tK? ~+tinVF `1X, ~y~ ~.Gnal nsri~.mca+so-., ~t~~ A I l e'a a , al F . i may:. f I/X t a s M1 ' 7Q - t ~ t ` yy y; Ol+ Milk ell" tx F~.>,'~,+ 4 ;mL EUM ELEVATIC1tJ3 dt CflfJ'trJtJ125A M- 4h~`A ~vE;. u 77 WIN • - • APPENDIX R 4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation III Building 40-SONY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 (516) 751-7900 Thomas C. Joriing Commissioner August 17, 1989 L, Gus Wade c/o All-Island Equip. 39 Jersey St. W. Babylon, N.Y. Re: Permit No. 10-89-1185 Dear MT. Wade: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any con- ditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Very truly yours, Marilyn Peterson MEP:rw Program Aide enclosure 1 t 1 1 1 i r r 1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation RECEIPT I J, RE-~ION NO. / DATE -7-1.1-99 LOCATION gR DIVISION _LVH r RECEIVED OF (-LJrdi-P G -I's lfn- Ar ilf ) IN THE AMOUNT OF St %Ltu n s l1 n FOR /n- S9-I/k Y ri . l CASH ? DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE _R Crf f nQ CHECK NUMBER -2,2SF TITLE -F PA MONEY ORDER ? . vu 32-01.3 (4180) i i %5705 (91861-25c NEWRK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ' DEC PERMIT NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE--- FACILITY:PROGRAM NUMBER(s) PERMIT EXPIR TIO DATE(s) Under the Environmental Conservation Law Article 15, Title 3; 6NYCRR 2327, 6NYCRR 329: Aquatic Pesticides a Water Quality~Certification I N I Tidal Wetlands Article 15. Title 5: Article 17, Titles 7, 8: Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: Protection of Water a SPDES Solid Waste Managements Article r Supply le 15: irr Ai lPollution Control' Hazardous Waste M nagement 3. Water Article 15, Title 15: Article 23, Title 27: Article 34: Land Reclamation Coastal Water Erosion Management Longest 15, Title Island Wells S Freshwater Wetlands Floodpla'm Management Article 15, Title 27: N-New, R-Renewal. M-Modification, Articles 1, 3. 17, 19. 27, 37; Wild, Scenic and Recreational C-Construct ('only), 0-Operate ('only) 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control Rivers PERMIT ISSUED TO AD RE~S; OF PERWITTEE t.lJrV 3 9 --Z`S6' ST A NT FOR PERMITTEEICONTAC RSO TELEPHONE NUMBER H , e 3 ' Pa .so a 441IM 7'd A'_17 NAA AND AOD ESS OF PROMMIACILITY (If different from Permitteel 7- 4" U U LgQTION OF PROIECTIFACILITY NTY IZOWNITY%ILLACE UTM COORDINATES L- ~ / u nrTt -feN DESCR ION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY ! i Construct, reconstruct, replace or repair apan pile catwalkit nr drsinkc: having a maylimllm surface width of 4 feet, and install or replace floating docks and ramps, ' GENERAL CONDITIONS ' By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compli- ance with the ECL, all applicable regulations and the conditions specified herein or attached hereto. 1 The perm ttee shall file m the office of the appropriate regional permit adirinistrator. Of other office designated in the specialconditions. a notice of intention to commence work at least 48 hours in advance of the time of commencement and shall also notify himdser promptly in writing of the completion of the work. 2 The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation which may order the work suspended a the public interest so requires pursuant to ECL 171-0301 and SAPA §401(31 3 The permiltee has accepted expressly. by the execution of the application. the full legal responsibility far all damages, direct or indirect of whatever nature. and by whomever suffered. arising out of the protect described herein and has agreed to indemnify and saw harmless the State from wits, actionss, damage and cents or every name and descrip- tion resulting from the said project. 4 The Department reserves the right to modify suspend or revoke this permit at any time after due notice. and, if requested. hold a hearing when: a) the scope of the project is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit w provisions of the ECL and pertinent regulations are found: or b) the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevem facts: or cl newly discovered information or significant physical changes are discovered since the permit was issued. 5 The permitter, is responsible for keeping the permit active by submitting a renewal application, including any forms, fee or supplemental 'nfoonarion which may be required by the Department. no later than 30 days (180 days for SPDES or Solid or Hazarduous Wane Management permits) prior to the expiration date. 6 This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any rights, title or interest in real d personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. 7 The permits" is responsible for obtaining any other permits. approvals. lands. easemerm and righn•of-wav which may be required for this project. ' 8 Issuance of this permit by -he Department does not. unless expressly provided for. modify, supersede or rescind an order on consent or determination by the Commissioner issued heretofore by the Department or any of the terms. conditions, a requirements contained in such order or determination. 9 Any modification of this permit grant by the Department must be in writing and attached hereto. PERM 155 NCE DATE PER IT A MINIS A ADDRr§[t.GULATORY A' M Christine 7.Costo oulos REGION 3 BUii-O1AIG 40 - AUTHOR/ZEDSIGNATURE I /v sTAT~EU:~IV ..r-= i..~.--t_ I l.._-~ Gy ;~....~i`~#a• G£.QOi~. ;iGC: y44 ~Ie`li O1-94 e 4 f Protection of Water j ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (Title SA 24. 25, 74, 36 and 6 NYCRR AM ( & Tidal Wetlands 110 That I future operations by the State of New York require an al- other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the teration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized. or protect. if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation 14 Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said shall be removed evenly, without leaving large refuse piles. ridges across waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a ' the people of the State. or cause loss or destruction of the natural tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of resources of the State. the owner may be ordered by the Department to a waterwaV remove or alter the structural work, obstructions. or hazards caused iS There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the %ork thereby without expense to the State. and it. upon the expiration or herein authorized. revocation of this permit, the structure. fill. excavation. or other 16 If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit. the project hereby modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- authorized has notbeen completed, the applicant shall. without expense pleted. the owners. shall. without expense to the State. and to such to the State. and to such extent and in such time and manner as the extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Department of Environmental Conservation may require. remove all or Conservation may require. remove all or any portion of the uncompleted any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the s.te structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State or and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against New York on account of any such removal or alteration the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 11 If granted under Article 36, this permit does not s,gn,iv in anv av 11 That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage that the project will be free from flooding. or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused 18 If granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608. the NYS Department of Environ- by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not 1conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes. and contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. Sections 301, 302. 303. 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 12 Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsi- (PL 95.217) provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met bility of obtaining any other permission. consent or approval from 19 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance 1the U S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard. New York State with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part Office of Ceneral Services or local government which may be required. of the permit application. 13 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination Such approved plans were prepared by rt of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids. sediments. fuels. y solvents. lubricants. epoxy coatings. paints. concrete. leachate or any on I SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. A copy of this permit with supplementary conditions and approved plans must be available at the project site whenever authorized work is in progress. 2. The permit sign enclosed with the permit or a copy of letter of approval must be protected from the weather and posted in a conspicuous location at the work site until completion of authorized work. 3. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee ' must complete and return the top portion of the enclosed receipt form certifying that he is fully aware of and understands all provisions and conditions of this permit. Within one week of completion of the permitted work, the bottom portion of that form must also be completed and returned. 4. If the permittee intends to undertake any project design modifications after permit issuance, the permittee must submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modifications. The permittee is advised that substantial modification may require submission of a new application for permit. 5. Those portions of docks, catwalks and ramps which extend over vegetated tidal wetlands shall have a maximum surface width of 4 feet and shall be a minimum of 3 1/2 feet above grade, as measured from the ground surface to the bottom of the planking. Floating docks shall not rest on vegetated tidal wetlands at any tidal stage. DEC PERMIT NUMBER PROCRAMIF ILITY NUMBER Page _!-of 4 95,28.6( (7T871-25< NEWOK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSESION SPECIAL CONDITIONS For Articles 15 & 25 Protection of Water & Tidal Wetlands ( 6. Docks and floats shall not extend laterally beyond property lines, be placed so that docked boats extend over adjacent property lines, interfere with navigation, or interfere with other landowners' riparian rights. 7. Dock reconstruction or replacement or seasonal installation shall not involve expansion or substantial modification of existing structures or facilities. B. Installation of additional docks at marinas, boat basins, or other commercial facilities is not authorized by this permit. 9. No dredging, excavating or other alteration of shoreline or underwater ' areas is authorized by this permit, nor shall issuance of this permit be construed to suggest that the Department will issue a permit for such activities in the future. Regional Permit Administrator NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Building 40, SUNY - Room 291 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 i i 'I ' DEC PERMIT NUMBER. FACILITY 10 NUMBER PROGRAM NUMBER 4 Page 3 of t ~ ' HAMII:TON' r~-. Chief„~ rul guIat r~~Section c NYSDEC„~'Bureau of Harine Habitat~ra[e ~ Bldg 4`0> SIINY„zRoosi 225' ~ '~k'.Stony Brook ANY 11794 ; u• r } .:a eft ?~"y-t~ " : Y `Issued To . - r * Y ~ Contractor's. Name. Contractor's Address 3= Contractor's Phone No. '114 ~ix Dear Sir: Pursuant to General Condition Number lea tfie shad' sated permit you } z" s ma are hereby notified that the authorized actawxtgss mmmP.+~~#cn ``-i i .t ,i., This notice is to be sent at least two days "addaac emeat of thee project. _T The permit sign will be postedsat the sites asd mpy, ylersiit will be available.*': at site for inspection. - 41 R [ Submitted By: Date ' FAILURE TO NOTIFY OR POST SIGN WILL LEAVE OWNEW ARnfog COMMA CTOR SUBJECT IO APPLICABLE PENALTIES FOR RON-COWLIAHCE WITH PEST CONDITIOHSy a-' ; ? { 5E 3 t y -all CHARLES T. HAMILTON r r„ J # F r ' Chief, Marine Regulatory Section wT r NYSDEC, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection s Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 225 Stony Brook, NY 11794 t Re: Permit No. ' Issued To: V_ Contractor's Name: , Contractor's Address: Contractor's Phone No. Dear Sir: f ' Pursuant to General Condition Number t. of the above referenced permit you are hereby notified that the authorized activity was completed one t Submitted By: Date _ THIS NOTICE, WITH PHOTOS OF COMPLETED WORK AND/OR. COMPLETED SURVEY IS TO BE SENT TO ABOVE ADDRESS PROMPTLY UPON COMPLETION OF PROJECT.- FAILURE TO. NOTIFY STILL LEAVE OWNER. AND/OR CONTRACTOR SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE PENALTIES FOR BM-COIRLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. 96-20.1 (&87(-94 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NOTICE The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information' regarding the nature and extent of work approved and any Departmental conditions on it, contact the . Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Regional Permit Administrator Permit Number Expiration Date NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit ' • - APPENDIX L _ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ' NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ~JACOB K. JAVITSFEDERAL BUILDINO NEW YORK, N.Y. 1027s-o0s0 March 29, 1991 ~TTEMION Cf ' Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Permit No. IOGP-16056 ' Mr. Gus Wade c/o En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Dear Mr. Wade: We have completed our review of the above application. From the information submitted it appears that the proposed timber pier assembly is authorized by our General Permit for Non-Commerical Mooring Structures (NYDGP-10) a copy of which is enclosed. Your work ' should be performed according to the conditions of this General Permit. Please display the enclosed Notice of Authorization sign at your work site. A copy is enclosed for your records. You are required to submit to this office the dates of commencement and completion of your work. Enclosed are two forms for you to use to submit the required dates. Notice is hereby given that the permittee should recognize that a possibility exists that the structure permitted herein may be subject ' to wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash and the permittee shall not ' hold the United States liable for any such damage. It should be noted that this permit does not relieve you of the obligation to obtain any State or local approvals for your work. ' If, for any reason, a change in your plans or construction methods is found necessary, please contact us immediately to discuss ' modification of your permit. Any change must be approved before it is undertaken. Sincerely, Enclosures )Ci/ef, W. Haggerty Eastern Perini s Section f • • 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT 1 Permitter Gus Wade. c/o All-Island Equipment Corp., 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon, NY 117( Permit No._inrP-16056 (516) 643-2605 Issuingoffice New York District. Corps of Engineers NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the psrmittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corp of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted 1 activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commending officer. You we authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: Construction of timber piers, ramps, floats and/or mooring piles for non-commercial purposes, as shown in the attached drawing(s), subject to the General Conditions of this document and Special Conditions attached herewith. 1 Project Location: In navigable waters of the United States within the geographic boundaries of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, in the State of New York Permit Conditions: 1 General Conditions: ' 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on Juno 9Gv 1995 , It you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi- tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement it you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina- tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 1 ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 3 0-330) 1145-2-303b (Little Peconic Bay - Gus Wade - floats, pier, pilings, ramp 1 1 4. If you sell the property associated with thin permit, you mud obtain the. dgmature of the new owner in the spats provided , and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the tnmder of " andenviestim b. U a conditioned water quality certification has bean issued for your project, you mast comply with the conditions specified , In the certification as spacial conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it con- talus such conditions. ' 8. You meet allow representatives from this office to impact the aatboth e l activity at any time deemed necessary to amore that it is being or has been accomplished In accordance with the teems and conditions of your permit Special Conditions: , SEE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS ' Further Information: 1. Congtassionai Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: (X) Section 10 of the Riven and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). , ( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). ' 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. , b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. ' d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project ' 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpecmitted activities or from natural , causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. 2 1 a. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit Is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 6. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision an this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. ' b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). ' e. Significant now information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result In a determination that it Is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 326.7 or enforcement procedures such u those contained In 88 CFR 826.4 and 826.6. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the Issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You wM be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified In 38 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unity there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. ' This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. ZS fas.i /490 - (DISTR(Cr ENGINEER) (DATE) R. M. DANIELSON ' Colonel, Corps of Engineers When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and condition, have the transferee sign and date below. ' (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) 3 -U.S. GPO' 1006-520.324 CuTCWO I II ~oR~ ~ tL i s } 1 \10 ~.20#0 V V \ - ~ '000. y~ 1 y ~ boo±' ~ ~ i 8 ~ 1 f\ R^HP, , SUP &K Go. AAlaSTaoh f 1 MA a7f~9 /"=3ooe~ 1 ~ 41~K co TES DA -rum: /tL ' PuAPOsa: PR~V/•I?c I 60AT Oe<K ' AOJAc-ENT Ow,y~RS 4 F~X~O y7~ LJAL< FL• ,/O~ OATS SovTXo~p i• TRus Teas F a, FLaaTS Nt'CK ' P!j o PER Tr H v=a= u_ owN.eR3 ASSN. t ri3Ti.v4 RA O. , f~er PRoPoSBn Do~K Fo,e ' o0 PROPiLC OF Oocr~ G vg G?.90E or/ EL+GsE'~/.~~5 CREB,~ 4f Cu-r<f{ o6us ~ SUFrOLK Cod Y ~ SH62T /nK 'l/s/aq ' This • • authorization must be conspicuously displayed at the site of work. United States Anny Corps of Engineers March 29 19 91 ' install a recreational pier assembly in Euqenes Creek, A permit to Little Peconic Bay at Cutchoque, Town of Southold, Suffolk County NY has been issued to Gus ;lade on Mar. 29, 19 91 ' Address of Permittee c/o All-Island Eauioment Coro 39 Jersay Street West Babylon, NY 117n4 ' Permit Number R.M. DANIELSON Colonel, Corps of Engineers 36056-1OGP District Commander ' ENG FORM 4336, 1ui e1 (ER 1145.2.303) EDITION OF JUL 70 MAY BE USED IProoonenf DAEN CINO) ' NYDGP-10 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT FOR NONCOMMERCIAL MOORING STRUCTURES ' This general permit authorizes the performance of work in or affecting waters of the.United States, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers & Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 (Title 33, U.S. Code Part 403). This general permit authorizes the construction of timber piers and ' mooring piles for noncommercial purposes in navigable waters of the United States under the regulatory jurisdiction of the New York District, Corps of Engineers located within Nassau and Suffolk Counties in the State of New York. 1 Activities authorized by this general;permit do not require authorization under the 33 of further the Cde Federal Regulations, Parts o 320-330, cDepartm nt of Title Defense Regu lation of Entitled: Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1986 unless the District Engineer d etermines, on a case-by-case basis, that additional processing is in the mustp coublic with s all of The thstructures e following authorized conditions, a assiwellnasatheermit ' General Conditions of ENG Form 1721, revised November 1986. SPECIAL. REQUIREMENTS 8M CONDITIONS Biers • Docks =d Floats ' 1. The proposed piers and any floats may be straight, T, L, or U-shaped. 2. The combined total surface area of a pier and any floats shall not ' exceed 1200 square feet. 3. Extensions to existing piers/floats may be authorized under this general permit, provided the entire structure meets of the conditions outlined herein and that the existing structure was either previously authorized by the Corps of Engineers or constructed prior to December ' 18, 1968. 4. Only one pier or similar use structure may be constructed per lot under the authorization of this general permit. Such construction may only take place on lots where no previously constructed serviceable piers or similar use structures exist, except for extensions as provided in Condition No. 3. ' 5. All piers and walk ramps shall be limited to a maximum width of four feet. ' 6. All floats shall be limited to a maximum width of eight feet. -1- 7. Any section. of pier or walk ramp crossing wetlands or submerged , vegetation must be: a. Elevated four feet above the existing grade of the wetlands or ' area of submerged vegetation, and; b. constructed so that the structure will not cross more than 50 linear feet of wetlands. Structures crossing more than 50 linear feet of wetlands are ng-t authorized by this general permit. As stated in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating ' Jurisdictional Wetlands", wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do ' support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The majority of wetland areas in Nassau and Suffolk counties which are under the jurisdiction of the New York ' District are saltmarshes, defined as areas which are periodically inundated by saline or brackish waters and. which are normally characterized by the prevalence of salt or brackish water vegetation ' capable of growth and reproduction in saturated soil conditions, such as $partina alternif lora (saltmarsh cordgrass) and gpartina va n (saltmeadow cordgrass). 8. All floats mustetlands positioned watsrward of the line of mean low ' water and of any 9. All floats must •be anchored, held by piles or made fast to the shore or a pier, but in all cases must be adequately secured so as to prevent substantial changes in their positions. Floats may be installed and , removed on a seasonal basis. Mooring piles 10. A maximum of four (4) mooring piles may be installed. ' ~g*+ditions $g1e51 Waterway nth ' 11. For this general permit no structure may be placed in a waterway less than 15 feet wide, measured from the mean low- water lines on each ' bank. 12. No structure shall extend waterward more than 100 feet, measured perpendicular to the shore from the mean hash water line, or one-fifth , (20%) of distance to the opposite shore (measured from the mean lOw water perpendicular to the centerline of the waterway), whichever is lesser. Igw 13. For waterway less than 50 feet wide (measured from the mean water line s on each bank), no structure shall be placed within 20 feet , r upstream or downstream of the centerline of an existing pier on the ' opposite bank, measured by projecting the centerline of the existing -2- ' ' pier toward the bank of the proposed pier. 14. The combined total surface area of a pier, walk ramp and floats in waterways less than 50 feet wide (measured from the mean 19H water lines on each bank) shall not exceed 400 square feet. ' Special Cond_ itipn~ 15. All piers shall either be open pile-supported, float-supported or cantilevered. Piles shall be driven to a depth sufficient to provide adequate stability. No structures shall impede the flow of waters beneath the structure or in the littoral zone. 16. All construction materials and design of the structures shall be determined by appropriate engineering .--practices and judgements. 17. The structures shall be designed to be stable against the forces of ice buildup, flowing water and wave action. Those authorized to perform work under this general permit must recognize that permitted ' structures may be subject to damage by ice and by wave wash from passing vessels. This authorization does not relieve those authorized from taking all proper steps to ensure the integrity of the structure ' permitted herein, and the safety of the boats moored thereto, from damage by ice and by wave wash. The United States of America shall not be held liable for any such damage. 18. All construction equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats. Any wetlands disturbed during construction shall be restored to pre-project conditions by the permittee. ' 19. That the proposed structures may be used for non-commercial purposes only. The term "non-commercial purposes", when used in the ' text of this general permit, shall mean that the intended use would provide only personal benefits and have no connection with a commercial enterprise that charges for the production, distribution or sale of goods or services. 20. That an individual Department of the Army permit will be required for work proposed in any of the following areas: a. Historic, cultural, or archaeological sites as identified in the latest published version of Appendix B of the National Register of Historic Places, or sites eligible for inclusion in this register. b. Sites included in the latest published version of the National ' Registry of Historic Landmarks which are published periodically in the Federal Register. c. Areas named in Acts of Congress or Presidential proclamations, ' such as Wild S Scenic Rivers or those rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, National Wilderness Areas, National Seashores, National Recreation Areas, National Lakeshores, National Parks, ' -3- National Monuments, Federally designated maritime sanctuaries (Section 1 302 of the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052]), and such areas as may be established under Federal law for similar and related purposes. d. Waterbodies designated by the New York State Department of ' Environmental Conservation as a "wild,, scenic or recreational river" , under Article 15 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. Presently, portions of the Connetquot', Carmans and Nissequogue Rivers in Suffolk County have been designated as scenic and recreational , rivers. Studies are ongoing to determine whether additional rivers should be included. 21. The structures subject to this general permit shall be constructed ' a minimum of 50 feet outside of any Federal channels and Federal anchorages/turning basins. 22. No structure or any vessel to be moored at it may extend into any ' channel normally used for navigation. 23. All structures shall maintain a clearance of at least 15 feet from t the property line on each side, as extended into. the waterway, or any such greater distance needed to allow reasonable vessel access to any adjacent waterfront properties and structures. ' 24. That all work performed under the authorization of this general permit in areas designated as significant coast Fish & Wildlife ' Habitats under the New York State Coastal Zone Management Policy No. 7 must be certified as being in compliance with the approved State Coastal Zone Management Program. A statement from the New York State Department of State concurring with the applicant's consistency , certification must be submitted with any request for formal Department of the Army concurrence to proceed with work under this general permit (see General Condition No. 48). to 25. That the Department of the Army retains discretionary authority require a proposal to undergo individual permit process in those an cases where it is determined that such a review would be in the public interest. 26. If it is discovered that an individual is performing or has completed work under the pretense that it is authorized by this general ' permit, and in fact it is not, he/she may be required to undertake remedial action and/or be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. , The individual may then be allowed to apply for an individual Department of the Army permit to perform the work. If the Department of the Army permit is denied, the applicant shall restore the waterway to its former condition, as set forth more specifically in General , Condition No. 46 of this permit. If an individual Department of the Army permit is granted, the permittee may be required to modify the structure(s) to conform with the provisions contained in the general ' permit. -4- ' 27. The General Permit will not apply if the District Engineer determines that the proposed work may jeopardize the continued existence of species listed at threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, or result in the likelihood of the destruction or adverse modification of habitat is determined by ' the Secretary of the interior or Commerce, as appropriate to be a critical habitat of such a species under the Act, as amended. General Conditions 28. That prior to commencing any work under this general permit, the permittee should contact the various utility authorities and companies (i.e. electric, gas, water, sewage, etc.) in order to prevent personal injury and/or damage to property during construction work. ' 29. That this general permit is not applicable for work directly related to another activity requiring an individual Department of the Army permit application and approval by the District Engineer. ' 30. No buildings or other structures, including fuel storage or dispensing facilities, shall be constructed on structures authorized by this general permit. 31. Pollution of the waterway with harmful chemicals, fuels, oils, greases, bituminous materials, acid, waste washings, and/or harmful materials, shall be prevented. 32. During construction activities, all public and private property, ' including all existing vegetation, existing landscape features and monuments within, along and adjacent to the work area, shall be protected and preserved to the maximum degree possible. This shall include, but not be limited to, precautions being taken to minimize ' damage, injury, pollution of destruction; protection of all trees and other woody plants which are to remain; special care being taken to protect the natural vegetation and surroundings, including all natural drainageways and storm swales, ponds, lakes, swamps, woods and fields; and storage of materials in such a manner so as to prevent leaching, which would be injurious to soils and to plants. 33. Each individual activity performed under the authorization of this general permit must receive all other Federal, state and local approvals, including permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Law: Article 15, Title 5 (Protection of Waters) ; Article 15, Title 27 (Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers); Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands); and Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands) as ' applicable, or waiver therefrom, prior to commencement of work. 34. That all activities identified and authorized herein shall be ' consistent with the terms and conditions of this general permit; and that any activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this general permit which may result in the modification, suspension or -5- revocation of this general permit, in whole or in part, as set forth ' more specifically in ENG Form 1721, revised November 1986, and in the institution of such legal proceedings as the United State Government may consider appropriate, whether or not this general permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part. 35. That all activities authorized herein shall, if they involve during their construction or operation, any discharge of pollutants into t waters of the United States or ocean waters, be at all times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations and standards and management practices established pursuant to the Clean ' Water Act (Title 33, U.S. Code Part 1344), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052), or pursuant to applicable state and local law. ' 36. That structures authorized under this general permit will not destroy a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or endanger the critical habitat of such ' species. 37. That the permittee agrees to make every reasonable effort to ' prosecute the construction or operations of the work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact upon fish, wildlife, and natural environmental values. 38. That the permittee agrees that he/she will prosecute the ' construction of work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality. 39. If the activity authorized herein is not completed on or before five (5) years from the date of issuance, this general permit, if not , previously revoked or specifically extended, shall automatically expire. 40. That this general permit does not authorize or approve the ' construction of particular structures, the authorization or approval of which may require authorization by Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government. ' 41. That if the recording of this general permit is possible under applicable state or local law, the permittee shall take such action as ' may be necessary to record this general permit with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility of maintaining records of title to and interests in real property. 42. That there shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the existence or use of the activity authorized herein. 43. That if the display of lights and signals on any structure or work ' authorized herein is not otherwise provided by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be ' installed and maintained by and at the expense of the permittee. -6- 1 ' 44. That the permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this general permit or upon its expiration before completion of the authorized structure or work, shall, without expense to the United States of America and in such time and manner as the Secretary of the ' Army of his authorized representative may direct, restore the waterway to its former conditions. If the permittee fails to comply with the directive of the secretary of the Army or his authorized ' representative, the Secretary or his designee may restore the waterway to its former condition, by contract or otherwise, and recover the cost thereof from the permittee. 45. That if the permittee, during prosecution of the work authorized herein, encounters a previously unidentified archaeological or other cultural resource within the area subject to Department of the Army ' jurisdiction that might be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, he/she shall immediately notify the District Engineer and other appropriate state and local authorities. 46. Those desiring to perform work under the provisions of the general permit should make application to the New York District, Corps of ' Engineers as soon as a project is contemplated, with sufficient information so that compliance may be validated with the terms and conditions of this general permit. The application must include completed forms (ENG Form 4345 and NAVY Form 201), photographs and project drawings which generally follow the format of the sample drawings attached to the general permit. No work may be performed under this general permit until written authorization has been received ' from the New York District, Corps of Engineers. 1 REGIONAL CEN ` PERMIS-SAMPLE DRAWINGS SAMPLE - Scale 72.37' i , . 16, Io I"3000 ,OLcu+e_ IL Float Great imp South Day ~ i . Existi~:g Substrto Atlanr Ocean Existing C I Bulkhead 10' piles SECTION VIER I 3.5' depth Ebb ~ 6'x16' Float i Flood 4'x12' Ramp N waterway width: 375 feet 4'x55' Pier 1.5' depth 1II.V I i feet PLAN VIEW solo= 0 15 30 private residence Purpose: Private Pier Proposed Docking Assembly Datum:-Mean Sea Level In: Great South Bay Adjacent Property Owners: At: Knox, Albany County, 1. Leo Hoban New York 2. George Beck Application by: Don Tones Sheet-1 of 1 Date: 3/7 83• REGION. NERAL PERMIT-SAMPLE DRAWIRCS• ' SAMPIL.E MW MLW 2.s'~8' Ramp ! Project Site L ng a 7th' Uv er hozr! Roa ill Existing at M Bulkhead Mooring 8'x8' Floo Piles ' Float Ebb Waterway width: 170 feet PLAN VIEW - N VICINITY MAP 22' 0" 10' Mooring Pier ' 0" % r I ~ I~ Existing Existing r~ * +c let Bulkhead Ground r SECTION VIEW It Purpose: Private Pier Proposed Docking Assembly Datum: Mean Sea Level In: East Mill River Adjacent Property Owners: At: Carmel, Putnam County, 1.-David Karbowsky New York 2: Matthew Corliss Application By: Fret Shelton Sheet 1 of 1 Da-e: 7/2/81 i REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT-SAMPLE D NINOS SAMPLE PLAN vIEW 00 010 W N VICINITY MAP I a_a~e s.t . wn raa. W" au.a arts taaft feet Spartina Alterniflora 0 30 60 !II W_ 4 • x40' Ramp i 4I6 width of waterway: 400' Be x20, Floats Note: pier elevated 4' above , grade of marsh Float 4'x40' Ram yam x a i r cros sec lion hrou h p pose pi r 0 10 20 SECTION VIEW Purpose: Private pier Proposed Docking Assembly Datum: Mean Sea Level In: Cay Creek Adjacent Property Owners: At: Barman, Suffolk County. 1. Robert Button New York 2. Kathryn L. Shannon Application By, Ralph Benry Sheet 1 of 1 Date: 4/16/63 REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT-SA!@LE DRAWINGS _ SAMPLE r • :•r as ea rwsus --tea 3'x1 lamp loam uacc 0 15 30 6'x20' Float s s 0E e Immu N Harsh Area a~ Jae?KIClXITY WA? Substrate asW •w• SECTION VIEW Lass tur•as.•w anta a••sc•r.a• c.••s 6'x20' Float ~ 3'x16' Ramp width of waterways Ebb 300 feet 4'x60' Fixed Pier MLW Marsh y,. feet 25 50 private recidenee PLAN VIEW N Purpose: Private Pier Proposed Docking Assembly Datum: Mean Sea Level In: Cumberland River Adjac¢nt Property Owners: At: Olive, Ulster County 1.-Edmund Demaar New York 2.'Curt Galloway Application Sys John Martin ~..-4I.4. ..)w..~I. M. .-~4.... •-wnf.: 'w.....v.-te.fW .e.a _.....9..--.-..: ...^foRtr. ...T. (1I i' s' , i v+y II a.: rn 1 + Slgl .1 4 V,,. 11 ' ~ t~ r rt': V;1 f •;1t Yry h if , , d 1 f r. 1 . yY..r .•I AJ 1 ILL- LIT i 1 ill 'i ) qq ' IF '/4 , rL4g This notice of authorization must be conspicuously displayed a It the site of work. S v 1.r Yy Jr.. •.fy r, 7~nr. tY 1M Wl.t i~Y.{• 1/yri4*r 1 `yl~rrrY ' h S United States Army Corps of Engineers March 29 19 91 install a recreational pier assembly in Eugenes Creek, A permit to Little Peconic Bay j , at Cutchoaue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY f has been issued to Gus Hade on Mar. 29, 19 91 Address of Permittee c/o All-Island Eauioment Corn.. 39 Jersey Street, , Yk'•` x I•lest Babylon, NY 1t7n4 Permit Number R.M. DANIELSON II Colonel, Corps of Engineers 16056-1OGP District Commander a ~ ENG FORM 4336 Jul a1 EA 1145-2 303 EDITION OF JUL 70 MAY BE USED f f _ S;n ( 1 IProPOn,nl OAkN CWO) e / It .`~'•,L,y,~~~~~S~~;,.I}A ,l-e~il Y' 4 f t Y f i 411 y t ~r'e. vt rl~A'C iFi.~ (}~~"?1' Llpr'Ir'fK ^r Y»i•.JI r, q CAF r. 5 it ti+ P. r 'Lt 1 f v / t•~ yY? ~ V nn , + 41 f r... I 1 Y " ~ 1 . aS I ry ~~tl d 'Yl t. TQ a -i4{ t r . .SYtf C , l 1 L.S 1 t S + i. _A + l I'1f rf, t, ly + Y.4 .!fl x rr rtV'l,' l ' 4 ti b 1y{Y 1 t h f y iii w * p . . / v ii~ ~ ii~ ~ ~ ~ 1.~ i ' liiiii. i~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K. JAVR8 FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK, N.Y. 10278-0090 IG)REPLY TO ATWE OF CENAN-OP-RH IMPORTANT This letter must be completed and mailed to the Harbor supervision & Compliance Section at the above address prior to commencement of any work authorized under the permit. I Permittee: Permit No. Date Permit Issued: Expiration Date: Waterway: City & State: Type of Work: Work will commence on or about: i Name, Address & Telephone Number of Contractor: Signature of Permittee Date *EPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • NEW YORK DI3TRIOT cORP3 OF ENGINEERS JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK, N.Y. 10278-0090 RREE YY~TTO~ CENAN-OP-1[Cl °i r IMPORTANT ,This letter must be completed and mailed to the Harbor supervision & Compliance Section at the above address following completion or cancellation of work authorized under the permit. ~Permittee: Permit No. I Date Permit Issued: Expiration Date: Waterway: ,City & State: ,Type of Work: Check and complete applicable item(s) listed below: Work was completed on Work will not be performed on the project. ' Deviation from work authorized in permit is explained below. - Other (explain) 1 Signature o Permittee Date 1 r i r APPENDIX M ' Gustave Wade Scoping Documentation SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Trustees of the Town of Southold Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date. July 17, 1990 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Gustave Wade, proposed single family dwelling SEQR Status: Type I Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves a proposal to construct a single family dwelling on a 034 acre lot containing tidal wetlands and wetland adjacent area. Proposed project requires access via relief from Subdivision 3 of Section 280a of Town Law (for approval of access over a municipal right-of-way) and variances, permits and approvals for use of Town Trustees land; and/or, a permit from the Town Trustees to construct a dock at some location to allow water access to the ' proposed lot. ,!WER, VOQ~RHIS 8/y4$SOCIATES V NMENTA%W.. U 'NG CONSULTANTS Page3 'Arm 0 Gustave Wade Scoping Documentation SCTM Number. District 1000 - Section 110 - Block (Y7 -Lot 28 of the Location: RIle street oad, Cutchogue, New York. The site lies approximately t 359.08 east of the intersection of Fleetwood Road and East Road, at the terminus of the East Road right-of-way adjacent to Eugene's Creek. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The proposed pro ect site is of extreme environmental sensitivity. The site contains tidal wetlands aZwetlands adjacent area characteristic of dune community. The site ' is within the 100 year flood plain. The site habitat is suitable for and may support _ protected species of wildlife. 2) The proposed construction of a single family residence does not conform to established standards for setbacks of principal building structures, sanitary disposal systems and accessory use and activity in proximity to wetlands. The proposed . Y is less than 40 feet from mean high water (MHW), and the saintary system is less than 60 feet from MHW - customary setbacks are at least 75 and 100 feet respectively, from wetlands. The impact upon wetland and estuarine habitats, and potential ground and surface water impacts of sanitary disposal must be analyzed in detail. 3) The proposed project site has access constraints, requiring access via relief from Subdivision 3 of Section 280a of Town Law (for approval of access over a municipal right-of-way) and variances, permits and approvals for use of Town Trustees land; and/or, a permit from the Town Trustees to construct a dock at some location to allow water access to the proposed lot. Each alternative and associated impacts should be examined to determine the most suitable access scheme. Proposed construction of docks for access to Eugene's Creek could impede the proper navigational use of this waterway. 5) The proposed project site is constrained with regard to utilities and services. Properly functioning and non-detrimental potable water supply and sanitary disposal systems must be provided in accordance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Utility installation and emergency vehicle access constraints may should be determined and assessed. 6) The project site is highly visible and is presently recognized as an open space resource in the community. Visual and land use impacts must be determined and mitigation measures proposed. 1 RAMER, VODRHISSi`ASSOCIATES Page4 CKWIMMIAACKIT41h AWN crv m dlNh CONSULTANTS ' Gustave Wade Seeping Documentation 7) There are numerous agencies involved with the review and permitting of this project, each with their own areas of jurisdiction. The project of environmental concern to the Town of Southold and is divergent from applicable Town setback guidelines. In addition, the project is found to be in non-conformance with standards of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The EIS process is ideal for synthesis of the concerns of multiple agencies in an orderly information gathering process. For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, Main Road, Southold Phone No.: (516) 765-1801 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant-Gustave Wade Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department MORN RAMER, VOORHIS~. &>,q SOCIATES NVIRONMENTA% D P,F~HNI~VG CONSULTANTS page 5 _ _ • - APPENDIX N C4 -MX\P Of' SUEZ r Y F t€ ~ 1 -mnaw6de~ledlMreen,rSr^I°.. ~ i./ r ` 1 rraUrONaPMMamMw~,,~ p~ I 1`~ _ i c, ~r r,=..'*F°.~'14A'.• • Y ,/W t,lPu!„~U T f- (),j/ V,~i a ~n, FC/ T'E'AL Ar<EA To O.H, W M i - `~mr SOGAT pwt pF l Pp POSEi, 2F p,_Ntl _ 1 4,475 3. F N,tGN 6 198- Ejp,Nt- . . 3 , l Y , JUPLAND - 9,Q00 S.F. _ _ - ~T \ ` s?oP 0 3~ X72 rO BE GLL200 : e,,goc ~.c. / of UNDiST,rt2pSffC` ?'Jt3v 5.i. ! ~ _ - 5 1t L UNDISTURBED AREA GF gavle~ • • ~Ji =,~4 =-Tog 1L, 4gq-3 t1YC3Af4R}WrrZTLP-A575=75 SS. i = %-pry / ,n rc rf , a` » ti 1 l ( ,.~rr~4€E&vFa4#S SUP-PACE- ou5 ~=rsc,s F / r ? LOT CQ`,lEt:B.sE 9.U %e s+ m V' = WELL PT-1 - ~ f• , ..y> „A! t t'3 :'erz: r r. v' 1 r . ' - C~~ ~r,~ • FOP 12i. a syB-T m ~~~..QJ"2r.. '~.`/F-&ihz~C r J„ r~ ~ ~ • ,~Q~ ~ 9 Y~~ ~4 . 3.. E:: - l1M , ' z •6 •c' C C A r~krx-.e Frnoo\~ C3' NfC7t".I ~ ~ / ~ wrTN a"-e;' eea rrewt~rc. =`~li~'E+rt~5wn~,._ ~ E2~C?S 30 ~ 6 ` m r'EaOMnN i X' FAY V aa 0~ "-..a'''" l\ R,IP~L` MAP _y f~. f~ Q' F ~E - iG~' PL~ ~qG ~ i. ~ ~ ROD ~;Q ~ ,J.;• AMENEJ~¢e €kJb ? f-'~ N .F~ OV i, It) t C f r' E g", af:_~ - - APQ 8, I 4 i71 Pf< _ F l~j~I IDLYi99F n,. ? - ( ,"+i." y' S'S NALE R- - `CF P1Ew~... J' ? g ~ 4C v y s. <S 255 ma At _ L _ ."r.r~{ ,.Y y!.: v r~ a 1:. t'- ...i•J J ,~.-y_+1~~:.?t a`-l, 1 ..lF.:k. :."c.. - L. J t^. .'1_ . • 1x1- iV r "61 J r A~ LJ I I Iml~ NCHMLER.HEATERS IALIrYEAR® "AY" MODEL SERIES Cooli ons Ctooli grWith 80,000 Btu /h ilea= 8,000 Btu/h Heating To 5 1 e Arkia-Servel ALL-YEAR® Models are true hydronic units, gas ed. supplying either chilled water or hot water on demand for a variety of residential or small commercial air conditioning applications. Whe user changes functions by simply changing the settings of a om thermostat. The ALL-YEAR® units are designed for outdoor installation, thus do lot take up valuable indoor space. The design is certified by AGA for peration on either natural gas or propane gas. Reliable-The individual cooling and heating modules are of time- grven and reliable design. Each refrigeration module undergoes the t thorough operational testing of any in the air conditioning dustry and must prove its capacity before it is mated to the heating module, which is also operationally tested. Liberal use is made of 1alnless steel, chrome-plated steel. and copper in vital areas. conomical-Clean, safe, and economical gas, either natural or propane. is the primary source of operating energy. Electric power consumption is minimal. ranging from 250 to 290 watts per ton, and my common "household" single phase current is required. K"s0~+i Automatic Ignition-Standard equipment includes dependable direct q?y ark ignition of both cooling and heating burners. The burners operate Mnly on demand and go completely out during off cycles. Pilot lights sf t are eliminated and energy savings increased. Cu Imited Warranty-Arkia Industries Inc. warrants the sealed absorption n~o frigeration unit and the finned tube portion of the hot water genera- r of the Chiller-Heater to be free of defects in material and work- manship for a period of 10 years when installed at a single-family sldence, and for a period of 5 years for all other types of installations less a COMMERCIAL UNIPLAN POLICY option is purchased. On I Chiller-Heaters, components other than the sealed refrigeration It and the finned tube portion of the hot water generator, such as jectric motors, controls. pumps. etc., are warranted for a period of e year from date of installation. I RKLASERVEL GAS AIRCONDITIONING BY ARKU1 INDUSTiilES AIlRelaP~l e ~ SPEUIFIUMIONS 3 TON MODEL 4 TON MODEL 5 TON MODELS AYC 36.120 AYB 48.150 AYB 60-150 AYB 60-18 HEATING PERFORMANCE Gas Input.Btu/h 120,000 150,000 150,000 180.000 Delivered Capacity, Btu/h 90.000 112.500 112,500 135.000 Supply Water Temperature. OF 180 160 180 180 Return Water Temperature. OF 155 157 162 158 COOLING PERFORMANCE Gas Input. Btu/h 75.000 100.000 125.000 Delivered Capacity, Btu/h^ 36.000 48.000 60.000 , Condenser Entering Air Temperature, °F........... 95 95 95 Condenser Air Flow. cfm. Approx 4,000 8.000 6,000 Supply Water Temperature, OF - - 45 45 45 Return Water Temperature. OF 55 55 55 Rated Chilled-Heated Water, Flow, gpm............ 7.2 9.6 12.0 Maximum Permissible Flow, gpm 12.0 12.0 16.0 Allowable Friction Loss, Piping2 and Coil, Feet of Water 25 25 25 Maximum Height of Coil and Piping Above Unit Base,Feet3 22 22 22 ELECTRICAL RATINGS Required Voltage. 60 Hz! 1 Phase 115 230 230' Condenser Fan Motor Horsepower A S4 A Pumps Drive Motor Horsepower )4 34 3: Hot Water Circulating Pump Motor Horsepower..... Y] r/, h Cooling Operation Wattage Draw. Typical 875 1,000 1,275 Heating Operation Wattage Draw. Typical 300 400 415 Branch Circuit Ampacity. Minimum 14.1 8.3 10.1 Number and Size of Time Delay Fuses (Field Supplied) 1-20 Amp. 2-15 Amp. 2-15 Amp. PHYSICAL DATA Refrigerant Type 717 717 717 Unit Circulating Water Volume. Gallons. Approx...... 5 5 7 Operating Weight. Pounds. Approx.. . 700 900 925 Shipping Weight. Pounds. Approx.... 790 990 1.015 Inlet and Outlet Water Connections Size. Copper Sweat. OD W 1%- 1%" Gas Inlet Connection Size. Female Pipe Thread. W ~ Electric Entrance Knockouts. Diameter. y^ " NOTES: (1) "Chilled-Heated Water' is a solution of good quality tap water and AT LEAST 10% by volume of inhibited permanent antifreeze with de. foaming agent added. Higher antifreeze concentrations will be required when ambient temperature is below 25F (See "Antifreeze" following ONLY water-antifreeze solutions shall be circulated through the unit. (2) DO NOT USE FERROUS METAL PIPE OR TUBING in the water circulating system. Piping materials shall be copper and/or brass. (3) Not to be confused with 'allowable friction loss:' Refers to the maximum elevation ABOVE the unit's base of the highest coil(s) or of any of the circulating water piping. (4) Units equipped for operation on 220 volts. 50 hertz. one phase power available at extra cost. (5) Five-ton units equipped for operation on 208 volts. 60 hertz, one phase power available at extra cost. (6) Cooling capacity at standard conditions. For capacities at other conditions. see the Table below. For capacities at higher than 105E ambient# contact Arkla Industries or your authorized distributor. COOLING CAPACITIES IN THOUSANDS OF BTUH Leaving Air temperature entering condenser, degrees Fahrenheit Chilled Wter 3 ton unit 4 ton unit 5 ton unit Temperature 90 95 100 105 90 95 100 105 90 95 100 105 11 50°F 36.76 36.28 35.10 33.64 49.01 48.37 47.37 44.85 61.26 60.46 58.50 56.07 48 36.72 36.18 34.92 32.65 48.96 48.24 47.13 43.53 61.20 60.30 58.20 54.42 46 36.65 36.04 34.50 31.32 48.86 48.04 46.57 41.76 61.08 60.06 57.50 52.20 44 36.54 35.82 33.72 29.60 48.72 47.76 45.51 39.45 60.90 59.70 56.20 49.32 42 36.36 35.53 32.30 27.43 48.48 47.37 43.60 36.57 60.60 59.22 53.84 45.72 40 36.00 35.03 30.60 23.40 48.00 46.70 41.30 31.20 60.00 58.38 51.00 39 00 ANTIFREEZE-Antifreeze must be added to the circulating water Lowest Expected Permanent system in an amount sufficient to protect the system down to the Outdoor Temperature. Antifreeze. lowest expected ambient temperature. See the Table at the right. Fahr. Cels. %by volume i A minimum of 10% by volume of antifrEeze shall be in the system at 25 -3.9 10 all times. Use a reliable brand of INHIBITED permanent antifreeze 15 -9.4 20 WITHOUT LEAK SEALANT. Always add defoaming agent, Arkla 3 -16.1 30 Part No. 16009-192. -13 -25.0 40 -36 -37.8 50 (DIMENSIONS AND (&EEARANCES DIMENSIONS IN INCHES Indicates Shipping Carton Dimensions Chiller- Height Depth Width Heater A B C D E F G H J K L M N P R _ Size 3 34 40 43% 3% 71/. 5% 11'/z 61 Y, 13% 8% 1011/, 7% 1Y, Y2 6 TON *44 *45 *48 14and5 42% 481.1 48% 4% 7% 51 Ya 14%, 6% 12'/e 71% 11ye 9% 12% - 6 TON *52 *52 *52 y.Rf f 1 r ! ~I 1 T ° .,TLrtT VTLITY I.uLI 6¢ VIEW IXMRTER REILM I [«T- ImoZ1 I % V vl 3110wING TIT, IT -r . I TI TA _LT 7-E i IN V„q' i ' EN~ 1' OUT I / , MI P Is- tUIDE SPECIFICATIONS For Arkla-Servel Gas Operated Chiller-Heater ~urnish and install. where shown on the plans, Model Arkla-Servel Chiller-Heater nit(s), equipped for operation on gas. and with factory charged and sealed refrigeration systems. ach Chiller-Heater. when it is supplied with the necessary utilities as indicated on the plans and/or as escribed herein: 4 ) Shall have a refrigeration effect of not less than tons. This refrigeration effect is based on a leaving chilled water temperature of not lower than 450F, on a chilled water flow of not less than gallons per minute. and when entering condensing air temperature is not higher than 950F. Shall have a heating effect of not less than Btu/h. This heating effect is based on a leaving heated water temperature of not higher than 1800F, on a gas input rate of not less than Btu/h. on a heated water flow of not less than gallons per minute, and when outdoor air temperature is not lower than OF. Each Chiller-Heater shall have been design certified by the American Gas Association for installation on .rppmbustible surfaces. KEach absorption water chiller module shall have been performance tested at the factory and its chilling pacity entered into a permanent record. Each water heating module shall have been performance tested at the factory. The Chiller-Heater manufacturer's installation instructions shall become part of this specification and shall Ike precedence over and/or supplement any specification herein or as shown or described on the plans. Each Chiller-Heater shall be equipped and erected with such gas, electric, and water controls as are knished by the manufacturer for the model specified above. The manufacturer shall supply as standard uipment the following: 1. Stainless Steel Evaporator 7. Propeller Type Condenser Fan 13. Two Generator High Temp Stainless Steel BurnerTubes and Draft Inducer, Discharging Switches Chrome Lined Refrigeration Vertically 14. Two Gas Pressure Regulators Generator 8. Powered Draft Inducer for 15. Two Gas Solenoid Valves 4. Copper Hot Water Heat Heating Section, Discharging 16. Two Automatic Electric Exchanger Vertically Ignition Systems Chilled Water Circulating Pump 9. Sail Switch. Cooling Section 17. Volt, 60 Hertz, 6. Heated Water Circulating Pump 10. Current Relay, Heating Section 1 Phase Electric Panel for Field 11. Chilled Water Low Temp Switch Wiring Connections 12. Hot Water High Temp Switch INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS TYPICAL INSTALLATION SINGLE ZONE APPLICATION leA1.L VAPC/I 1rARI11E11 wLL STUD i slurlaNg uRClaaTwc WATER LINES M yT WS WI" . FUSED dSCda4CT OAS EDlaa'cTM / \ A L TD POWER 41ili. ` SOURCE 11 SIaYLY TRWI Q !:I TURN I { VERTICAL O IAN 0011- LT" RAos LaIE CTTION ICW CONNE CONpEN3AT \ GRAIN LINE INS. C ~rY 24^NIMNUN \"~A 7 WE The sketch above illustrates a typical residential installation, showing placement and interconnection of the major components. Thermostat connections are not shown. See the continuing text and other sketches for details. CHILLED-HEATED WATER PIPING NOTES-The sketch below shows PIPE SIZING GUIDE TABLE typical circulating water connections at the Chiller-Heater using Type -L- Total Allowable EQUIVALENT FEET Between Chiller-Heater and Cl copper tube. Thermometer wells should be provided in each line close CHILLER HEATER' to the unit, and a throttling valve should be installed in the return water SIZE AND WATER FLOw~ line for regulating chilled-heated water flow. Type Norrdnal 3Ton 4Ton 5TM ¦ Of Most 7.2 9.6 12.0 The water circulating lines must be insulated in their entirety and the Piping size 911n 9Pm gpm insulation used must include a vapor barrier. In the sketch below, in order Type 'L x. 106' that throttling valve and thermometer well detail might be more clearly Copper 1 400' 252' 154 Tube 1%" 1090' 679' 412 shown, the insulation on the return water line is not carried all the way to V. 150' 94' the unit as it should be. Brew 1 493' 301, 182' Pipe Raw 114^ 1850, 111T see' -Not recommended-velocity "ceeds 6 feel per second. RESISTANCES OF VALVES AND COPPER TO FITTINGS IN EQUIVALENT FEET OF CHILLER-HEATER PIPIN-1 01,13) STRAIGHT PIPE UTILITY PANEL R -I I I, IIII INSULATIONS \ caust WATER vawe or Nominal Roe Sue mcm•s I'C'I I I lid SEE NOTE -1 (LOWS Fitting 14 1 Y. I' (Jill, . II Standard 904 Elbow 2 7 3.2 44 5 2 I 1.I I q 511 Iu~ wia'Rnr.YY WTCR Long Radius THERH . r _fl ,I,.li - OEE NOT[ 900 Elbow 16 2.0 2.5 26 RETURN WATER Standard TXERMONCTER i VIII 11 / I 450 Elbow 1 1 14 19 3 wELL-3EE NDT[ I 1 IIIIIII, _ Miter 900 Elbow 40 5.0 70 801 I IIII II I~ I Miter 45- Elbow 1 4 1 8 2.2 25 Standard Toe Through Run 1.5 1 9 2.6 7 1 ICI standard Tee i Through Branch 4.6 5.7 7 4 85 Sudden Enlar9ement Or AM_ r - ~n•"'•~•^- ^ THROTTLING SOuare Head • VALVE Rug COCk 1.3 1.6 21 25 • ^ Gate Valve 6 8 1 1 12M Swing Check Valve 8.3 10.3 13.7 15 7•NOTES: THERMOMETER WELLS SHOWN FURNISHED by OTHERS. Arkla Thermometer wall RETu NTIONTE15 R LINE INCH TO 'ARMAILEX- OR EOUIVALE NT. 13 GTE ON Sarbed Insert Fitting 60 3.0 Arkla Insert Fitting 1 5 2.0 - - A ANIFOLDING-These Chiller-Heaters must not be manifolded with other chilled or heated water producers. ULTIPLE ZONES-The Chiller-Heater will handle any number of zones so long as the sum of their loads does not exceed its rated capacity. See Arkla's Unitary Application Manual for complete information on multiple zones. EXPANSION TANKS-Since ammonia is the refrigerant in these units, codes require that their chilled-heated ater circulating systems be vented to the outdoors. This requirement is met by using a water reservoir which is open to the atmosphere. Therefore, an expansion tank is not needed and must not be incorporated. If the unit th being retrofitted to a system using an expansion tank, the tank should be either removed or deactivated. UTOMATIC WATER FILL_ See the preceding paragraph. Automatic water filling devices must not be used with ese open water systems. The systems must be manually filled and the proper operating water level must be manually maintained. LAS PIPING-See the illustration. Gas piping must comply with local codes or with the requirements of `APPROVED UNION e authority having jurisdiction. (inimum gas inlet pressure for natural gas is 5" WG APPROVED GAS SHUTOFF VALVE and for propane gas is 11" WG. Maximum gas inlet `LTO UNIT ET ~ressure is 14" WG. CONNECTION FROM GAS \ F SUPPLY DRIP TYPICAL GAS CONNECTION YPICAL WIRING NGLE ZONE APPLICATION Figure 1 Figure 2 ME VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL NNECTIONS electrical wiring connections. HEATING MODULE CONTROL HEATING MODULE CONTROL ftection of wiring, fuse sizing and BOX 3 TON UNIT BOX - 4 d 5 TON UNITS tch locations shall conform to National Electrical Code and to applicable state and local codes. models require 2 wire line IItage. 60 hertz single phase TLit E VOLTAGE LINE VOLTAGE TERMINAL BLOO TERMINAL BLOCK rrent. The line voltage connec- tions to be made at the time of R Y 0W 0 N L R Y W O L2 LLI ~tallation are shown in Figures 1 t 2 at the right. A fused dis- WIRE NUT connect switch should be installed ~a+ TAPE hin sight of the unit and yet, st not be mounted on the unit -Me unit shall be SUitabl MTIDNAL NEUTRAL 1 y grounded WIRE-SEE TEXT--1 , in a manner approved by National /or Local Electrical Codes. the 4 and 5 ton Chiller-Heaters, I 'may be desirable for the elec- !---FIAIED DIWO NECT-~.;~-- LOCATE WITHIN SIGHT OF I w 'i i ian to provide a "Neutral" wire I UNIT-USE TIME LAG FUSES I I nection to the unit's electric -1?/ Lt- fel for convenience in wiring s-I-eo I I accessory equipment. Eao-I•eo 1 TYPICAL WIRING-SINGLE ZONE APPLICATION LOW VOLTAGE CONTROL WIRING See the diagram below which shows low voltage wiring between the Chiller-Heater, the Room Thermostat, and the Fan Coil Unit. Depending on the location of these components relative to each other, more economical thermostat cable routings might be possible. Note the "fan delay switch" (commonly called "fan switch") in the fan coil unit junction box. THIS CONTROL MUST BE USED. It provides "automatic" blower operation when the room thermostat is set to demand heating. A suitable fan delay switch is available from Arkla. See "ACCESSORIES" following. Typical line voltage wiring of the fan coil unit is also shown in the diagram. ROOM THERMOSTAT 41___~--LINE VOLTAGE FROM FUSED ' ~--vrlnE ruT DISCONNECT HEATING MODULE I ' CONTROL BOX W Y R G TO FAN MOTOR-\ L ERMIMT GE I I ~Irypp ' NUT I R Y 0® i L-c_-- -Y7WCJ c>-2-WIRE THERMOSTAT CABLE 3Y---- p~ 7bir~0'T b 4 I I II , I~, L------ THERM TCH THERMOSTAT CABLE---, Fµ RELAY SWITCH ~ ~ JUNCTION BOX AT \ v FAN COIL UNIT COMPANION EQUIPMENT (Available at additional cost) Ask your Arkla distributor or dealer about Arkla's line of performance- matched equipment and accessories. The line includes: 1. Horizontal Fan Coil Units-Capacities ranging from 24,000 Btu/h cooling with 160,000 Btu/h heating to 60.000 Btu/h cooling with 136,000 Btu/h heating, in four model sizes. The "EFCF" series models may be installed outdoors. Y All models are equipped with filter racks and permanent type air filters. "FCF" models are 115 volts, "EFCF" models are 115/230 volts. When used with Chiller-Heaters. these horizontal fan coil units will require addition of a fan delay switch (Part No. 18010-181). FCF EFCF EFCF EFCF Model No. _ 24-60 36-90 48-109 60-136_ Nom. C19. 24,000 36,000 48,000 60,000 , Cap. Htg. 60,000 90,000 109,000 136.000 R 2. Fan Delay Switch Kit-Required for horizontal fan coil units. On heating operation, delays fan starting until coil surface is hot. Order by Arkla Part No. 18010-181. 3. Vertical Fan Coil Units Three model sizes in Btu/h capacity range as listed below. The three and four ton models are 115 volts while 5 ton 72 1~jd is 230 volts. All are equipped with fan delay switches and with filter racks and permanent type air filters. Shipped for "up-flow" air configura- tion, may be easily changed to "down-flow" configuration. Model No. VFCF 36-90 VFCF 48-109 VFCF 60-136 Nom. Clg. 36,000 48,000 60,000 Cap. Htg. 90,000 109,000 136,000 4. Side filter rack-return air connections-are available as accessories. Order by Part No. below. For Model: VFCF 36-90 VFCF 48-109 VFCF 60-136 Specify Part No.: 18010-244 18010-246 18010-246 5. "A" coils with or without housings, and Duct coils in housings-are also available. These are coils only, not equipped with blowers or fans, nor with filter racks and filters. Ask your Arkla distributor or dealer for more information. 6. Room Thermostats-Several models available. especially equipped for use with gas air conditioners. All have sealed-in glass switches which s, respond to changes in the temperature of the room air. - Item "D" is an automatic dual set-back/set-up clock thermostat which operates on the 24 volt control circuit power and requires no special wiring. Clock rewind mechanism is battery operated. Order these thermostats by the Part Numbers below. Part No. Description .aar, (A) 18010-65 Htg/Coolg-Regular Installation ~1 (B) 18010-67 Htg/Coolg-Regular Installation (C) 18010-247 Htg/Coolg-For Multiple Zones (D) 18010-283 Htg/Coolg-Clock Thermostat gam„ 7. Low Ambient Controls-In either residential or commercial appli- cations, if the CHILLER module of the Chiller-Heater will ever be required to operate when outdoor temperature is below 40°F (4.40C), these special controls MUST BE INSTALLED. Order by Part No. below. See Arkla's Unitary Application Manual for additional information on ` Chiller operation during low ambient temperatures. ' Arkla Part Numbers 3 Ton 4 and 5 Ton A. Special Low Temp. Switch 18010-281 18010-281 B. Hydraulic Pump Heater 18010-278 18010-279 TYPICAL INSTALIATIONS (Refer to Arkla Applica jW Data books for installation diet . ails) A. Single Chiller/Single Fan Coil B. Multiple Terminal Fan Coil Units Easy to install piping. Excellent for older Dependable, gas fired, low wattage, single phase source buildings to preserve original structure of heating and cooling. and beauty. C. Single Chiller/Multiple D. "Stacked Fan Coils: Coil" Economy of operation and ability System to control comfort levels in Principle more than one area while using Low initial , a single outdoor unit. installation costs... without need for penthouse. Cn E. Rooftop Installations F. Replacement Fan Coil(s) can be Unit for Heat located inside or Pump Resist- outside. Load ance Heat modulation for Installations ' comfort and oper- (All combustion MR ation economies. I/ ~I air on outside of f 1a1 a building, elimi- nating resulting ~JI `uy infiltration loss/ 1 heat waste prob- !j lems when utiliz- ing indoor gas Electric furnace becomes air handler furnace). for chilled/hot water "A" coil. Arkla Industries Inc.. reserves the right to change the prices. specifi- cations and design of its products without notice and without incurring obligations. i 1141114-171M and YORK 137 W-W =18 STREET EAST ISLIP, NEW YORK 11730 ARICLA 20 322.9410 516 591.LUO ' WOUSTRIES World Wide Distribution Arkla Industries Inc.. P.O. Box 534, Evansville. IN 47704 TELEX 027-8449 (812) 424-3331 ' \ 111111 ~m • APPENDIX R A4CM7 COMPANY For Information Call: TOM MATHEWS E 49 Midland Avenue Paramus, N. J. 07652 201-967-6000/212-5647902 1 How To Make Fresh Water From The Sea e ?k l ' 4 1 1 L _ - This 2 million gallons-per-day The first Reverse Osmosis desalting PermuRO' seawater desalting system plant to treat seawater for use as power serves CADAFE, the Venezuelan govern- plant boiler feed, the Permutit CADAFE ment electric power authority. It treats system is complete, including the pre- 38,000 parts-per-million seawater from treatment system. the Caribbean Sea. The system produces water for boiler feed and potable use at When you need to make fresh water Planta Centro, an 800 megawatt from seawater, or usable water from generating station at Punta Moron. any other source, call Permutit. i 1 A 4M COMPANY 1 ~ a l ( I a a ( Producing drinking water or quality process water Past technology (Evaporators, MSF, VTE, VC, etc.) from seawater has been acostly and difficult operation frequently use 3 to 4 times the power required for until the development of practical seawater reverse reverse osmosis. The energy difference results from osmosis membranes. the phase change (water to vapor) in distillation. RO involves no phase change. PermuRO seawater purification systems utilize reverse RO offers many other advantages including. osmosis to produce 30 gallons of fresh water from every 100 gallons of seawater feed. ¦ Ultrafiltered ed Product Water, the permeate is es- sentially free of bacteria, viruses and colloids. . Power consumption is as low as 25 KWH/1000 U.S. ¦ Lower Capital Costs Gallons (18m3) without energy recovery. Where en- ¦ Lower Operating Cost ergy recovery isfeasible, the KWH consumption can be ¦ Quick delivery. Systems can be delivered in sew cut considerably. eral weeks. PermuRO SEAWATER SYSTEM ' A F B D E qH ~ SEA WELL G L__~ K TO SEAVICE 1 A. Water is pumped from seawall to PermuRO D. 5-Micron Filtration I. RO Product Storage ' System E. RO Booster Pump J. Post Treatment Chemical Addition (if B. Pretreatment Chemical Addition (No Acid F. RO Membrane Required) Required) G. RO Concentrate to Waste K. Water is pumped to Service C. Media Filtration H. RO Product (Permeate) to Storage TYPICAL AREAS OF APPLICATION , ¦ municipalities ¦ off-shore oil rigs ¦ boiler feed ¦ seagoing ships ¦ process water ¦ condominiums ¦ hotels i'Y pi11XV It~: Ills P r Membrane section of ' a 3 MCD (11,360 MI/D) PermuRO Seawater Treatment System Typical PermuRO L Series seawater desalting pak Copyright The Permutit Company 1977 ¦ Easy, Quick Installation; Systems feature skid No membrane system stands alone. Success depends ' mounting and compact size, practical even for air upon a balance between pretreatment, membrane and freighting. postreatment (as required). Permutit can assure you ¦ Easy, Rapid Startup/Shutdown; fully or semi- single source responsibility. More than 64 years expe- automatic operation. rience in Water Treatment enables Permutit to provide ¦ Greater On-Line Time; PermuRO Systems are a treatment system from the ocean source to the point modular in design with small subunits. The3 MGD of use; be it for potable or industrial application. system shown on the front cover is comprised of Permutit has service in the field (17-Seventeen Com- 30 subunits. A subunit can be removed for mainte- pany employed Field Service Representatives, plus nance while the main plant is operating with service from our agents), technical service (analytical minimum effect on on-line capacity. This feature and development) and engineering support. These makes RO systems more reliable in times of high capabilities insure that our PermuRO Systems are demand or low water supply. given the proper support in the field. ' TYPICAL SEAWATER PERMEATOR, TYPE B-10 Pressure wslKg Ffar eed I l K E WabFIow R ; s s Ring $~Q PSI ~L r«swc. Rpw 1 no wA,F I PRODUCT I I °-0- uwtrft ,A1 (PERMEATE) R y I / A 1 it i 11 I 11`0roue Thrust Black Reject I R 60 1.. 46 Aii f. fle r1 l' EW>ry Dsaselor Block / / FIBERGLASS SHELL 1\\ EOdaY Flow SOON Block Porous Distributor Permetor Fiber (enlarged) 4$ rre SECTION... SECTION... 1111:k ~ \\\`Yt i I I I -J Fibers i STANDARD PERMUTIT PermuRO SEAWATER TREATMENT PAKS TYPICAL OPERATING COST (by Month) AND MODULES (Single Pass) PermuRO SEAWATER SYSTEM 1 MGD 3 MGD Daily Capacity in Gallons (24 hours) 1,000,000 3 044 000 K Series Paks using 4" B-10 permeators mounted Daily Capacity in cubic meters 3.785 11 354 ' with booster pump and controls. Menmem bra Me operating coat' ne replacemenN Product Capacities-1,000 to 9,000 GPD Maintenancep 529,451 Power 8.817 ~g,gajj 2 L Series Paks using 8" B-10 permeators mounted Chemicalsa 1.254 51,750 Micron Filter Cartridges' 22,82 52,778 ' with booster pump and controls. Equipment Replacement Cosh 15,900 42,750 Product Capacities-8,000 to 50,000 GPD Total Monthly Cost' $93,705 $255,340 Cost per thousand gallons of product ~M Series Modules using 8" B-10 permeators water produced' $312 $2.87 Product Capacities 50,000 to 160,000 GPD. Cost per cubic meter of product Sub-units for large custom PermuRO Systems up to water produced' $4.825 $0.755 MGD Capacities. 1. Less Amortization Clued on Ep•.75. Em,.gp, Convemion ,Two-Pass (Product Staged) Spiralwound PermuRO II 3. embrane life minimum 3 years = 30%.$0.02/KwM. e00 PSIG and no energy Belied on 1 supervisor $42.0007yr. mcovery. If energy recovery utilized 30% Paks and Modules are available for custom systems 4 opemlor, ($12.500 e) $50.000/yr. reduction in pgWercosts could Occu. where the spiral configuration is re wired. I mechanic 5. includes all pretreatment chemicafare- q Total $107.000/yr. assuming all labor cosu quired and post treatment lime and CL, borne by water treatment plaint MoaMred e. om it) month lib per cartridge filter. responsibilities 7. clam life less membrane afaumed to 0e 10 year, on the average. ¦ ¦ I SEkAFATER TREATkAINT SYSTEMS. PermuRO Seawater Treatment Systems are manufactured at Permutit's Lancaster, Pa. Factory. Development and Technical Services are performed from the Permutit R&D Center at Princeton, N.J. Complete desalination systems are designed at the Permutit Paramus, N.J. headquarters and sold through a domestic and worldwide network of Sales Representatives. For more Information about how a PermuRO System can solve your seawater desalination problems contact your local Permutit Sales Representative or the Paramus, N.J. Headquarters. U.S. SALES OFFICES California La Canada-Flintridge..... Permutit Cc........................ - - ..213.790.7555-6 California San Francisco Robert Burns & Associates 415.781.6438 Colorado Denver................. Fluid Systems Inc 303.758.1585 Florida Jacksonville Permutit Cc............................. 904398.1109 Illinois Chicago................ Permutit Cc............................. 312.967.5071 ' Louisiana Baton Rouge Permutit Cc............................. 504.293.7650 Maryland .......................Silver Spring Permutit Cc............................. 301593.MO Texas Houston Permutit Cc............................. 713.464.2773 , INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES Argentina Buenos Aires Hidraulica Mileto,S.A.C.1.................. 40.4216.7899 Bolivia .........................La Paz.................. CTC LTDA.................................... 371833 ' Canada Scarborough, Ontario Permutit Co. of Canada 416.751.6920 Chile Santiago Edyce Representaciones S.A.................... 259614 Colombia (North) Medellin Arco - 320.321 Colombia (South) Bogota Jorge Triana & Cia-Ltda....................... 41-55-61 Costa Rica .....................San Jose Incentro.................................... 22-56-06 Ecuador Quito Seconi..................................... 234.781 Greece .........................Athens................. Vlmasel Hellas Ltd........................... 3236.438 Guatemala Guatemala City.......... Tecun...................................... 65783.7 Haiti Port-Au-Prince........... Valerio Canez................................. 2-0636 Hong Kong .....................Hong Kong Permtek Ltd................................ 5.272525 India Poona Tulsi Fine Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd............ 51041 Indonesia Jakarta-Pusat........... P.T. Enes............................. 4104101410495 r Italy Milan ldreco S.P.A........................... 4404141/2131415 Japan Kobe................... Shinko-PfaudlerCo.Ltd............... 251.5500 221.7868 Kuwait Safat................... Burgan Equipment Est................... 4376701428730 Malaysia & Singapore Selangor, Malaysia Salcon Engineering Sdn. Bhd ..................362114/5 Mexico Mexico City PfaudlerS.A.de C.V.......................... 355-0100 Netherlands Rijswik................. Hydrochemie-Conhag BV................... 070.993150 New Zealand Wellington.............. Niven Industries Ltd........................... 851469 Nicaragua Managua Equipos Y Accessorios S.A ....23729 Nigeria Lagos.................. Aduba Technology International (Nigeria)Ltd.....682 846 Pakistan Pechs,Karachi Welkin & Cc.................................. 436250 Panama ........................Panama City Milford S.A................................. --646600 Peru ...........................Lima................... Vermigiio & NleriS.C.R.Lida 405370 Puerto Rico San Juan................ Passco................................. 809.790.6868 Saudi Arabia Eastern Province Dammam Electrical-MechanicAl Construction Est......... 8644618 Central & Western Provinces.... Riyadh General Enterprises & Trading Corp '102-3722 Scotland Leven-Fife Henry Balfour & Co. Ltd................. Leven-Fife 3020 Sri Lanka Colombo P.K. Sirisena.................................. 92456 Thailand Bangkok Allied Engineering Co.Ltd............... 39115813925259 Trinidad & Tobago ...............San Fernando Brisco Sales Ltd............................ 85445/6/7 United Arab Emirates Dubai ..................Interstate Shipping & Resources Corp..-..436.9061434-697 Venezuela Caracas CIR-77, C.A............................. 441-9506/5802 Virgin Islands ...................San Juan, P.R............ Passco................................. 809.790-6868 M MUTT AAWCOMPANY The Permutit Company, Inc., E. 49 Midland Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652 • 201-967.6000 Telex 134-488 i Printed in U.S.A. 5955 281 12M M M ' iHz" Ltponrnental - APPENDS --AS r.(; •103133 HO ACHER. MCL 575 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD. MELVILLE. NEW YORK 11747 (516) 694-0040 I FIELD NO LATER RESOURCES ° WATER SUPPLY A TREATMENT ° SEWERAGE 6 TREATMENT ° AQUATIC S MARINE ECOLOGY TIME MODEL STUDIES ° PILOT PLANT STUDIES ° WATERAVASTE WATER LABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL SERVICES COL. BY CL 99 IENT'S NAME AND ADDRESS DATES: COLLECTED RECEIVED ANALYSIS 03/01/84 03/01/84 GUSTAVE J. WADE PREMISES OF SAMPLING POINT 41 WILLOUGHBY PATH TERMINUS OF EAST RD. CUTCHOGUE NY 100'E/O PROPOSED HOUSE SITE & CESSPOOL: EAST NORTHPORT NY 11731 POINT OF COLLECTION: ISTRIBUTION WELL OTHER (SPECIFY) ROUTINE RE-SAMPLE SPECIAL COMPLAINT DINT OR WELL ELL NO. REC. CODE DATE ONLY ? RAW (1) ? TREATED (2)? OTHER (0) I I.LAB. D. 03 TEST RESULT TEST RESULT TEST RESULT 1 Bacteri APC/ma Nitrates (mg/I N) 012 Pnanol Alkalinity (mg/I CaCO3) I I Cohform Bacteria Chemical Oxygen Total MPN/100m1 k 2 2 Demand (mg/1) Phosphate (mg/I P) Onno color (units) * Chlorides (mg/I) 1 2 1010 Q 1 is Q Phoaphele (mgA P) Total MISCELLANEOUS Turbidity (units) Hardness (mg/I as CaCO,) Test Code Result Total I Door- Cold Alkalinity (mg/I as CaCOr) I Copper (mg/1) 0 1 Odor- Hot PH Sulfate 0 5 7 1 (mg" SO,) Total Iron (mg/Ij Total Acidity 0 6 0 5 4 Solids (mg/11 (mg/1 CaCO,) Manganese (mg/1) 0 0 4 Specific I Sodium (mq/q 1 0 Cond. Lomhos) Free CO, (mg/0 Detergents mg/I as MBAS) < Q Q Magnesium 4 1 5 Nomograph -Titration (mg/0 Fluoride (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) Free Hexavalent Ammoma (m9A N) Chromium (mg/I Cr _ I Alb Calcium Ammonia (mqn N) Hardness (mgA as GaCO,) T . j I Nitrites (mq,n N) emp (fiNEl °F i COPIES TO. REMARKS j (2) TESTS MARKED * EXCEED N.Y.S. LIMITS FOR POTABLE WATER IGNATURE ' _ TITLE DATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR REPORTED 03/07/84 b C Mcl ENDON ' ~~EATtOY.,' • • APPENDIX T P q, o s New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation v The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza O NEW YONKSTATE Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238-0001 Orin Lehman Commissiwrer Mardi 25, 1991 Ms. Jennifer Thomas En-CanBultants, TM. 1329 North Sea Road Soulthamptcn, New York 11968 Dear Ms. Thomas: Re: Information Request ' Single-family residence, Rest Road Southold, Suffolk Oounty 91PRO465 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordimticn of the State's Historic Preservation Programs, includiM the encouragement and assistance of Local Preservation Programis, we offer the following comments. At the present time, there are no reported ardieclogical resources in or adjacent Revi xa your Unit at project (area. 4If you have any questions, please call our Project Sincerely yours, O~mLissicner for is Preservation JSS/TO:tr Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau • 518.474.0479 Urban Cultural Parks • 518.473.2375 An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency APPENDIX U • ~~gOffO(,p~, • C2 SCOTT L. HARRIS TRUSTEES Supervisor n M. Bredemeyer, III, President enry P. Smith Vice President Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 0 Albeit J. Krapski, Jr. 1 P.O. Box 1179 John L. Bednoski. Jr. Southold, New York 11971 John B. Tuthill BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: Supervisor Harris, Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, Building Department, CAC, Town Attorney. Tax Assessors FROM: John M. Bre e , III, President, Board of Trustees ' RE: Preservatio lernative - Gus Wade Property DATE: December 3, 1990 Pursuant to the SEQRA Scoping Session of the Zoning Board of 1 Appeals and Town Trustees in the matter of the application of Gus Wade, the Town Trustee office recently agreed to thoroughly search for preservation alternatives for the "island" which included transfer or other method of town acquisition. As a result of this process I have personally inventoried nearly 2,000 acres of Town Trustees land and other Town Lands which I ' considered suitable for transfer. One Such possibility was the "Orient by the Sea" subdivision ' road end recently contemplated for sale by the Town Board. Although there seems to be a general consensus within that subdivision community that transfer or sale of the road end would benefit the Town, Mr. Wade has declined to further discuss ' this option. (see attached letter). Unfortunately the only Trustee land available which would not ' involve boundary disputes is the site of the currently proposed boat launch ramp at Mattituck Creek. ' As the Trustees have now exhausted all possibilities known to them i want to take this opportunity to alert all Town departments to the fact that Mr. Wade will consider transfer of his "island" leading to his acquisition of a suitable similar parcel. His "island" is approximately one half acre and affords Mr. Wade the right of a conventional dock under his trustee permit. I understand he is seeking a similar parcel on Peconic Bay or its tributaries which will permit him a house and dock for his boat. ' Absent the receipt of your departments comments in the Town Trustees office by January 1, 1991 this office will consider our 0 I obligation under the scoping session complete and shall consider the presently suspended SEQRA time frames reactivated as of that date. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. cc: Trustees En-Consultants, Inc. Kramer & Voorhis, Inc. Bruce Anderson i ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ' EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 FAX NO. 516-283-6136 I October 9, 1990 I II~ , I i Mr. Gustave Wade 41 Willoughby Path East Northport, New York 11731 Dear Gus, Attached please find a section of the tax map on which John Bredemeyer has outlined the possible transfer lot. Please let me know if you consider it to be suit- able. Yours truly, ' Roy L. Haje President RLH:khs Enc. ISLAND _ .'•N ul. .N nn aN 14 15 arr D N , _Y.N J • O _ .c yDa Pen', Oi .s •rN i(' 1 Op 10 t s ~l ; MI f NA • a• r f 1.'• f .R 1 ? 1 w u. 91 ~ w N N.X . e. 111N Yr• l( 4 e. IN ; ? UNb I..u N.N Sim ;N Q. .d q• et O ~ x • Na qs} MN /.itA . a,nw 1«N N \ fDU' -P \ ~ ?a N e ' ~ ~ • ~ 6y 0 e W" fN d N D • !MAN - q It I .vs~ ~ awl ~ ol ,ppeeY .M ~ p $~I Ir. w+s~~wN. Il n.rM z .1 YYiI (MIV •N pine 1 N:. . p.,T _ ..e. f .YM N.N. u..t_ti ~L~ _ µ.P.Y:=__..._. .~~N OU a , i ..L...w-..Lw ® ...aw._ I .....J--"_-. -_-1 Real ProP. Ull/ ENVIRONMENTAL ' SERVICES ZA EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. i 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 FAX NO. 516-283-6136 October 3, 1990 John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ' Re: Gus Wade Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: My client, Gustave Wade, is agreeable to suspension of the time limits under SEQR while the possiblity of a land transfer is being actively pursued. This letter in no way relinquishes any rights and privileges which the applicant may have and, is not a request to withdraw any application now pend- ing before any Town Board of Agency. Please keep us advised of your progress. Yo truly, Royk. Haje ' President RLH:khs cc: Gustave Wade ENVIRONMENTAL ' SERVICES I-A EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 FAX NO. 516-283-6136 November 21, 1990 Mr. John Bredemeyer Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold New York 11971 Re: Gustave Wade Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: ' Please be advised that my client does not feel that the Soundfront property in Orient is sufficiently comparable to his property in Cutchogue to warrant a transfer. We appreciate the time and effort which you expended in pursuing this alternative. Yo truly, Ro L. Haje President RLH:eb cc: Gus Wade ' • - • APPENDIX V COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER July 13, 1992 ' Erika Wood En-Consultants 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, N.Y. 11968 Re: Wade Property, HD# 88-SO-89 SCTM# 1000-110-7-28 Dear Ms. Wood: I am in receipt of your letter concerning the above. This Department has no objection to the installation of "composting toilets" provided a standard sewage disposal system is also installed. I hope this answers your question. Yours truly, . 4'-'~~7 ' Royal Reynolds, P.E. 6IDnsI6 o ENY1pO "N AL QUALITY COUNTY CENTER ' RIVERHEAD. KY. 11901.3397 563-3100 • • APPENDIX W IS J P C utc mug 1 atcG~c 1Nta~cua- II' Dockage Contract 3350 West Creek Avenue 516-734.6993 1993 Summer 9a t Cutchogue. N.Y. 11935 II!i 1 OWNER GUS I/UI~ DATE /~n 2 Z; / q q 3 ADDRESS F No~TNPa 2T~ Nrr /17 7 TELEPHONE (5'IC~ ~~3 GGyef k i MAKE OF BOAT S l l /'4 M' /-o c. K LENGTH ZG BEAM S DRAFT 3_ NAME OF BOAT T P -1--Z) P REGISTRATION NO. DOCKAGE: $ RATE $ FROM MAY 1, 1993 TO OCTOBER 81,1999 60% DEPOSIT $ DUE ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 1992 1 REMAINING BALANCE $ 1 DUE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1, 1993 Notice to New Accounts: Kindly check with the office If you wish to open a charge account. 1 SOUTH BASIN: $72.00 PER FOOT NORTH BASIN: $64.00 PER FOOT NOTE: MINIMUM SIZE BOAT IN SOUTH BASIN IS 35 FEET, SOME SELECT SUPS WILL BE MINIMUM 27 FEET BOATS ARE MEASURED ON OVERALL LENGTH IN FEET OR ANY FRACTION THEREOF. THIS CONTRACT IS BETWEEN OWNER AND CUTCHOGUE HARBOR MARINA, INC. HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS OPERATOR The Comer shall keep area around boat, either in dockage orwinter space, clean and free ofstorage and materials of airy nature and shall not construct thereon anylockets, chests. cabinets. steps, ramps or similar structures except with permission of the Operator. The use of electric extensions is at the sole risk of the user, and the Operator shall be exempt from any and an liability for any 1 damage or injury to any person or property caused by or as a result of the use of any electric appliance. It is understood and agreed that this contract is non-assignable. Float, dock space and/or winter space is only for the boat described herein. If the Owner sells boat. new owner has no claim to space. It is mutually agreed that Operator does not accept the boat for storage, shall not be held liable in any manner for safekeeping or condition of same and is, therefore, not responsible as a 1 warehouseman, but that the relationship between the parties is simply that of landlord and tenant and it is understood and agreed by the Owner that the Operator will not be responsible or liab:e for any damage or loss to or of said boat, its tackle. par. equipment cir property. either upon said boat or upon the premises of Operator from any cause whatsoever, or for any injury to the Owner or invitees occasioned by any cause upon Operators premises or adjacent thereto, in or out of the water. 1 Moats shall be in a seaworthy condition and not constitute a fire hazard, in or out of the water, or they shall be removed from the marina or boat yard at the expense of the Owner. Any boat which may sink in the marina shall be removed at the Owner's expense. If the Owner violates any terms of this contract or any marina rules, then the Operator may terminate this contract and it shall cease as if it were the expiration of the original term hereof. Deposits are not returnable for cancellation unless the space is subsequently rented. Boats left in the marina after November 1. 1993 are subject to a late charge of S.50 per foot per day. There will be a $10.00 per day charge for each trailer left on marina property. Camping-out, or sleeping on small boats, by youngsters, while docked at the marina is not permitted. Pitching tents is prohibited. ' Transfer of gasoline from cam is prohibited as spillage will damage docks, floats and the environment. Persons causing such damage will be held responsible and charged for all costs of repair or replacement. There will be a 5% commission payable to Cutchogue Harbor Marina. Inc. on any and all boats sold at the marina. There will be a 1% per month service charge on all overdue accounts. ' The Owner agrees to abide by all MARINA RULFS attached hereto and has re and understood the terms of this agreement. ' CUTCHOG HARBOR MARINA, INC. WNER EAST N L6NG ISLAND, A BOATING PARADISE ,ter II 1 ue 3350 West Creek Avenue 516.734.6993 Cutchogue. N.Y. 11935 MARINA RULES - 1993 III , 1. All rt s are isothe rekept on a leash. if the do sponsibility of the dog's ownerltovremove®it. on Marina property, it ' 2. All boat owners will be required to leave a set of keys to their boat at the Marina office. 3. No outside mechanics will be allowed on any boat in the Marina except for howev warranty work or with the permission of certificates of Ininsany pr ore to tthe moat furnish to the Marina na commencement of work. plan 4. ovAll boat ernight owners must The Marina has when as teetr nsie ts iin vacant slips. Your cooperation in this effort will be greatly appreciated. Sunday and Holidaya these 5. ouring the 90u0 A.M. to 4 30 P.M. i on Friday, Saturday, hours week hours will be extended to 600 P.M. hoses 6. nit will be ozzles and the seen,h please notify the connections are responsibility of every leaking. boat If owner Marina. ' 7. Use of the Marina ramp is only for seasonal customers of the Marina. The ramp will he locked at all times. Please notify the Marina if you intend to use it. ' e. No refuse shall be thrown overboard. Garbage from boats, except oil, shall be Marina officehfor garbagete oilbdisposal. of in Marina in the dmpster Checknatland. thposited 9. No boat may be chartered or rented on Marina property. 10. All dinghies must be kept in the designated area. 11. Electric services will be billed monthly to boat owner at $0.20 per kilowatt hour. ' 12. No signs may be displayed without Marina approval. 13. Each boat owner shall supply his own docking lines and safety equipment. ' 14. No attachments of any kind including dock boxes, shall be made to the docks, except with the permission of the marina. 15. Edge guards, cornerwheels and dock boxes may only be installed with the prior approval of the marina. 16. Coolers are not to be stored on the dock. Gonl~d 1 eptowb.r, 1902 EASTERN LONG ISLAND, A nOATIN0, PARADISE I CII culcuag ' 3350 West Creek Avenue 516734-6993 Culchogue. N.Y. 11935 ' 17. Flushing or pumpout of heads while boat is at the dock is strictly prohibited. Bathrooms on land are for your convenience. Your cooperation in keeping these ' rooms clean will be greatly appreciated by all. violation of this provision will result in a termination of our rental agreement. ' 18. The marina bathrooms will be kept locked. Each boat owner should have his/her own key. All keys should be returned to the management at the end of each season. There will he a $5.00 charge for any replacement key or any key not returned. 19. No T.V. antennas are permitted to be mounted on docks, floats or pilings. 20. No open flames or barbecuing is permitted on, or near the docks, boats or fuel ' docks. 21. Bicycle or motorcycle riding or parking on docks is not permitted. Bicycles, surfboards, or windsurfers left on docks will be removed. ' 22. No children under the age of 18 are permitted to live or sleep aboard a boat without a parent or guardian supervision. ' 23. No painting allowed on docks. 24. No hanging of laundry on boats while at the dock. 25. The boat owner agrees that he will keep the boat fully insured with complete marine insurance, including hull coverage and indemnity and liability insurance. 26. The Marina is not responsible for any losses or damage to the boats at their ' berths. Each owner will be held responsible for damage which he may cause to other boats or to any structure within the Marina limits. 27. In the event of a storm it is the responsibility of the boat owner to secure, ' remove, or take whatever precaution is necessary for the safety of his boat, or other boats and the marina. 28. The boat owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless cutchogue Harbor marina inc. from all lose to persons or property arising from the performance of this contract. ' Page 2 EASTERN LONG ISIAND, A ROA71r1 , PARADISE • .-APPENDIX X • Y ' ~yJ i4V J; St~~ ~ 5R'r It'fPi~ t ir'w!,~Yr~. x.. w - Dennis M. Corcoran 28 Benjamin Ave. , Fast Moriches, NY 11940 (516) 874-8746 March 20th. 1993 M:`iss7ade °.Y 41 Willoughby Path East Northport, NY 11731 • Dear Mr. Wade: `'esponse to your request for information and direction regarding the ...on of alternatives to Fire Department emergency response for ue; fire suppression or other emergencies requiring their response the wing is offered: facts as presented to me by phone conversation, site plan and floor "',,tans for a single family dwelling are set forth: 1. Proposed construction site is a parcel of land located in the Town of ' Southold, hamlet of Cutchogue, Cutchogue Fire Protection District. 2. The parcel of land is surrounded by water except for a causeway upon ` - ,fh a maintained gravel road approximately 15 feet in width exists. he size of the parcel is less than one acre. There are no other structures of consequence within 200 feet of your proposed construction site either on or adjacent to the parcel. ' S. Utilities such as electric service and telephone service will be brought j onto the site. ' 6. Water supply is to be by well on the site. 7. According to your observations or Information supplied by a reliable source, during the most recent storms the roadway was not rendered impassable by flooding conditions. On the basis of on the submitted site plan and floor plans the basis of the ' proposed structure is as follows: 1. Type 5 Construction 1 1 1 ~ • ' 2. Two stories in height 3. Foundation on pilings, no basement. 4. Less than 2,000 sq. ft. of living space. 5. Finished structure and utilities to be in compliance with the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code without exception. ' Narrative: Fire department access for emergency response to a residential structure lacking any fire protective systems is essential to protect the occupants, adjoining property and the subject property. However, in many areas of this state, as well as other states, timely fire department response may be impossible due to distance, weather or quite simply the lack of an ' organized fire department. In your case it appears that weather caused flooding would be your only roadblock to timely response. As an active 1st. Assistant Chief In a Fire Department that has miles of waterfront ' properties and at least one parcel in particular that seems to mirror your situation, our operating procedure is to evacuate residents prior to the causeway becoming impassable due to storm driven tides. While this ' certainly does not protect property, it does insure that our first priority, which is life safety, is accomplished. As the science of weather forecasting ' has progressed, we find that residents tend to take advice and evacuate flood prone areas early on rather than waiting till the situation necessitates emergency response. Nevertheless, some residents still ' attempt to weather the storm understanding that after a certain point is reached emergency assistance is difficult if not impossible. As each fire ' district is an independent political entity, individual fire district policy carried out through the planning of the chief officers determines the emergency response procedures of any given fire district within the rather ' ambiguous guidelines of Municipal Law. Taking a worst case scenario ( fire department cannot respond due to lack ' of access), there are measures that can be undertaken to provide a ' reasonable level of safety to the occupants, exposures and subject property ' as outlined below: 1. Installation of a fully supervised smoke and heat detection system ' protecting all spaces within the structure. This would consist of a UL listed fire alarm panel, detection devices throughout the structure, audible devices (bells) and interconnection to a UL central station. System design, components, installation, performance and maintenance in accordance wlth the appropriate NFPA Standards and Local Law. 2 ' 0 ' 2. Installation of a residential sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13D and Local Law. There are package systems available that include a ' pressure tank ensuring the delivery of a calculated volume of water to operate sufficient sprinkler heads to insure containment of fire in its early stages. A dry system utilizing the detection system to preactivate would ' ensure quick response and eliminate the freeze up problems encountered in seasonal residences. t 3. Considering that cooking fires constitute a substantial portion of residential fires; there are available residential extinguishing systems that protect the stovetop and hoods in a consistent manner. These systems are ' interconnected to devices that will shut sown the cooking fuel supply whether it is gas or electric. 4. Areas of the structure that are more hazardous in contents or equipment ' than other areas can be separated by fire rated construction and opening protectives. ensuring containment of these areas for a reasonable amount ' of time in the event of fire. This would include the heating plant room, electric room and garage. 5. Interconnection of all fire safety systems to a central station would insure constant monitoring of system trouble indications. 6. Regular testing of the systems by qualified personnel. ' Quite candidly I must state unequivocally, that at the present time there is no equipment or system that is the equal of a properly equipped and ' trained fire department at your door, what I have suggested is a reasonable alternative when those services are simply unavailable. There are jurisdictions located mainly in the Southwest that have enacted ' ordinances requiring those systems outlined above in new construction. Their fire losses in those areas approach zero. I hope this information is of assistance to you not so much as an aid in ' obtaining the necessary permits but as a guideline to achieve a fire safe r home environment. If I can be of further assistance feel free to call. ' I have enclosed a brief resume for information purposes only. ' Very truly yours, ' Dennis M. Corcoran ' 3 ,rp 1 , ! ~L 1)'aJ~ zQ~ 0 15 1V uLr W- JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN ATTORNEY yO4 \ P.O. BOX 1179 ROBERT H. BERNTSSON UPI Southold, New York 11971 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY TELEPHONE (516) 765-1939 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Q P -C INTER-OFFICE MEMO GI L c/o FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO: Trustees FROM: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney DATE: June 12, 1989 RE: Article 78 Wade As you are aware the Article 78 by Gustave Wade was dismissed by Justice John V. Vaughn on June 7, 1989. The court has ordered us to submit a judgment. We will prepare same and submit to the court. Being that this matter never goes away and pops up on different occasions, I am sending a copy of the courts decision to other departments so they can have it on file. cc: Town Board Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals _ Building Department I I Pon" 4" MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM Index #89-978 In the Matter of the Application of BY j .V. VAUGHN, J. S. C. GUSTAVE WADE, Petitioner, -against - FRANK A.. KUJAWSKI, JR., ALBERT J. DATED June 7, 1989 KRUP$Kl, JR., JOHN M. BREDEMEYER,III JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR., and HENRY P. SMITH, constituting the Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, Respondents. McNULTY, DiPIETRO & SPIESS, Esqs+ JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE, E51. ,w+, ~ Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 633 East Main St., PO Box 757 Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 Southold, N. Y. 11971 This is an Article 78 Proceeding to set aside the determination of the Respondents, Board of Trustees, denying, without a hearing, petitioner's ap- plication to build a bridge over the Trustees' land. Petitioner had initiated two prior Article 78 Proceedings, relating to this property, requesting an easement or a quit-claim deed to certain property owned by the Trustees adjacent to petitioner's property. The first proceeding resulted in a remand to the Board of Trustees, directing them to make Findings of Fact (Luciano, J., June 14, 1984), and the second terminated with an order dis- missing the petition after finding the claim was without merit (Brown, J., Dec. 30, 1985). As a result of this action a building permit was revoked by the Zoning - - Board of Appeals and this, too, was confirmed by the Court (Brown). No appeJl was taken from the latter decision. Thereafter, in August of 1988, petitioner applied for permission to build a bridge over the same property for which he had been denied an easement. By a letter dated Dec. 16, 1988, the Board of Trustees denied the application without a hearing based upon its earlier 1983 decision denying the easement. At the time of the 1983 application, petitioner was the contract vendee of the property, but is now the record owner. F°"" ".1 MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM WADE By Petitioner VAUGHN J. S. C. vs. DATED June 7, 19 89 i BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondents -f- - _,..-The record establishes that the petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land, approximately 15,000 square feet, in the Town of Southold which, prior to 1966, was formally a "meadow island" (Geiler, J., Sept. 12, 1977). In the late 1960's, landfill from a dredging operation conducted by the County of Suffolk was deposited in a portion of East Creek adjoining this island, and 'thereby connecting it to the main land, changing it from an island to a peninsula. Furthermore, as a result of the dredging and filling, a land mass was created in an area which lay between what is now petitioner's property and the terminus of East Road, a public highway in the Town of Southold. In June, 1980, petitioner's predecessor in title agreed with the Trustees of the Town of Southold upon the establishment of a boundary line and title to a portion of the land between the terminus of East Road and petitioner's property _ vested in the Trustees of the Town of Southold. In March, 1983, petitioner applied to the Trustees for an easement across the Trustees' land in order to obtain acess to his property (island). In its decision, the Trustees noted that it was their duty to preserve and maintain the property, natural wetlands, and the natural ecology of those properties to insure all the people of the Town the greatest long-range benefits therefrom. F°"" rue MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM WADE, Petitioner By VAUGHN J. S. C. vs. DATED June 7, 1989 t BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondents -3- Board of Trustees denied the application for the easement because (1) it would be contrary to its duties to convey away rights which would even potentially prevent the public from enjoying the natural resources of the Town, including its waterways and wetlands; (2) the rights of neighboring property owners, as well as the public at large would be severely jeopardized; (3) alteration of the existing wetlands were not in the public interest and the proposed use for vehicular traffic and underground utilities could have permanent and adverse effects; and (4) the granting of an easement being of a permanent nature would prevent the Trustees from taking any future action, including the possible re-establishment of the creek. The Court confirmed these findings and rejected the petition to vacate. Thereafter, relying upon its prior decision, the Board of Trustees on Dec. 16, 1988, rejected the petitioner's present application to build a bridge across the same land in order to gain access to the public highway. In doing so, the Board noted that a new hearing was not required. Petitioner now contends that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not granting him a hearing, or in discussing the effects of the bridge, or any modifications thereof. In support of his position, the petitioner argues that as an abutting and riparian land owner, he has the right of access across the public lands to the public highway. The Court does not agree. Riparian rights refer to the rights of an upland owner to the water abutting his land (Town of Hempstead v. Oceanside Yacht Harbor, Inc. 38 AD2d 263, aff'd 32 NY2d 859; Matzok v. Glen Cove Yacht Service and Repair, Inc. 21 Misc.2d 481). It does not include MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM WADE, BY VAUGHN J. S. C. Petitioner VS. DATED June 7, 79 89 , BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondents , -4- an easement over the land of the Trustees. The case of Tiffany v. Town of Oyster Bay (234 NY 15) relied upon by petitioner stands for the proposition that filled in land retains its character as land under water, and thus, the owner of adjacent land, has the same rights, but no greater rights, in and across the same, as if no filling had been done. In this case, the fill does not affect access to the water, and there is no basis for granting an easement across the Trustees`. land. Nor does the Court find that the petitioner is an abutting owner of land on a public highway (Robinson v. State 3 AD2d 326; Bersani Building Inc. v. State of New York 21 AD2d 848). In Bersani, supra, the Court ` held that the claimant was not an abutting owner because an 18 foot strip of land owned by the City lay between his property and the right of way line of the State. Accordingly, the Court finds that the respondent, Board of Trustees, did not act arbitrarily and capriciously and the proceeding is dismissed. SUBMIT JUDGMENT. JOIiN V. VAUGHN, J.S.C. V r~A" In STATEMENT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental And Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road DATE eebruary 3, 1992 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 `~IC , (516) 331.1455 r Mr. Gerald Goehringer, Chairman Zoninq Board of Appeals Town of Southold' P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 TERMS: #1"090 PLEASE DETACH AND RETVRN WITN VOVR REMITTANCE BALANCE DATE I INVOICE NUMBER /DESCRIPTION I CHARGES I CREDITS BALANCE FORWARD 1 , 2)of #1090 l' : Gustave Wade view of Draft EIS for ope, content and adequacy d preparation of letter recommendation to ZBA. $500.00 $500.00 Q PAY LAST AMOVNT IN THIS COWMN CRAMER, VOORHIS Ya ASSOCIATES, iNC. ®R =rim norm N. Y.,....... February.. 3 i...19. a?.. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. Cramer, .oorhis & Associates, Inc. Address.5`-2 North,Country„Road,,,MijleZ„$j~~e,,,Ny,,,,U7" A...... Fed. I. D. No . or Sac. Security No . RE: Gustave Wade Invoice #1090 Review of Draft EIS for scope, content and adequacy and preparation of letter of recommendation to ZBA. $500.00 S A a ~ The unde ed "xbM=) (Acting on behalf flf above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cross out one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated enruaxY..j19..92...... INS .C Signature I APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ECG SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman c®r, c Z Serge Doyen, Jr. n , Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James A. Villa Jr PO. Box 1179 Robert t A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold FROM: Board of Appeals DATE: July 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS, as amended May 5, 1993 Property of Gustave Wade at Cutchogue On June 11, 1993, a copy of the DEIS prepared by En-Consultants was received by the Board of Appeals for review and comments which will be accepted up until July 19, 1993. We offer the following comments and requests, which include some references also previously noted in our November 27, 1992 report (copy attached for your convenience and use). 1. The status of the applications pending before all agencies should be reported. Also, a request is made to correct this for the record, and the fact that no building permit may be issued until all agency approvals have been obtained including approval which is necessary by this Board under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for safe and adequate access by fire and emergency vehicles. i 2. Effects by changes in weather conditions at flood high tides and moon high/low tides, storm tides, and the requirement to remove unauthorized fill between this island and East Road will need to be addressed. 3. The preparer has not confirmed alternatives for service companies and fire departments to gain access to the proposed house during freezing of the creek and bay areas immediately surrounding this land. There is mention of a one-year lease with Cutchogue Harbor Marina which may be terminated at any time. This lease is noted to be non assignable and is strictly for the owner's boat. Will covenants for such access to the applicant's property be furnished for perpetual use, and how does the property owner plan to transport equipment, delivery items and vehicles to the property for emergency services, construction purposes, and otherwise. 1 of 2 Page 2 - July 13, 1993 To: Town Trustees, Lead Agency Re: Review of DEIS - Gustave Wade Property 4. The record needs to be corrected to show a distance from the applicant's land to East Road at 85 feet or more (not 65 feet as suggested). 5. Noise impacts need to be addressed. This is necessary at least concerning noise levels and disturbances made in the use of generators and pumping stations at the site utilized for propane, electricity, water, and other purposes. Confirmation as to the number and location of the pumps and their generators are requested in addition to information concerning noise impacts. 6. Minimal reference is made for possible access for backhoes and other equipment by barge. The points of location and proof of such authorization from property owners has not been provided and is necessary in order to access from upland areas for not only backhoes but also for maintenance and cleaning of cesspools, heating, etc. 7. Other concerns with reference to statements made by the prepare, Dennis Corcoran, and others concerning proposals for fire safety, as well as questions about sufficient and safe access by emergency or fire vehicles will, of course, be continued at a public hearing before the Board of Appeals as required by Town Law, Section 280-A, and further considerations are mandated which are not a part of the SEQRA process. Further, an accurate map showing water routes for access by vehicles and for equipment will need to be submitted and considered. Questions are outstanding by this agency concerning time periods for fire and emergency responses for water emergencies, the depth of water and dock suitability at low tides during transports, etc. 8. As noted in our written comments of November 27, 1992 on the prior DEIS submission, this property is located in a "Critial Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, and also referred to as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland areas within 500 feet of the bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29-Year 1988, Suffolk County, and was enacted by the County Legislature. It is requested that all Notices of filing and procedural requirements be amended as a Type I Action. 9. Page 17 makes reference to a new, updated survey dated April 17, 1993 which has not been made a part of this DEIS. An original print is requested for coordination and use to all involved agencies. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject DEIS for final acceptance by the Town. 2 of 2 V APPEALS B OAR.D MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman_ xj Serge Doyen, Jr. v p r9 E z Town Hall, 63095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa_ 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold Mr. Roy Haje, En-Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS of 11/2/92 APPLICANT: Gustave Wade SITE: Property near the End of East Road at Fleet's Neck Cutchogue, Town of Southold Based upon review, it is the opinion of the Board of Appeals that the document as submitted November 2, 1992, is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review. Included herein are specific comments pertaining to the document which outline deficiencies which are in need of additional discussion, clarification, documentation, and/or answers prior to circulation to outside governmental agencies and public comment. I. SUMMARY The summary should, of course, be amended to reflect changes in the text based upon the following: II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Commencing at Page 4 - Background and History a) With regard to permits, permit and permit renewals were not attached. Expiration dates for each agency permit were not furnished. Building permits are renewable for dwellings under construction only; therefore, the building permits referenced could not be renewed and apparently had expired some time ago. Separate permit applications and reviews are subsequently required. b) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental permits were not listed of record prior to 1982. No mention is made of effect of building construction without N.Y.S. D.E.C. permits. Page'2 - November 27, 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck C) Background and history as well as the physical conditions of the site and the surrounding lands at the time of zoning (1957) and at the time of purchase, to the present time period, need to be addressed. d) Physical changes to the site and surrounding area during all specific time periods were not adequately described in detail, i.e. destruction and types of wetlands being replaced with the stone blend, gravel, and other materials onto the wetland area between East Road and the "island," and onto the island upland areas, etc. e) Reference is made to the claim that the island is no longer considered an island. This is questionable since the owner (Town) of the lands did not authorize the wetlands to be filled in and did not authorize the island to become a part of the mainland. Document should confirm ownership between the "island" and East Road to be other than the applicant's. Reference was made that this island is no longer being considered an island. Clarification of this statement is needed, substantiated by documentation as to how this was arrived at, which shall include the Town's anticipated re-opening of the channel at the end of East Road. Pages 6-8 Reference was made to certain "accusations in a court injunction" concerning a Town building permit in 1984 - 1985. Copies of all Court Determinations should be attached, and reference should be corrected to show that Court determined building permit was ineffective and construction could not begin. It should also be noted that a building permit could not again be issued unless all other agency permits were obtained and in full force and effect, as well as obtaining recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles to the island as provided under New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Status of all agency permits, including those now expired and not issued, must be listed. Copies of currently valid permits (if any) should be attached in Appendix. This document must confirm that there are currently no valid permits from any governmental agency concerning the construction of a dwelling, particularly since references mentioned are misleading. Commencing at Page 15 Effects by adverse changes in weather conditions, flood high tides, moon tides during storms, removal of unauthorized fill between island and East Road have not been addressed. "Page 3 - November 27, 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Page 16 How will owner, service companies, etc. gain access to house during freezing of creek and bay areas around island? Will neighboring property be utilized? Page 17 To what depths and what methods are being used to clear 6900 sq. ft. of land as proposed (see December 15, 1988 survey)? Why is 6900 sq. ft. of land area needed to be cleared, rather than substantially lesser areas if the house is 1260 sq. ft. in floor area? Mitigation measures to reduce area of disturbance have not been addressed adequately. Page 19 Propane delivery is not adequately addressed - applicant may not pipe underground on lands other than his own without express written permission from the property owner. The distance at its closest point from the island to East Road is 85 feet, or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Propane lines and servicing is therefore not feasible. Page 20 What alternative areas of sanitary system have had dye studies, and documents substantiating all studies of this island should be attached. Page 22 Contract between property owner and Cutchogue Harbor Marina for access is not attached for consideration. Also, information has not been submitted to show how, where and what time periods and seasons, contractors, back-hoe operators, and other building machinery or delivery trucks will be able to gain access by water. Will heavy equipment operators be using boat or barge access from and to the westerly section of East Creek, or other sections? Page 50 Noise levels of generator(s) with high and low time periods were not submitted. Effects of shutting down of generators has not been documented. I Page 4 - November 27, 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Commencing at Page 52 - System Impacts Recharge figures may not be calculated on current standard requirements for reverse osmosis system should be re-confirmed with Health Department. Page 54 Need to address effects caused by nitrates into salt water at different tide levels - particularly storm tides, etc. Page 56 No currently valid Health Department permits or substantiated dye studies were documented for alternative sanitary system locations. Also need to furnish report on dye study when tide level is more than median. Page 68 Reference is made that since the "lot" is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered by the applicant's consultant to be a buildable lot. A lot is not a buildable lot until all valid approvals and permits are obtained, and proof has been submitted as to its single-and-separate ownership as required by the Zoning Code, and compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. The lot cannot be guaranteed a buildable lot by merely complying with one or two provisions of law. It should be confirmed that at the present time, no permits are currently in effect from all town, state, and county agencies that would render the lot a buildable lot for purposes of a residence. It should be confirmed that the use of this island, or "lot", is presently for boating and docking enjoyment, which has permit approval, for the property owner and his guests. Page 74 It is noted that "...6400 sq. ft. will be cleared for house and septic system construction...5140 sq. ft. will be revegetated...." 6400 less 5140 sq. ft. leaves 1260 sq. ft. The planting schedule submitted as Appendix P shows a gravel area and deck areas around the dwelling which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. These figures do not agree. The 1988 survey map shows that the house would be 1300 sq. ft. although other references are for a 1260 sq. ft. house. What is the square footage of gravel areas, patio areas, and deck areas in addition to the square footage of living area? Page 5 - November 27, 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck OTHER Reference must be made to this property as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, also known as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of the Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland area within 500 feet of all bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29 Year 1988, Suffolk County and was enacted by the County Legislature. Reference should also be made to all areas under which variances are being requested, which should include: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees at less than 75 feet from the high water mark, from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles, and the Suffolk County Health Department. In the event of new bulkheading with proper permits, other variances may be necessary (i.e. zoning code, Section 100-239.4B which requires a minimum setback at 75 feet from bulkheads or retaining walls). SURVEY - An up-to-date survey, with on-site surveying inspections, is requested in light of the hurricane damage and storm damages in the Town of Southold within the last two years. The survey map is shown that the property was lastly re-surveyed in December 1988, prior to the hurricane-storms. ACCESS - Additional information is required for decision-making to include: delineation of the points of access; water routes for access; the distances by water; ingress and egress of emergency vehicles; the time periods for fire and emergency vehicle response; the depth of water and dock suitability for sole access. These areas were not addressed as requested. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for acceptance by the Town (Town Trustees as lead agency). Based upon this review, the DEIS has not been accepted. Review of revisions by the applicant would be expedited in order to commence the public comment process for this project. Dated: November 27, 1992 BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN I I Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD -STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 Cpl ~ r~ TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. February 6, 1990 Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environ- mental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. you interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and a completed Long Environmental Assessment for (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Gustave Wade Requested Action: Applicant is applying for N.Y. Town Law 280-A approved access for purpose of constructing a one (1) family dwelling. Applicant wishes to construct a bridge from the road barrier at the end of East Road in Cutchogue, to proposed dwelling site, transversing Town of Southold properties which lie within jurisdiction of the Southold Town Trustees. Contact Person: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Page 2. The lead agency status will determine who wises to share the lead agency with the above Board or Boards on this project. If you have an interest in sharingior accepting lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Agency Position: { } This agency has no objection to your agency assuntiiig l--ad agency status for this action. { } This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. { } This agency wishes to share lead agency status for this action. Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours Gerard P. Goehi`inger Chairman, Z.B.A. Enclosures Copies of this request and,all attachments to the following: Commissioner Jorling, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook Southold Town Board Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board ~i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 3FF0t SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 0V" Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Doyen,, Jr. a f P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa _03 JFax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OIF SOUTHOLD August 14, 1991 Mr. Gustave J. Wade 201 Main Avenue Wheatley Heights, NY 11798 Re: Your Letter - Request for Documentation (2% SEQRA fee) Dear Mr. Wade: Your written request for "documented proof" concerning the Town's appraisal of your land has been referred to Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk and Public Records Access Officer. In our previous correspondece with you, we indicated that the SEQRA fee limitation is set by the State at 2% of the total project cost or appraisal, exclusive of building. It is our understanding, in speaking with the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney, that you may obtain copies of the $175,000 appraisal prepared by the Town some time ago. You may, of course, provide us with an up-to-date appraisal prepared by a licensed appraiser concerning your property, if you wish, as an alternative to the appraisal of record. We are not sure how many pages you will be requesting, therefore, you should stop by the Town Clerk's office to obtain the copies in person or through your agent or representative. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk 74J % C&,-k lklAp/91. rioo b5gN u-c..tiA %Bw„ yam` ~ 3-,02 -So oyi. first Fowne ime- alty MAIN ROAD LEWIS EDSON MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 LICENSED BROKER CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 (516) 765-2288 (51 PUIIFi687 << i AUG 2 8 i9'~! j 111 March 12, 1-536 APPRAISAL REPORT FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OF PROPERTY OWNED BY GUS WADE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 I VirstTowne, y ivi low emity Y ]~IF'A N~ MAIN ROAD LEWIS EDSON MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 LICENED BROKER CUTCHOGUE N (516) 765-2288 EW YORK 11935 1516) 734$687 March 12, 1990 In the Matter of ) Gus Wade ) State of New York ) SS County of Suffolk ) Lewis L. Edson being duly sworn, deposes and say: I am over 21 years of age and reside at Southold, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. I am a duly licensed real estate broker and sole owner of First Towne Realty of Southold and Cutchogue, New York. I have acted in some sales and purchases in the Town of Southold. I have also bought and sold real property for my own account at Southold and elsewhere in the Town of Southold. I am well acquainted with real estate values in the Town of Southold. On or about March 2, 1990 the Town of Southold requested First Towne Realty to make an appraisal of a waterfront lot in the Town of Southold, Village of Cutchogue, State of New York. While I was then generally familiar with the property, I have since carefully inspected all of the property for the purpose of appraising it. The parcel contains approximately .347 acres with 244 feet on Eugene's Creek with an irregular depth. It is bounded on the east, south and west by properties of Southold Town and on the north by Eugene's Creek. It is also at the east end of East Road, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The property is a sandy piece without much elevation (see survey). The views are spectacular. It could be the site of a great summer house. Its downside is that it is low, exposed to the elements, and has no privacy. It is an interesting property. The 1989 - 1990 Southold Town Assessment was: Land $200.00 Total $200.00 I have been asked to appraise the property two ways, one as a vacant parcel with all valid permits from all agencies necessary to build a one family dwelling i.e. including but not limited to DEC, Board of Health, Town Trustees, Building Department, also valid access to the property by vehicular traffic. The second appraisal value is if the only use for the property was to be able to build a dock with a valid DEC permit and for no other use. In my opinion a fair market value for the parcel on March 12, 1990 with all permits as described in one above is $175,000. In my opinion a fair market value for the parcel on March 12, 1990 as described in two above is $50,000. Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-110-7-28 Southold Town Taxes 1989 - 1990: $95.29 Property is zoned residential. Respectfully submitted, Lewis L. Edson Licensed Real Estate Broker Subscribed to and sworn before me this 12th day of March 1990. Notary Public CLAIRE L GLEW Notary Public, State. of New York No.4879505 ) Quafied in on Expires D eimber~9, 9?v 5 } Y 4•1 m ZQQ~/- r ' Z. .71 VIC i ql A. P5,1000 s C, pDOT 3:~A FaRrz O SYJ ~ s SCALE` 20 ~jl MONUME 4 i ; , i T ig1h. ()F NE :r-- ,U' C° { t co pa l` 7c t cY~ rTA N tS'~ t e 4 1is~ (S 256'.4. s•~7 lines + aft ",MAP AMENDE.D-MARJO1989~NX224,1989 -r tt. } AUGN' (43Q JAN. 16:1990 L!:•e \<ftx dY4..v _ 5---•--•~"^ ~rff~t4 7-71 C.:s /fir ~J~ > tlt }t •^S arr ,fix k...l`''}~`.,~::. :T .f i.cetrP'1 Law ~S + '4'1~1F 1. C. ! C/~ { 't y s':'!r t?ri ~00 C 16G Of tht3 IR'.. 1 a.•-r, D.T-r~M'P { ~.i rt j C1~Gw e-•r cL SSai ¢t.a r x.:.11 r2( I.rI' 2f:.:l~ Y~` [ [ yrtd rN«tan~ :Pwav id two, b C~7. Cus e/Its_x InG6Gl I1 _ - cn1Y m I~5 tx+svmlm v ~ Ssr ~ z IE P: CLL[ti C'Id cih „ yt ~f~_ . C.:e ec n} FP ergo cn Y.: t .t r . ryu' 1y t1X hr:dant •n«ni Ich 11 d } c n - UGC1,tiGtll`(7R5';la[2E1 . . L W,icn C r -otsas ere mbC... c Si IR{jt:tllP'11 or L4tL,J41 n k } Tm_~ J~BSA LEVEL(U.S.G.y t-PI i MAP Off' PROPERTY 1 ,0 'SURVEYED FQJZ ° GUS WADE- 'C.(.JTCHOGUE _ -.TOWN OF S~UTHOLU tiI,Y. ° N 1 ZIPS a f} 5 t` -KD lei `N j 1 y 040 ..QO 0 m p. V , p~ r, 10 1. .~~0~.. r9--. is 5r , r y sy. i t , h f, a s • Jk 0 DATUM R' ELEVATt -4S 4 COlJ 12Se NIE ~t q' SUBJECT PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS OF LEWIS L. EDSON I am a licensed Real Estate Broker with an office at Main Road, Southold, Suffolk County, New York. I have acted in many sales and purchases in the Town of Southold. I have also bought and sold real property for my own account at Southold and elsewhere in the Town of Southold. I am well acquainted with real estate values in Southold. Prior to opening First Towne Realty in June, 1976, I was with McDonald's Corporation as Director in Charge of new site development. During my nine year tenure, I either purchased or approved the purchase of over 300 locations in the Northeastern section of the United States and Canada. I have done many appraisals in the Town of Southold for individuals, attorneys, and I am an authorized appraiser for the North Fork Bank & Trust Company for commercial properties. I am a member of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors. I have also qualified as an expert witness pertaining to real estate matters, before the Supreme Court of New York and the United States Federal Tax Court. LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to the following limiting conditions. The legal description furnished is assumed to be correct. I assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do I render any opinion as to title, which is assumed to be marketable. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear under responsible ownership and competent management. I have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Unless otherwise noted herein, it is assumed that there are no encroachments, zoning violations or restrictions existing in the Subject Property. Information, estimated and opinions contained in this report are obtained from sources considered reliable, however, no liability for them can be assumed by the appraiser. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for any purpose by any but the applicant without the previous written consent of the appraiser or the applicant, and in any event only with proper qualification. I am not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been made previously herefore. The division of land and improvement values estimated herein is applicable only under the program of utilization shown. There separate valuations are invalidated by any other applicant. APPEALS BOARD MEMBER r I:~ SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. q Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. -e James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa l `s., Jam, Fax 516 765-182 3 Telephone (516) 765-1809 ig Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OAP' SOUTHOLD TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Public Records Access Officer FROM: ZBA DATE: August 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Request Received 7/30/91 - Gustave J. Wade SEQRA limit of 2% based upon Town Appraisal our office is in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Wade requesting documented proof of the appraised value upon which the 2% SEQRA limitation is based. Mr. Wade received communications through the Town Attorney which confirmed that the Trustees and ZBA reviews would jointly be limited to a maximum of $3500.00, which is 2% of the $175,000.00 appraisal reviewed on file. We may respond to Mr. Wade in one of the following manners: (1) provide him with a copy of the Town's appraisal concerning his property; or (2) request from the applicant an up-to-date appraisal upon which we would be forced to base the SEQRA fee limitation (the updated appraisal may be less than the Town's 1989-90 appraisal); or (3) request from the applicant a copy of Mr. Wade's appraisal prepared in 1990 (or 1989), which is believed to be $150,000 and then agree to limit the SEQRA fee based upon - (SEQRA fee limitation would be $3,000.00 instead of $3,500.00). If we are permitted to provide Mr. Wade with a copy of the $175,000 appraisal, then we will proceed with #1. If we are not permitted to use the $175,000 appraisal report, then it is necessary to proceed with #2 since Mr. Wade's appraisal of $150,000 may be outdated, or with #3 if Mr. Wade is agreeable. Thank you for your guidance in this regard. CC: Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff CZtkJ 6t C p clc a ~a~ G11 ~d~v ttit ~a G~ ~~31~71 WADE ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 Main Avenue • Wheatley Heights • New York 11798.516-643-6644 FAX: 516-643-6645 ,JULY 26, 1991 i1 ~i SOUTHOLD Z. B. A. TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIij ROAD P. 0. Box 1179 SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 ATTN: GERARD GOEHRINGER DEAR MR. GOEHRINGER, I AM IN RECEIPT OF AN INTER-OFFICE i4EMORACDUrl OtiTED MARCH 15, 199! FROM YOUR OFFICE TO MR. H,>RVEY ARNOFF, ATTORNEY. III YOUR MEMORANDUM YOU REFER TO AN APPRAISAL OF $175,000.00 PREPARED FOR THE TOV!N OF WHICH 27 EQUALS A $3,500.00 FEE DUE BY THE APPLICANT FOr: CONSULTATIO;J FEES. I HAVE NO PROBL-M PAYING A $5,500.00 FEE Fl%CM MY PROJECT TO THE To,-,N OF SOUTHOLD, BUT, I HEFEZY ':FISH TO HAVE DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF MY LAND IS $175,000.00 WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT AS RAC! LAND. PLEASE FORWARD TO ME SOME FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE Towii ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, OR, THE APPRAISER'S OFFICE, 0', THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE TO THAT EFFECT, AND, WE SHALL SUBMIT THE DEIS REPORT ALONG WITH OUR CHECK FOR WHATEVER FEES ARE NECESSARY TO COVER THE L•/, OF'THE APPRAISED VALUE LESS MIELLINGS AS STATED IN SEQUA GUIDELINES. PLEASE LET ME HEAR FROM YOU IMMEDIATELY. YOURS TRULY, GUSTAVE J. WADE CC: ROY HAJE landscape specialists that create beautiful scenes and maintain them every season of the year _ f iw W WADE ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 Main Avenue • Wheatley Heights • New York 11798.516-643-6644 FAX: 516-643-6645 VA 17 .JULY 26, 1991 JU: as 1991 SOUTHOLD Z. B. A. TOWN HALL - 55095 MAIN ROAD P. 0. Box 1179 SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 ATTN1 GERARD GOEHRINGER DEAR MR. GOEHRINGER, I AM IN RECEIPT OF AN INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 15, 1991 FROM YOUR OFFICE TO MR. HARVEY ARNOFF, TowN ATTORNEY. IN YOUR MEMORANDUM YOU REFER TO AN APPRAISAL OF $175,000.00 PREPARED FOR THE Tolim OF WHICH 27 EQUALS A $3,500.00 FEE DUE BY THE APPLICANT FOR CONSULTATION FEES. I HAVE 140 PROBLEM PAYING A $5,500.00 FEE FROM MY PROJECT TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BUT, I HEREBY td'ISH TO HAVE DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF MY LAND IS $175,000.00 WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT AS RAVI LAND. PLEASE FORWARD TO ME SOME FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEYS OFFICE, OR, THE APPRAISER S OFFICE, OR, THE TOWN CLERKS OFFICE TO THAT EFFECT, AND, ~!E SHALL SUBMIT THE DEIS REPORT ALONG WITH OUR CHECK FOR WHATEVER FEES ARE NECESSARY TO COVER THE L% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE LESS M,'ELLINGS AS STATED IN SEQUA GUIDELINES. PLEASE LET ME HEAR FROM YOU IMMEDIATELY. YOURS TRULY, GUSTAVE ,J. WADE CC; Roy HAJE A t~~.. C&4 landscape specialists that create beautiful scenes and maintain them every season of the year HARVEY A. ARNOFF 1 SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Attomey Supervisor A MATTHEW G. KIERNAN y,... J Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Assistant Town Attorney _ P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 zzz J Fax (516) 765-1823 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 20, 1S- j I.t I;y MAR 2 1 199 Mr. Gustave J. Wade 41 Willoughby Path East Northport, NY 11731 Dear Mr. Wade: After my telephone conversation with you the other day. I reviewed the P letters which I told you I had waiting for me on my desk. Rather than try to restate the various positions of Mr. Goehringer and Mr. Bredemeyer, I thought it best to make copies of their respective memo's to me so that you may review same with Roy Haje and take whatever steps you feel are appropriate. I believe that Mr. Goehringer and Mr. Bredemeyer have clearly outlined, not only the issues but what they feel are the best way this matter may proceed. I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this letter together with the enclosures to Mr. Haje so that perhaps we can help you expedite your application at this time. Should you wish to discuss this matter further with me, of course, I will be available to you either by phone or in person on appointment. Very trul ou(----~ `I a vey A. Arnoff Town Attorney HAA:mis Enclosures cc: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees J ` y} TRUSTEES ' „-P SCOTT L. HARRIS John M. Bredemeyer, 111, President + J,, off`' Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road John L. Bednoski, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 John B. Tuthill Southold, New York 11971 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney FROM: John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Tru RE: Gus Wade DATE: March 15, 1991 Per your request I have read the attached memo from Roy Haje and have discussed the issue of fees with Bruce Anderson, the Trustees Environmental Consultant. He and I believe the Trustee position in the environmental review of this project may be subordinate to the Zoning Board and their consultant Cramer & Voorhis. Final decision in this matter can only be made after an application is filed with this Board and we formally coordinate under S.E.Q.R.A. By copy of this letter I am requesting Bruce prepare a statement of proposed consulting fees and duties consistent with the scoping session and to be mutually agreed to between himself and Cramer and Voorhis, so that there will be no duplication of effort. Only after we receive his report can we realistically discuss the S.E.Q.R.A. fees. However, I would hope we can keep the total fees at less than $3000.00 as suggested by Mr. Haje. cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Bruce Anderson, Consultant to the Trustees ( 3M~~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ' SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. a Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax(516)765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman DATE: March 15, 1991 RE: Your Memo of March 12, 1991 - Gustave Wade In January, wesent a letter to Mr. Wade, to help answer questions that he had concerning the extent of fees due upon submission with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the maximum fee established under the SEQRA rules. (A copy of our letter is attached for your reference, if needed). The only application pending at this time is for approval of access over a proposed right-of-way to Mr. Wade's future home. The Town Trustees is an "involved agency" but would like to be "co-lead" when their permit application is filed. The only application pending at this time is with the Board of Appeals concerning this right-of-way. It is possible to do a complete analysis for both the house project and the 280A project into one SEQRA process, however, both applications must first be filed in complete form. Building construction plans, soil erosion control plans, drainage plans, etc. may need to be requested for examination. The sooner the Trustees' application is filed, the sooner a "cumulative" review can be done by the Town. It is clear in the 280A application assessment that the SEQRA fee limitation is set by the State at two (2%) percent of the project cost or appraisal, exclusive of building. Is the question raised by En-Consultants whether or not SEQRA will apply for a future project such as a new dwelling, and whether additional fees will be applied? If the Trustees' application is not filed, it is possible that a Supplemental DEIS may later be deemed necessary and further reviews under SEQRA. Page 2 - March 15, 1991 To: Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney Re: Gustave Wade Project at Cutchogue We do not believe that the Town can apply any more than the State maximum under this entire project of 2% of the $175,000.00 appraisal (prepared for the Town), which would be $3,500.00 for reviews by the Town consultant concerning documents prepared by Mr. Wade's private consultant in this entire project.) Accordingly, we understand that the Town Trustees and ZBA have jointly agreed to charge one SEQRA review fee up to $3,500.00 for the dwelling and 280A project. We hope that this will be of some help. GG:lk cc: Mr. Jay Bredemeyer, President Southold Town Trustees APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ' SCOTT L. HARRIS i Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman _ Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 January 28, 1991 Mr. Gustave J. Wade 41 Willoughby Path East Northport, NY 11731 Re: Appl. No. 3913 - Variance for Approval under 280A Dear Mr. Wade: Pursuant to your inquiries of today, via Supervisor Harris, please find enclosed copies of Section 617.17 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) pertaining to fees and costs charged by the agency, together with a copy of the Town Board's resolution adopted June 20, 1989 outlining the breakdown of the town's consultant fees to perform reviews under the Draft Environmental Impact Statement procedures. There cannot, of course, be any guarantee given to you at this time that there would not be any other costs incurred to you under the entire multi-agency process. {There does, however, appear to be a limitation of two percent (2%) as noted in sub-paragraph (b) of Section 617.17 for residential projects.) Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk Enclosures cc: Supervisor Scott Louis Harris Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITH T. TERRY FAX 765-1823 CLERK TELEPHONE NE ((516) 7655- 801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1989: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Cramer, Voorhis E Associates, Environmental and Planning Consultants, to perform the following services with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, at the following fees: Scoping the DEIS $ 250.00 Review of DEIS for Scope and Adequacy $ 500.00 Critical Review of Accepted DEIS $ 1,250.00 r cam` 7udith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk June 21, 1989 -41- 6s6617.16 0 7.17 the action, but may be considered by the agency. 617.17 FEES AND COSTS. (a) When an action subject to this Part involves an applicant, the lead agency may charge a fee to the applicant in order to recover the actual costs of preparing or reviewing the draft EIS, provided such costs do not exceed the amounts allowed under subdivisions (b) through (d) of this section. An applicant may not be charged a separate fee for both the preparation and review of a draft EIS. Scoping shall be considered part of the draft EIS for purposes of determining a SEQR fee. (b) For residential projects, the total project cost shall be calcu- lated on the cost of the land plus the cost of all required site improve- ments, not including the cost of buildings and structures. In the case of such projects, the fee charged by an agency may not exceed two percent of the total project cost. - (c) For nonresidential construction projects, the total project cost shall be calculated on the cost of supplying utility service to the pro- ject, the cost of site preparation and the cost of labor and material as 1 determined with reference to a current cost data publication in common usage. In the case of such projects the fee charged may not exceed one half of one percent of the total project cost. (d) For projects involving the extraction of minerals, the total project cost shall be calculated on the cost of site preparation for mining. Site preparation cost shall mean cost of clearing and grubbing and removal of-over-burden for the entire area to be mined plus the cost of utility services and construction of access roads. The fee charged by the agency may not exceed one half of one percent of the total project costs. For those costs to be incurred for phases occurring three or more years after issuance of a permit, the value of project cost shall be determined using a present value calculation. (e) Where an applicant chooses not to prepare a draft EIS, the lead agency shall provide the applicant, upon request, with an estimate of the costs for preparing such statement calculated on the total cost of the project for which funding or approval is sought. (f) "Appeals procedure". When a dispute arises concerning fees 6 NYCRR PART 617 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, Section 8-0113 (Applicable to all state and local agencies within New York State including all political subdivisions, districts, departments, authorities, boards,' commissions and public benefit corporations) i Page Section 1 617.1 Authority, intent and purpose 2 617.2 Definitions 8 617.3 General rules 11 617.4 Individual agency procedures to implement SEQR ' 13 617.5 Initial review of actions 14 617.6 Establishment of lead agency and determination of significance for Type I and Unlisted actions 19 617.7 Scoping 20 617.8 Environmental impact statement (EIS) procedures 23 617.9 Decision-making and findings requirements 25 617.10 Notice and filing requirements 28 617.11 Criteria 30 617.12 Type I actions 32 617:13 Type II actions 34 617.14 Preparation and content of environmental impact statements 38 617.15 Generic environmental impact statements 40 617.16 Actions involving a Federal agency 41 617.17 Fees and costs 42 617.18 Confidentiality r 42 617.19 Referenced material L 43 617.20 Effective date 43 617.21 Appendices (model forms) A - Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) B - Visual EAF Addendum - C - Short EAF 0 - Scoping Checklist E - Notice of Positive Declaration F - Notice of Negative Declaration G - Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and Hearing H - Notice of Completion of Draft EIS/Final EIS I - Findings Statement ADOPTED: March 6, 1987 EFFECTIVE: June 1, 1987 .o l e i i. ~ • ~tJJ-CCi' .3 ~ y y d McNULTY - SPIESS ATTORNEYS &COUNSELORS AT LAW 633 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 757 RIVERHEAD. NEW YORK 11901 516- 727-8200 JOHN R. MCNULTY FAX 515-727-8262 JAMES SPIESS EDWARD D. BURKE JOHN RUSSEL SPRAGUE III OFCOUNSEL March 13, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Gustave J. Wade Dear Mr. Goehringer. Confirming our conversation about your letter addressed to Mr. Gustave J. Wade dated March 2, 1990 and delivered to him on March 10, 1990 wherein you set a deadline for March 14, 1990, I wish to advise that your interpretation of the application is incorrect. Mr. Wade's application is for approval of access under Town Law 280-a. When Mr. Wade applied for a building permit, he was told he had to obtain a permit for the construction from the Trustees and access approval under 280-a from the Board of Appeals. The Trustees indicated that they would require a full scale SEQRA review, EIS etc. and I believe the statement was something to the effect that he had to go back to square one. He was also informed that he could not process these applications in tandem but that the Board of Appeals would have to wait for the M Trustee review. The Board of Appeals application seemed to have the lesser impact under SEQRA and therefore he chose to proceed with the 280-a application. There is no bridge approval pending (at the present time) and access to the property will be by foot over the Trustee land or by water over Trustee land under water (creek bottom). Mr. Wade has permission from the Trustees to construct the dock complete with SEQRA approval. McNULTY - SPIESS ATTORNEYS d COUNSELORS AT LAW March 13, 1990 page 2 I don't know where you got your information that Mr. Wade lacks authority to have access over the very property proposed in the present application. It is true that the trustees have denied Mr. Wade a permanent easement and blacktop driveway and have refused to entertain his application for a bridge permit, however they have stated that he does have access by foot as well as by water. Since the property is only a short distance from the public highway, it is our position that we have as much access as many homes which are located 100 feet or more distant from the highway and also have access similar to several of the islands in the Town. I think this confirms our telephone conversation and I hope that it clarifies the application for you. It was a pleasure talking with you and with kind personal regards. Very truly y , O&S, JOHN R.M JRM:spt Enclosure APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS JrFT~I r • SCOTT L. HARRIS zLE' Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman. A Supervisor n Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa "p Telephone 765-1809r~~ Fax (516) 765-1823 (516) _ Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Building DepartmenFROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman ~tt - June 17, 1991 / SUBJECT: Your Memorandum Dated June 7, 1991 Request by Gustave Wade to the Building Department Thank you for your memorandum of June 7, 1991 together with a copy of Mr. Wade's request to your office. Please be aware that the ZBA has not referred Mr. Wade to your office for a "...clarification of ...lot situated at the end of East Road, Cutchogue...." In checking with our Secretary, it appears that Mr. Wade called our office and told Linda that he found a flaw in documentation prepared by the environmental consultant hired by Mr. Wade. Mr. Wade then asked if the document is correct in saying that the lot is a conforming lot, and Mr. Wade was told that it does not appear to be a conforming lot because it does not meet the lot size requirement in the zone district where it is located." It appears that Mr. Wade is taking whatever step he feel is necessary in this multi-agency process and apparently is not aware that a vacant land Certificate of occupancy is no longer issued by the Town. Due to the delicate nature of this project, we would recommend that Mr. Wade obtain advice from his attorney for furnishing this type of proof for the ZBA record for future consideration. GG:lk • APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS a a ~p SCOTT L. HARRIS n ^ Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman , Charles Grigonis, Jr. 99j y a Y Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Building Department FROM: Board of Appeals DATE: May 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Gus Wade Application for Building Permit Today Mr. Wade called and indicated his set backs for his proposed dwelling structure, as proposed on his nonconforming lot, which appear to be within the requirements of Section 100-244B. However, Mr. Wade also indicated that he was assured by the Building Department (Vic) that he would be allowed to go the proposed 26" within the yard setback areas for the over-hang of his structure. Our office indicated that it appeared to be permitted at 24" or less, but not 26". He repeated that he was relying on the "building inspector" since he had spoken directly with the inspector. We would like to give you an opportunity to contact the applicant or his agent and verify the code requirement for overhangs and setback requirements into the yard areas since these may need to be clarified. Thank you for your assistance. i MAP OP Pi"~OPE QTY SUIZV EYEL? PC4 n c Al CUTCHOGU y" C a"- t TGW)v OF 5Ol7TMOi.t) ~ N.Y C a a I - - ,p V tov of ~ 'r +1 1 WELL PT.t e / i e F 1 ~ ~fr ~.yr , FQR R. 0. SYSTEM , ~ ez. id tms "r+OY S'q / e+?,1 ~ ` 4 , ~ 'n p r1 +f ~i A ntE98 MtliC9Y h5 (,`Jl J ~.i~:~4 ~f>~.~ 8 h~~ _J - ,may LUL Lfr50O Orµ \ ~ ~T}' ,1 •irt ~ 1 ~ .^d OR hS ~ _ ~ £ - P20 PD. SEPTIC 0 ly SCALE 2O4( ("C~ . ~N.J?n41~r~h.r4•''v\R O'?~~LEh P~~.\GK Vq,y 'J Yy r' - ! 20 6ti cwt tS 2b ~ Lo Y' MAP AME(VPEU - MAfZ.E44sAI..IG. 21, lqft;; FE8.6. 990 - G 91 7Q D.tl IJG 23, 1999 y AWAAW. v~4v 1 J: vet E €>f DEC, 15 , PIC / DA7U qC ELF--VATiPubf., 4 COWTCX-JC!3: MEAN -A LS L 2~~ y. ~ 3 c, FLEET,` ECK 1[ C ra CMG PROPERTY OWN SOCI4TION;I,C nl 1rT 1991 P. 54 , . 'IJU CUTCHOGUE , N.Y., 11935 January 11, 1991. Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, III President BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Matter of Board of Trustees project off East Road, Cutchogue, New York and the Gustave J. Wade pending application for a variance or other requested relief Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: The organization and its entire membership is grateful and appre- ciative of the interest and efforts of the Board in not only see- king an amicable resolution to the long and protracted administra- tive and judicial proceedings, totally and completely adverserial in nature, initiated and continued by Mr. Gustave J. Wade, but in the sincere, 1ayil and dilligent performance of its duties and obli- gations in protecting and enforcing the rights of the citizenry of the town and its character in conformity and compliance with the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances enalcted for such purposes. The Executive Board by this writing requested me to extend its ap- preciation to you personally for the time and efforts which you ex- pended in meeting with us and otherwise advising and counselling on the proposed resolutions, for clearly you have manifested the ex- tension of your person displaying keen knowledge, experience and practical application, coupled with true character interest, all the essentials of a " TRUSTEE As to the matters at hand, it is with regret at the fact that the association will not and cannot in good conscience and in the best interests of not only its membership but the community, consent, ap- prove or even in any manner affirm the proposed project by the Board of Trustees. No less can its consent, approval or affirmation be made or in any way indicated, directly, indirectly or otherwise, as to the proposed " swap" or " exchange " of land between the Town or any of its agencies or departments with Mr. Wade. The record of proceedings before the Town Board, the Board of Trus- tees, the Board of Zoning and Appeals and the Courts, have unequi- vocally and unqualifiedly supported and upheld the administrative - 1 - Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, III President BOARD OF TRUSTEES, etc., Re: Matter of Board of Trustees pro- ject off East Road etc., - con'd- decisions and actions. It appears that the pending application is a last resort for relief that was sought and demanded through the various and extensive proceedings heretofore had, administra- tively and judicially. Bearing and weighing heavily is the fact that Mr. Wade purchased the parcel with full and complete knowledge of its legal status, taking title after the same was clearly defined and made known to him. An " INNOCENT PURCHASER " he was NOT ! But to the contrary, he was a " CONTINGENT PURCHASER " who came, who saw, who learned and was taught the status of the parcel, and then chose to be an " ABSOLUTE PURCHASER " risking a price to effect a change.of the legal status of the parcel. Undoubtedly at a great and enormous monetary expense to the tax- payers of the Town and our association, the status of the parcel was in no way changed, but to the contrary necessitated additional expenditure of taxpayer funds to enforce by prosecution or other- wise the pre-construcion activity on his parcel and that of the Town and Trustees by reason of violations. Without commenting on the claimed or appraised valuation of the Wade parcel, documentation on record or in other form sets forth the purchase price, raising the query does useless land appreciate ? The issues were not those of a purchaser who failed or neglected to heed the warning " BUYER BEWARE ! particularly in regard to realty, but rather of an informed purchaser who was " FULLY AWARE " and only then consummated the purchase, prior to whiohihe sought,add.subse~, quent'Co which he vigorously continued to seek unwarranted, unjusti- fied and precluded relief and remedy. The association and its entire membership has supported and will con- tinue to support all the proper, just, fair, reasonable and lawful actions and decisions of the Town, your Board, the ZBA and 411 the agencies, departments and entities acting in and governing such mat- ters, individually, collectively and as an entity, coupled with its commitment to be made a party to any other or further proceedings, administrative and judicial, directly or indirectly as such, or by intervention as provided and afforded by existing laws. 2 - Mr. John Bredemeyer, III President BOARD OF TRUSTEES, etc., Re: Matter of Board of Trustees Pro- ject off East Road etc., - cbn'd - Accordingly, conveyed and transmitted hereby for your placerkent in the record and file of the subject matter is this corres¢ondence for the reasons and upon the grounds aforestated, the duly Adopted resolution of the Executive Board and as ratified by the meckiber- ship of the association, to wit, that no consent, approval,~`affir- mation, confirmation or ratification is and the same is hereby denied as to all matters proposed, suggested or made known ther- wise by the Town Board, the Board of Trustees of the Town o..ff any agency or department acting for or on the behalf of either qr both or having jurisdiction over or governing such matters including but not limited to the granf.ige award monetarily, by exchange of proper- ty or otherwise compensation to Mr. Wade, the award or granting any variance, exception or relief as applied for and pending and the Board's proposal for a boat mooring facility in the creek. *owever, the association endorses the dredging for the restoration ok,, the creek, recognizing the authority of the Board to so do and ~.ccor- dingly, fully, completely and unequivocally not only endorst.ng such but requesting and praying that same be done and accom;'lished for the best interests and welfare of not only the associatiion and its membership but for the restoration and enhancement and p'reser- vation of that area environmentally. Thank you kindly for your courtesies, consideration and favurable actions in the said matters. BD:an FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION CC TO: File Town Board, Town By....: of outhold Bernard Dempsey oard of Appeals, President Town of Southold 3 - ti~~~ ~OSUFFO(~-C O TRUSTEES h~0 rv,~: Gy John M. Bredemeyer, III, President c t' SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith, Vice President an SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. 'jlp! ~.ao Town Hall John B. Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . I-) [E M Owls January 27, 1992 Roy Haje ijl En-Consultants F® - 50 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 'I RE: Gus Wade SCTM #1000-110-7-28 Dear Mr. Haje: The Southold Town Trustees considered your letter of December 30, 1991 and request for a waiver under 97-21J of our wetland ordinance at our January 16, 1991 regular meeting and offer the following: SEQRA With respect to Town and State SEQRA the Trustees will continue to work closely with the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in their role as lead agency and will attempt to make the review as orderly as possible by submitting our comments on completed documents, on the time table the ZBA establishes. We shall not suspend our role in the SEQRA process for the following items associated with the need of a complete application under the Town wetlands Ordinance as we believe they will not negatively cloud our "hard look" under SEQRA. Complete Application 97-21 E,G. The information provided on fill and slopes is considered adequate for the purposes of a complete application. 97-211 e Trustees are not prepared to issue waiver(s) for this Section at this time. It is the position of this Board that the placement of cesspools on our common property line will create an exclusive/private pollution easement over our property which may pre-empt the Board of Trustees from returning our land to navigable waters. Mr. Wade is encouraged to approach the County Health Department with a copy of this letter in an attempt to secure an alternative to the conventional sanitary system shown on the plan survey. We believe this is consistent with the bonafide offer Mr. Wade made at the SEQRA scoping session to install an alternative sanitary system. Site Restoration The Board would like you or Mr. Wade to detail in writing his interest(s), if any, in the cesspool which appears on our property adjacent to his and whether he maintains any interest in the sand and gravel he may have placed on Town and Trustee land at the terminus of East Road under prior authorization/permit(s). It is our intention to ask Mr. Wade (with NYSDEC approval/supervision) to remove these materials from the wetland zone and store them off-site should he claim to own them. The Board requests that all house support pilings installed under previous permits be removed, thus restoring the island to it's prior condition. If you have any questions on any of these matters, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ~Q John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmt cc: ZBAkl/'~ CAC Bruce Anderson ~~FfOIK~~ TRUSTEES * .1W L. HARRIS John M. Bredemeyer, III, President y !MM-. 7ownl.,u53095 pervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Main Road John L. Bednoski, Jr.1 P.O. Box 1179 John B. Tuthill Southold, New York 11971 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Board of Trustees, John M. Bredemeyer, II RE: Gustave Wade SCTM #1000-110-7-28 DATE: June 1, 1990 The Southold Town Board of Trustees have considered the Lead Agency request of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals at our recent May 24, 1990 meeting. Our response follows: 1. The Southold Town Trustees have jurisdiction on the site under Chapter 97 (Wetlands) and 32 (Boats, Docks,Wharves) of the code of the Town of Southold. Chapter 97 (Wetlands) requires a permit to be issued for all activities within 75' of a Tidal/Freshwater Wetlands out to a depth of 5' below mean low water. In this context "Activities" generally consist of, but are not limited to; construction, cut, fill, mechanical de-vegetation and extension of utilities. Chapter 32 (Boat,Docks,Wharves) are codified Andros Patent (1676) powers specifically dealing with permits required for activities on Trustee land below mean high water. In this context the Wade property is a peninsula. The Trustees have full rights to manage, lease or convey the surrounding Trustee property, including re-establishing surface waters over filled-in Trustee land at the terminus of East Road, Cutchogue. 2. The Southold Town Trustees have directed me as S.E.Q.R.A. contact person to request a coordinated Co-lead agency S.E.Q.R.A. status with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the purpose of this review. 3. Some issues surrounding the use of water for access by way of Eugenes Creek include, but are not limited to, the extent development of a 280-A access will necessitate additional development on the site or induce environmental impacts (including the effects of any emergency response needed for site). Issues concerning safety and accessibility of property during storm events. Issues surrounding the Trustees right to manage the underwater land including the possibility that permanent 280-A access on waters over Trustees land is a potential exclusive easement contrary to the public interest (similar to the previously denied bridge application). The issue that the residential dock on site was approved as an accessory recreational structure and not as a sole access structure. Issues surrounding re-establishment of water over Trustee land at the terminus of East Road where the Trustees have by resolution stated their interest in creating a small boat mooring facility for the residents of Southold Town at that locus. The liabilities to the Trustees and Town of permitting permanent access over Trustee lands by water. Discussion of the right of the Town Trustees to cut, dredge or fill-in any portion of the waters over Trustee owned lands included in the 280A access area. CC: Trustees Town Board Town Attorney o~~FFOLKCO TRUSTEES n=+ SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor John M. Bredemeyer, III, President O~. Henry P. Smith, Vice President Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Albert J. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 John B. Tuthill BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 February 26, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, ZBA Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 RE: App. No.1-13-90-110-7-28 / Gus Wade Dear Mr. Goehringer: At the February 22, 1990 meeting of the Southold Town Trustees, the Board unanimously accepted the withdrawal of the application of Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. As the Trustees have been informed that an application is still pending before the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, which includes reference to a bridge across Trustee Property, we are requesting that the ZBA and all involved agencies suspend action on this matter. The Southold Trustees do not want any involved agency action concerning a bridge over Trustee land where the courts have twice upheld our disapproval of granting an exclusive easement over Trustee land to Mr. Wade. The Board would also like to take this opportunity to inform all involved agencies that the acceptance of withdrawal of Mr. Wade's application, at this time, should not be construed as our approval of Mr. Wade segmenting the project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Indeed, should the applicant never-the-less pursue the application with the ZBA, the Trustees would wish to consider Lead Agency Status. Sincerely, ohn M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jb s S~EFOIKCDG TRUSTEES t=, r=?+ SCOTT L. HARRIS John M. Bredemeyer, III, President JO Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Albert J. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. P.O. Box 11 Southold, New York k 11971 John B. Tuthill BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 February 16, 1990 Roy Haje, President En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Application #1-3-90-110-7-28 / Gus Wade Dear Mr. Haje: Enclosed please find check for $150.00 which represents a refund for the above-mentioned application of Mr. Wade. Since the Trustees anticipate accepting your withdrawal of said application at their February 22, 1990 meeting, they felt it proper to send this check as promptly as possible. Should there be any further information necessary, please feel free to contact this office. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III JMB:jb cc: CAC ZBA Bldg Dept File =i; -4 1990 TRUSTEES C#2 j _ OTT L. HARRIS John M. Bredemeyer, 111, President Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President own Hall, 53095 Main Road Albert J. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. P.O. Box 1 k 11971 John B. Tuthill Southold, New York BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: Supervisor Harris, Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, Building Department, CAC, Town Attorney. Tax Assessors FROM: John M. Bre e , III, President, Board of Trustees RE: Preservatio lernative - Gus Wade Property DATE: December 3, 1990 Pursuant to the SEQRA Scoping Session of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Trustees in the matter of the application of Gus Wade, the Town Trustee office recently agreed to thoroughly search for preservation alternatives for the "island" which included transfer or other method of town acquisition. As a result of this process I have personally inventoried nearly 2,000 acres of Town Trustees land and other Town Lands which I considered suitable for transfer. One Such possibility was the "Orient by the Sea" subdivision road end recently contemplated for sale by the Town Board. Although there seems to be a general consensus within that subdivision community that transfer or sale of the road end would benefit the Town, Mr. Wade has declined to further discuss this option. (see attached letter). Unfortunately the only Trustee land available which would not involve boundary disputes is the site of the currently proposed boat launch ramp at Mattituck Creek. As the Trustees have now exhausted all possibilities known to them I want to take this opportunity to alert all Town departments to the fact that Mr. Wade will consider transfer of his "island" leading to his acquisition of a suitable similar parcel. His "island" is approximately one half acre and affords Mr. Wade the right of a conventional dock under his trustee permit. I understand he is seeking a similar parcel on Peconic Bay or its tributaries which will permit him a house and dock for his boat. Absent the receipt of your departments comments in the Town Trustees office by January 1, 1991 this office will consider our f . 0 obligation under the scoping session complete and shall consider the presently suspended SEQRA time frames reactivated as of that date. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. cc: Trustees En-Consultants, Inc. Kramer & Voorhis, Inc. Bruce Anderson +y ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES `Ire- ! j I j 1E 10V 2 7 u L~rj ~I TOWN OF EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 FAX NO. 516-283-6136 November 21, 1990 Mr. John Bredemeyer Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold New York 11971 Re: Gustave Wade Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: Please be advised that my client does not feel that the Soundfront property in Orient is sufficiently comparable to his property in Cutchogue to warrant a transfer. We appreciate the time and effort which you expended in pursuing this alternative. Yo z truly, 615v L. Haly3ey,j President RLH:eb cc: Gus Wade ~ o~~FFaiK~oG ~ TRUSTEES N izi+ SCOTT L. HARRIS John M. Bredemeyer, III, President yr7 ® Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President yf Of' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Albert J. Krupski, Jr. P.O. L. Bednoski, Jr. .O. Box 1 Southold, New York rk 11971 John B. Tuthill BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 February 14, 1990 The following action was taken by the Southold Town Trustees at the special meeting of Tuesday, February 13, 1990: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees authorize the president of the Board to develop plans and specification and secure such necessary governmental permits for the creation of a small boat mooring facility on Trustee property at the terminus of East Road Cutchogue. The project shall be planned to provide a minimum of ten (10) boat slips for vessels not to exceed 20' in length with a channel not to exceed a water depth of 4' below mean low water. The project shall include the creation of a marsh fringe along the edge and southeasterly terminus of said Trustee land as an environmental benefit. All channel slopes shall be planned not to exceed 3 to 1. 2 co -yd L; TRUSTEES u~ T SCOTT L. HARRIS John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Y® i Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Albert J. Krupski, Jr. P.O. L. Bednoski, Jr. .O. Box 11 Southol, New k 97 1 John B. Tuthill BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax(5 6) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 February 14, 1990 Roy Haje En-Cunsultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Gus Wade, SCTM #1000-110-7-8 Dear Mr. Haje: The Southold Trustees reviewed the application of Gus Wade on February 13, 1990 and decided that the application shall be considered incomplete until all involved agencies have the same application before them. As it is unclear if the application before the Town Zoning Board of Appeals may still include the reference to the use of a bridge to access the property from East Road across trustee property, we would request you/Mr. Wade clarify your position with respect to the Bridge in writing to all involved agencies. In other action at the February 13, 1990 meeting the Trustees decided to actively pursue re-establishing underwater Trustee land adjacent to Mr. Wades property for the purpose of small boat moorings for Cutchogue area residents. Although the Trustees would not be obligated to approve a bridge over our property, we would nevertheless include it in a thorough environmental review of alternatives should Mr. Wade wish to provide engineering specifications in keeping with our desire to reestablish our creek bottom,there. Upon receipt of your/Mr. Wade's response to the bridge question before the involved agencies we will actively seek Lead Agency Status as per a motion of intent passed by the Trustees on February 13, 1990. Reasons and justifications for our position on Lead Agency will be mailed under separate cover as soon as the incomplete application is cleared. In the event we do not hear from you/Mr. Wade within thirty (30) days of your original submission the Trustees may assume Lead Agency Status under S.E.Q.R.A. as per our standing S.E.Q.R.A. procedures. This project is tentatively typed as an unlisted action in the Town and County designated C.E.A.'s of East Creek and Peconic Bay respectively. S'ncerely, - . la John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmt cc: N.Y.S.D.E.C. Z.B.A. S.C.D.H.S. Town Planning Board Town Attorney Town Board ~OgUFFOU;~~OG ~~"ec1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 ;a BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 T01YN CF 'O:ii~C~ D Southold, New York 11971 APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE TOWN TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE LAWS, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COASTAL AND INTERIOR WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS AND DRAINAGE AREAS OF SOUTHOLD TOWN, AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 32 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. APPLICATION NO. 13 -1 i0-7-a19 DATE January 25, 1990 APPLICANT'S NAME: Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. TEL. NO. 516-643-2605 c/o All Island Equipment MAILING ADDRESS: 39 Jersey Street. West Babylon. New York 11704 AGENT: En-Consultants, Inc. TEL NO. 516-283-6360 AGENT ADDRESS: 1329 North Sea Road, Southampton, New York 11968 PERMIT REQUESTED TO: Construct a one-family dwelling. LOCATION OF PROPERTY FOR REQUESTED PERMIT: End of East Road, Cutchogue HAMLET:- Cutchogue TAX MAP NO: 1000-110-7-28 CREEK, BAY OR HARBOR FRONTING PROPERTY: Eugene's Creek SIZE OF PROPOSED WORK: LENGTH: See attached WIDTH: See attached . o\ogUFFOUrcDa 0 TELEPHONE ~y (5161765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE TOWN TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE LAWS, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COASTAL AND INTERIOR WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS AND DRAINAGE AREAS OF SOUTHOLD TOWN, AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 32 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. APPLICATION NO. DATE January 25, 1990 APPLICANT'S NAME: Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. TEL. N0.516-643-2605 c/o All Island Equipment MAILING ADDRESS: 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon New York 11704 AGENT: En-Consultants, Inc. TEL NO. 516-283-6360 AGENT ADDRESS: 1329 North Sea Road, Southampton, New York 11968 PERMIT REQUESTED TO: Construct a one-family dwelling. LOCATION OF PROPERTY FOR REQUESTED PERMIT: End of East Road, Cutchogue HAMLET:- Cutchogue TAX MAP NO: 1000-110-7-28 CREEK, BAY OR HARBOR FRONTING PROPERTY: Eugene's Creek SIZE OF PROPOSED WORK: LENGTH: See attached WIDTH: See attached • Op. Page 2. YDS. TO BE EXCAVATED: n/a YDS. TO BE FILLED: n/a MANNER IN WHICH MATERIAL WILL BE REMOVED OR DEPOSITED: n/a WIDTH OF CANAL, CREEK OR BAY FRONTING PROPERTY: n/a DEPTH AT LOW TIDE: n/a AVER. RISE IN TIDE: n/a DISTANCE TO NEAREST CHANNEL: n/a DISTANCE PROJECT EXTENDS BEYOND SIMILAR PROJECTS IN AREA: n/a AREA ZONING: Residential A IS PROJECT FOR PRIVATE OR BUS. USE: private INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY: Residential A - no change DESCRIBE KNOWN PRIOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON PREMISES: none none HAS ANY PRIOR LICENSE OR PERMIT BEEN ISSUED TO ERECT STRUCTURES, DREDGE, OR DEPOSIT FILL ON SAID PREMISES: NYSDEC permit #10-88-0299 was issued to erect a one-family dwelling on this property. HAS ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT EVER BEEN REVOKED OR SUSPENDED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY: n/a DESCRIBE FULLY THE REHABILITATION OF PROPERTY: Any disturbed areas will be planted with beach grass. DESCRIBE PROPOSED CONDITION OF PROPERTY AFTER WORK IS COMPLETED. INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITE IF NECESSARY: No steep grades will be created, beach grass will be planted. ARE THERE ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR DEED WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THIS PROJECT: none known WRITTEN CONSENT OF OWNER IF NOT THE SAME AS APPLICANT: See attached. 4.16-A 121071-Text 12 PROJECT LD. NUMBER 617.• SEC Appendix C - State Environmental Ouality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. 3, PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality end of East Road, Cutchogue County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) end of East Road, Cutchogue • SCTM #1000-110-7-28 S. IS PROPOSED ACTION: • ® New ? Expansion ? Modificationlalteratlon 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: I•~ Construct a one-family dwelling. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially .347 _ _ acres Ultimately .347 acres a. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? © Yes ? No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Residential C!ndustnal ?Commerclal ?Agriculture CPark/ForesUOpen space QOther Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE GR LOCAUI?I----11 ® Yes U No If yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovals NYSDEC Building permit- Southold Sanitary system- SCDH it. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTIO14 HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ® Yes C rlo It Yes, list agency name and permit/approval NYSDEC #10-88-0299 (formerly 82-0557) 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION ''WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? C Yes ® No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applrcanusponsor name: . Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. Dale: 1/25/90 \ \ Signature: 1 If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) STATE OF NEW YORK ) Roy T.- Hale BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMITS, AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT, IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Signature of Applicant Roy L. Haje, President SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC EXAMINED BY APPROVED DISAPPROVED CONDITIONS (If any) SIGNATURE OF CHAIRMAN COMPUTATION OF FEES Approved 2/27/85 ADJACENT OWNER SCTM #1000-110-7-27 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Post OFfice Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor 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 form, Parts A through E. 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 that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. LOCATION OF ACTION (Include street Address, Municipality and County) East Road, Cutchogue, Suffolk NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE En-Consultants, Inc. (516)283-6360 ADDRESS 1329 North Sea Road CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE Southampton N. Y. 11968 NAME OF OWNER (if different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Gus Wade (516)643-2605 ADDRESS c/o All-Island Equipment Corporation, 39 Jersey Street CITY/PO STATE P E West Babylon N.Y. ~1~84 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Construct a one-family dwelling. Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ?Urban ?Industrial ?Commercial ®Residential (suburban) ?Rural (non-farm) ?Forest ?Agriculture ?Other (Vacant) 2. Total acreage of project area: 13 , 560 s . f .d4re)S APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards; cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 1.500 s. f. t 1,500 s.f. Arcq Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 12 , 060 s . f . a-c 11,060 s . f . azcyy Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres 1,000 s.f. &tKx Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? sand a. Soil drainage: 19Well drained 90 % of site f7Moderately well drained 5 % of site (Poorly drained 5 % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? n In acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ?Yes ONO a. What is depth to hPdmrk7 Unknown fin fPPt) 5: Approximate percentage of proposed. ject site with slopes: 00-10% • % 010-15%% ?15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ?Yes ONO 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ?Yes LRNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? 5± (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ®Yes ?No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ®Yes ?No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ?Yes KNo According to Roy L_ Haie Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ?Yes KNo Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? :Yes X Vo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Yes ~:No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds. wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Eugene's Creek b. Size (In acres) 100+ 17. Is the site served by exiszing public utilities? ?Yes [ZNo a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ?Yes :~No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ?Yes ?No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? =Yes IRNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article. 8 of the ECL. and 6 NNCRR 617? xl"es _No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? --Yes MNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 13, 060s.fadiXsX b. Project acreage to be developed: 1200 s . f . x=s initially; 1200 s . f 40irm ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 10, 860s. f eUMK d. Length of project, in miles: n/a (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed n/a f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 2 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 5 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 1 Ultimately 1 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; length. i Linear feet of frontage alone a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? n/a ft 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ?Yes ?No IRN/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ?Yes ?No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ?Yes ?No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ?Yes ENO 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction Z months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: n/a a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ?Yes ?No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ?Yes ®No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 6 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 LANo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ?Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? L13Yes ?No Type sewarae 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ?Yes ENO Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? EsYes ?No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ]Eyes ?No a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons b. If yes, will an existing s91id waste facility be used? MYes ?No c. If yes, give name Southold Landfill ; location Mattituck d. Will anv wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ?Yes ONO e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ?Yes IZNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ?Yes 9lNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ?Yes ®No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ?Yes ONO 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Eyes 13No If yes , indicate type(s) Somestic oil and electricity 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 2.3 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 300 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ?Yes ®No If Yes. explain 35. Approvals Required: a • Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board ?Yes ?No City, Town, Village Planning Board ?Yes ?No City, Town Zoning Board 91Yes ?No Access relief City, County Health Department MYes ?No SCDH Rani terry System x Wel 1 Other Local Agpicies MYes ?No Southold Tr iataag-wot1 and to hi, e;uhmi tt Other Regional Agencies ?Yes ?No State Agencies EaYes ?No DEC TW - 4PProved (see attached) Federal Agencies ?Yes ?No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [Eyes ?No If Yes, indicate decision required: ?zonmg amendment [Rzoning variance ?special use permit ?subdivision ?site plan ?newirevision of master plan ?resource management plan ?other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? - P-dn 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? One one-family dwelling 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? n/a 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? n/a 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ZYes ?No 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a mile radius of proposed action? One family residential 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/. mile? 2Yes ?No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? n /a a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ?Yes NNo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fi,z protectirl)? ?Yes K-No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ?Yes ?No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ?Yes ~&No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ?Yes ?No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification . I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name En-Consultants, Inc. Date 1/2 5/90 Signature Title President Roy L. Ha''e If the action is in t e Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This letter will authorize En-Consultants, Inc. to apply for permits on my behalf. 1r, v.1.,'r_,w, :rCi^fe: f _ ..•a~.•~a-~_~ IC.3 A'!'f)17JOAN3~?)'~ - StY~A3 V.!f,r C,IW'I'Jll nJf::" I Till NIIV~ _ / dJ3 ) X ~a^~ JS:S d3d W191 I`1Vf ~6Vc-I VG i,'c ~,f (or ,'Mn '-Ii1J)In`d Gd'N dC7.• tl. ~9 [~Z / p 1762 -Ji,7 n 1~J d35 '9d08e 1 1 - Id 11-9m SSW \ b n~ S ;14 llg'M 40 lea, V,,z v i t" -U rl:s Jo Nm(l I r~ 1 I ~ ' I ~'`~•"i T~3~n " ~,~n . ~9, 211.-; J, \11~,ffo i y 3 11 1 0 1 1, uv. 1 ,rm.. f ' d H: .MAP OP P12OPE(2TY fly o a . , F +fiY rz SURVEYED FOIZ " E~-r tr7 10 GUS WA1)F CUTCHOGUE ' SKET r~"~r 1 fir. 4} MW14OFsq_UrHOL0,N_Y. ('(SE~~~ a a - - S .E,9 58 SO E. .a< : ' a p . a r ~ s ? 1 ~l _-~f I00T_ X41' \ \ 5YV 1 ~T dd22 p l r f - i • t{ AAge WFLL Pli FOP B.d 8Y.S{M "1 % yp1 r N'ys rr. ,e 'D1A~,\: ' ret) t 'l- 1+ r Yj „V~~ it SIR SE"Pi_K w r e E ~ ~ O SCALE-20T I x _ r _ u / _0y / ~ / ~<p -r ~N55 OOOq~ 5d•9~ • ` n 1' ~ O MONt1MENT ~°i `'.T. 1.. / tr } jN y'^ rr a V1'- (r '4~ 1 f NE(.yy h.~ A/ ~ Q f i - .k /k TOf'A/M~ a .-TRUS•[-E..E~, C, s. ~r,,,~T < J 7 t4 • a~P fx.e ~f ~ .i 71, x:: :a~ 1 '/~~/~,.s\h J.:, t\i• ' 6. tl' 1 'h t`C•'h, ~1'}''_~'~}-ra ,~I•°r w-i f cmeP / '4 ! r S ri s v ^7 e 1 „ A : : c 'vr Ds 4l] / 0 " ; Y'}~w}y>~ 1 :C ~ i fi ` D"'-,}Y^.~5 'e4+n# ~1.~~ ay as is i 4 / O,~ q,?~ r F \~l t e F,lt t • to t. Jn d xt + ,t x'Ss u~ e. i'?^xCt"t` sa r K; i r k~•BL Pp/ ~ i h t:; : t\ tro.~ r v> v,'`+ tF t:'t "y+''ryf ~l ,f v ~j. r eye r(o, *'MNV PJ'IENDED' S'MRKJ 19>39:0W'. 21 afi J pt~7 a I s~ t e' Cry., x:-ky' Y 1'- JLLJ6 28.1984 JAN.14 W90• . Ag'a W k~0~ p0/9a,c~t vti Vs i ,f 5 Pp 46~ rO~ S a y ?'r c lr r J ~,'l l > 4,. l7- 1~44y. I .d}Q 1 1 ~ (~pp/~~~~~~y~/7 cy (v7r~DE+(~C. ICJ- 1 a n , ~O jy k l yt i~ YCeSLl6K VPYi~iJl S' v) r j; n 7 a j ( ty ° /t t LJ~O it C 1' ~wR-+n+ x.i.v+-T'lay ~ 7 ti`1 pryyl/`,r Z s li } xJ je, 1 ~i~;~+ 6 ? s i J F~ ti }v 6~~F\,, ,1~ 1 r r"5 .1 Ta ' 'JS~fk'~". s T .L~' Gay r. v ~ ~i r •at , v y~ i' ~ krit J2 ~~T '•••'s.•~~ f~.w.•~x:•rt'. ! 1 z N ! s ! ! C1D' "L. `<G~t i k a '1.w s x? 1 N ••a$~ 4\ j e, I.,'T .'rai.1>3»f.~ „ypS"~~4tGt/ueCZ yj~'-• eke •f S~, `s{'ft x, DAllJhf~l~2'~LEYA'SIONBS4 CO 5t MEAN~~. IffVEL~CIr3.GVD~'d ets9t`1.:'.«~ ° e~~'~~. nx x{ 4srtx~ tt ,i. !,-•I}~ MAP OF QR~PERTY sURVCYED F02. i.. GUS WADE Gr, CHOGUE (T L r.•` . CUT 1L' 1~ } TDWN OF ISOUTHOLD, N.Y. t S ~ ti DAN, f R ^ 5 /^y o , WELL PUS / '~~y p/ ~ ` /i' .L ' 1 .P02 -R. 0. SYSTEM y~l! N 1.x$0 Q~ \ 1/ `g EPTIC 5CALE-209 . w v ' V4h^4* =4F'~~~: i. ..+Mr c Cpl f... ~ n ~ - I ; ~ ~i• n ~c'- L m P t ~a It `Qrf pl "tQWA1 L .T12 r f yS isxaeJpa~ ' 1 ' y. A?, j~ / • ~~cr UST E' , y '-O~ta E~LANOS t; A -n CIO Q M" WENDED- HAP-f- 1989-AL6. w ~4Q / e' i f it a,p.Mnr.e°uw .}i ALl¢_23,It?~91.)A11 149Q•-. ~ 1'', i > , T., ~A• P7 ~i• F O ,_9 ! k t~'(aep bw. YPY M<I< C , 4-. ~F d AS SuQVEYEU nEC i • :lam a~ {°vw aMbrM+PT.a lNMT f ly < Q M W{Iwrys.~naPIMP r2 AN'' 1 't<•~ -O_% ~ 1 ! A ~P <-.w <e pa pm,a e. p.rtw.~:. Q~EIC'~~_K Vif`1`7__ ,rA~. t a..• -i•• • ~ GG pp.av6ltl PW mpY .w. ' ~F GuN•Mw<Mfan<{nPwn<N•nw` 1~ 1 ya 4n r1.W •n AV p<.•Ip,L 1 - n J: u?A 1'P i~ .,w) ~J 1t'f.'.t` ~+1.: r ~-~i~ °ti f k Z~'.. pin aaan.°wvM•wna eC ti.ll.L y f Ill rt •l 1, .hS T Y) ~ v .^-F t- 4MA'hpi,Ylb.4gW P.YwnYtl F IN Th /~yy. ',I IP :iF1 i~~t+~•~~~_..Y~.i..-'i ~!l .a [[['F+a •~i< I.:'p lMtl•Y;nMalM b~ulM k'N•'~//~~~~y~ VKYY.~~ •`v' .M~~'IPhI. { 4Jr 1 5 1.~~ {ff.. . _ A <IfIA•P<°pr Wndd ?MM.Mt-~11 •I +.i:i j~5 r•{•:. }.yi L P*~ 1 Tl 1 f 'b tlXler.l YPWUIen>PiwMill 77777, 1 t k.. N41a.~ 1.! 5 is r i?F u I~~n~µ P ~LEVYIT GOTJ1l7L1R5iT1LrVCI. U9Gy0~ 5;r r Fr..l ..:'7 Fr- N ~ ..i .fCi=a+~r APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 9FFtJ( SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road < w '.x P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. p ; a Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Building Department FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman DATE: June 17, 1991 / SUBJECT: Your Memorandum Dated June 7, 1991 Request by Gustave Wade to the Building Department Thank you for your memorandum of June 7, 1991 together with a copy of Mr. Wade's request to your office. Please be aware that the ZBA has not referred Mr. Wade to your office for a "...clarification of ...lot situated at the end of East Road, Cutchogue...." In checking with our Secretary, it appears that Mr. Wade called our office and told Linda that he found a flaw in documentation prepared by the environmental consultant hired by Mr. Wade. Mr. Wade then asked if the document is correct in saying that the lot is a conforming lot, and Mr. Wade was told that it does not appear to be a conforming lot because it does not meet the lot size requirement in the zone district where it is located." It appears that Mr. Wade is taking whatever step he feel is necessary in this multi-agency process and apparently is not aware that a vacant land Certificate of occupancy is no longer issued by the Town. Due to the delicate nature of this project, we would recommend that Mr. Wade obtain advice from his attorney for furnishing this type of proof for the ZBA record for future consideration. GG:lk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS t Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor t' Charles Grigonis, Jr.° = Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. s Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 f Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Building Department FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman DATE: June 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Your Memorandum Dated June 7, 1991 Request by Gustave Wade to the Building Department Thank you for your memorandum of June 7, 1991 together with a copy of Mr. Wade's request to your office. Please be aware that the ZBA has not referred Mr. Wade to your office for a "...clarification of ...lot situated at the end of East Road, Cutchogue...." In checking with our Secretary, it appears that Mr. Wade called our office and told Linda that he found a flaw in documentation prepared by the environmental consultant hired by Mr. Wade. Mr. Wade then asked if the document is correct in saying that the lot is a conforming lot, and Mr. Wade was told that it does not appear to be a conforming lot because it does not meet the lot size requirement in the zone district where it is located." It appears that Mr. Wade is taking whatever step he feel is necessary in this multi-agency process and apparently is not aware that a vacant land Certificate of Occupancy is no longer issued by the Town. Due to the delicate nature of this project, we would recommend that Mr. Wade obtain advice from his attorney for furnishing this type of proof for the ZBA record for future consideration. GG:lk • ~~gpFFOLf is NSPECTORS 4 765-1802 p O h~ Gy SCOTT L. HARRIS, Supervisor VICTOR LESSARD, Principal CURTIS HORTON, Senior Go Z Southold Town Hall VINCENT R. WIECZOREK, Ordinance p P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road ROBERT FISHER, Assistant Fire Southold, New York 11971 Building Inspectors Ol #t Fax (516) 765-1823 THOMAS FISHER Telephone (516) 765-1800 GARY FISH OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7 pM 7!991 TO: J. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: V. LESSARD, PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR 1F/I~ SUBJECT: GUS WADE PROPERTY DATE: JUNE 7, 1991 Attached is a copy of letter received from Gustave Wade. He indicates your board wants a clarification of his lot. This to me is a bit confusing as we both know his property is surrounded by Town Trustee land. The request for single and separate is no longer possible for we no longer issue vacant land Certificate of Occupancies. I would appreciate any clarification or shedding of light on this matter. VGL:gar Attachment. 4 W WADE ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 Main Avenue • Wheatley Heights • New York 11798.516-643-6644 -45 ii I WA7 X71991+' ; ~ji V U(_ _ May 31, 1991 Town of Southold Building Dept. 53095 Main Road Attn: Victor Lessard Dear Victor, Please consider this communication a formal request for clarification of Section 100 244B Code of the Building Dept. The Z.B.A. wants a clarification on my lot situated at the end of East Road, Cutchogue, New York. For the record I need to know if my lot which is single and separate and less than. 20,000 sq. feet, actually and island not connected by land, meets Section LOG 244B Code. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yo rs truly, Gustave J. Wadke landscape specialists that create beautiful scenes and maintain them every season of the year r , June 7, 1991 ZBA Board Members: On May 9, 1991 Mr. Wade called our office to indicate that he is reading the draft form of a DEIS prepared by En-Consultants which is expected to be filed with the Town shortly. He mentioned that on one of the pages, Mr. Haje wrote that the lot was conforming as to lot size. Mr. Wade asked me if his lot appeared to be conforming, and he was told that the lot was in the R-40 zone district and did not meet the requirements of lot area since it was less than 40,000 sq. ft.- therefore it was not considered a conforming lot. Approximately two weeks later, Vic told me that Mr. Wade called him saying the ZBA needed a letter from him. Vic was assured that the ZBA did not require a letter from the Building Department. Today, Mr. Lessard received the same request, in writing, from Mr. Wade, which is attached for the Board members update. If there is a question as to single and separate ownership, perhaps Mr. Wade would like to order a single and separate abstract of title for the premises from a title insurance company. As we know, the zoning code does not provide regulations for the issuance of vacant land certificates any longer, however, Article 100-281A(7) requires a certified abstract of title issued by a title company which shall show single and separate ownership of the entire lot prior to April 9, 1957 which must accompany a building permit application. No such.document or information has been furnished for the record as of today. INSPECTORS r~ f •i' n -.1 (516) 765-1802 ~G VICTOR LESSARD, Principal ti5 SCOTT L. HARRIS, Supervisor CURTIS HORTON, Senior Southold Town Hall VINCENT R. WIECZOREK, Ordinance P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road ROBERT FISHER, Assistant Fire Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Building Inspectors THOMAS FISHER Telephone (516) 765-1800 GARY FISH OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ID~LCzS17DWa r, TO: J. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: V. LESSARD, PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR 'F/~~ SUBJECT: GUS WADE PROPERTY DATE: JUNE 7, 1991 Attached is a copy of letter received from Gustave Wade. He indicates your board wants a clarification of his lot. This to me is a bit confusing as we both know his property is surrounded by Town Trustee land. The request for single and separate is no longer possible for we no longer issue vacant land Certificate of Occupancies. I would appreciate any clarification or shedding of light on this matter. VGL:gar Attachment. WADE ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 Main Avenue • Wheatley Heights • New York 11798.516-6436644 -45 t l -r s May 31, 1991 Town of Southold Building Dept. 53095 Main Road Attn: Victor Lessard Dear Victor, Please consider this communication a formal request for clarification of leccion 100 244B Code of the Building Dept. The Z.B.A. wants a clarification on my lot situated at the end of East Road, Cutchogue, New York. For the record I need to know if my lot which is single and separate and less than. 20,000 sq. feet, actually and island not connected by land, meets Section. 10C 244B Code. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yo rsj~r.,ruly, Gustave J. Wadke landscape specialists that create beautiful scenes and maintain them every season of the year FLEET'iNECK ERTY OWNER' SOCIATION, INC. D ~'S 54 'T 2 6 CUTCHOGUE, N.Y., 11935 8LD6. OEM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Board of Appaals Re: Appeal of issuance of permit etc., TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - continued - IT IS PRAYED AND REQUESTED that the submission and filing of the within appeal and a service of a copy of same as noted below upon the Building Department and the permittee be deemed an automatic stay of any and all further action etc. on the part of the permittee and the said Building Department. i Very',tru, 'you j ~y?s WILLI NI L President AGN:nga CC TO: BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CM#P 443 878 733 - and GUS WADE CM# P 443 878 734 2 - FLEET' J~NECK 2 22 PROPERTY OWNERS" SOCIATION, INC. 30 LS L~ P.Oralo 54 D EPL 6 14 CUTCHOGUE, N.Y., 11935 ; a TOWN OF SOtl1M0l ~~D September 22, 1984 Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal of issuance of permit bearing number 13244 Z dated June 20, 1984 to Gus Wade to construct a one family dwel- ling on premises being lot no.2b in Block 7, Section 110 on County Tax Map No. 1000 Gentlemen: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA- TION, INC., as owner in fee of premises abutting, adjoining and being in the proximity of the subject premises above cap- tioned, does hereby appeal the decision of the Building Depart- ment of the Town of Southold granting and issuing a building permit bearing no. 13244Z to one Gus Wade for the erection of a one family dwelling. The said appeal is hereby made and prosecuted by said FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., as a party aggrieved by the said decision and the issuance of the permit thereunder, in that the same was made, rendered and issued in violation of the Town Law of the State of New York and particularly in vio- lation of Section 280-a thereof and other applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances relating to, concerning and governing the same, and further in tnat the same was made and issued in the total and wanton disregard of the rights of the said asso- ciation, its members and the residents of the area and to the prejudice of their collective and individual rights and adverse to tneir interests in the realty owned by the association and the respective realty owned by them in the area. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the matter be reviewed with or without a hearing and that a determination and decision be made, filed and issued revoking and caLLCelling the said permiit and any and all rights or privileges thereunder and that tze commemrcement of any work or the continuation of anv work ii alreadv commenced vnnpr [n(- PAOrt T)Prmi` nr- eraviFci iinz-ii L 1C alnut UCII'. Z"taiLL~llvl: ~'r • FORM NO. 5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. SQ'~ ~ w o ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION ( p Date 19. ..I. TO ~.17 3 W. A- l). (owner or authorized agent of owner) (address of owner or authorized agent of owner) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of: Zoning Ordinance Other Applicable Laws, Ordinances-or Regulations 70!~N ....~p'~~ Z1o.~ at premises hereinafter described in that .I4N....... .PP I..~S .......W.r..t6...... n?.~. (state character of violation) N ' 9`~oA,ad o FA-W)... X - N . ~lcri?~P".......1...3...4.~........ 145..... VoK.E ...:.....R.. ........5 L~ZrP'.°r?......J. in violation of ^PL.Q ...W...... km-o .4.7 (State section or paragraph of applicable law, ordinance or regulation) YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the low and to remedy the conditions ababove mentioned forthwith on or before the ..J?.IQ . day of 1.lj.e.!~-... .9......., 19~.q.. The premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers are situated at X..... 1.e~j!1,6............ County of Suffolk, New York. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Building Inspector 1 FORM NO. 11 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY DEVELOPMENT PERMITiii No 7 ~ F Date _a•v , 19~ Permission is hereby granted to: G u iT,a va W A-'b: _)Doo L~OsP P-4 ~~cJ~c Ncy ~y U~ ly N . GO 0A)IF -j U7 /;U a at premises located at /ooo County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Ito Block 7 Lot a L pursuant to application dated Soul o , 19 ?4, and approved bY. the Building Inspector. Building Pernit No. 13z4~ Z i a c CL Building Inspector 4/so tIDGES 26 NY Jur 26 NY Jur HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND BRIDGES § 47 )e deemed to create Highway Law requiring the laying out of a highway at least 3 rods by the statute, al- in width." However, this provision does not apply to highways 'r" Fences, walls, by dedication, special provision for the width of such highways public highway ac- being made' Moreover, in case the highway to be laid out con- imits or boundaries stitutes an extension of a public highway already in use, and does not, as to such new portion, exceed a half mile in length, the town )e a specified width superintendent of highways may lay out such extension less than rposes beyond that ? 3 rods wide, provided it is not less than the widest part of the high- n•oving that it was way of which it is an extension! 1 § 46. Highways terminating at navigable water. bodies of counties, A public highway which leads to navigable water will keep even highways be con- pace with the extension of the land, whether the change in the ?ecifications of the g to the widening land is due to natural causes, as in the case of accretions; or the _ts are discussed in ' voluntary act of the owner, as where he fills in the adjoining land or constructs a dock or wharf.' The highway, by operation of law, is extended from the former terminus over the newly made land to Is in counties and the water.' under a statutory t s in this respect.00 § 47. Monumentation of right of way. ' The county superintendent of highways has the duty to ascer- tain and locate the corners of the established boundaries of coun- aw for the width ties, towns, cities, and tillages and, where townships were origina]- liwav may be laid ly subdivided into lots, to accurately ascertain and establish such ption hereinafter lot corners if any such corners will be located within the bounds of s no authority to the improved part of any state or county highway or county road e provision of the Where such corners have been located, the state superintendent of public works must cause a monument of specified durability to be set at each corner.? Abutting Owners to ' lx for cost of Slop- q The town superintendent of highways has the duty to have Grading Street. 6 monuments erected, or to be erected, as the boundaries of town Foams No. 6:674. 22. Re Daggett, 223 NY 580, 119 5. People v Lambier, supra. 3, supra. NE 1037. 6. Highway L § 102, subd 10. 180. 1. Highway L § 171. 7, Highway L § 10, subd 17. %surements may be 2. Highway L § 180. As to monumentation already in ,e computation of 3. People v Lambier, 5 Denio 9. Place, see Highway L § 102, subd town highwav as 10. der the limitations 4. Buffalo v Delaware L. & W. R. y Law. 1955 Ops Co. 190 NY 84, 82 NE 513. People v Lambier, supra. i26 NY Jur] 211 1 i § 62-1 SOUTHOLD CODE § 62.2 ARTICLE I Use Regulations and Restrictions [Adopted 2-10-81 as L.L. No. 1-19811 § 62.1. Definitions. As used in this Article, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meanings given herein: RECREATIONAL AREAS - Includes all parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, boat-launching ramps, all areas between the ends of highways and tidal waters and other recreational areas, including approaches, driveways, parking areas and buildings and structures located thereon, owned, leased or operated by the Town of Southold. SUPERINTENDENT - The head of the Department of Public Works of the Town of Southold, who shall be in charge of all recreational areas. VEHICLE - Any vehicle which is or may be mounted on wheels and is or may be propelled, either by its own power C ) or by another power-driven vehicle to which it may be attached. The term shall include any trailer of any size, type or description. § 62.2 G~ertain acts prohibited. o person in a recreational area shall: AA.. atk, deface, injure or damage any building, structure, property or equipment in or on any recreational area. B. Dig and/or remove sand or gravel or other material from a recreational area, or cut, carve, remove or otherwise damage any tree or plant in such areas. C. Hunt, molest, disturb, injure or kill any animal or mammal in or on any recreational area. D. Bring in or dump, deposit or leave any bottles, broken glass, ashes, paper boxes, cans, dirt, rubbish, waste, 6202 s-73-U x y"'n' %I,If 'r!. I'ARIarl N1 OF I' N VI kVNAI N 1.A 1. 0 FRVA HON - PERMIT UNDER TFIE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW 8 ARTICLE 15, (P,otclio" of Water) O ARTICLE 25, (Tidal Wetlands) ARTICLE Sa, (Freshwater Wetlands) o PERAnF ISSUED iO ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Haxtrd Areas) Gus Wade ~ODRESS OF PERMI iTEE - 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon, New York LOCATION OF PROIECT (Section of stream, tidal wetland, dam, bull- Harbor and Ha en o s oa a acen o c ogee DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ywat--- Avenue, Town of Southold, Suffolk ..Count . Construct one-family dwelling and appurtenances and 120± feet retaining wall. Place + i 35- cubic yards o£ fill. I COnI?IUNIrr NAME (CITY, Town, village) Hamlet of Cutchogue TOWN cou.Nrv Southold ~tffOlk :rOlll'lty FIA COMMUNITY NO. DAM NO. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE GENERAL COND1710NS Dec. 30, 1984 1. The perminee shall file in the office of the appropriate Regional ~u in advance l of to notice of intention 10 of comme cemem marid mence llworISO notify k I lea th48 r That the State of New York n or ignjury to the structure or work herei authorized whichlmay for any d by c damag omptl vhe time cr.'s yin writing of the completion of the work. esult from future operations undertaken by the Stale for the onservati n 0 1. the permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right If 'epr. Theive of the Oe shall) of Environmental coon vata autho may compensation shall accrue from any such damage. J'der the work s f the e if the public iEnvrol a requires. Thal tl the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authorizes is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be pre- 3. As a condition of the issuance of this permit, the applicant has ac• scribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and ma itlained :cited expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal respon- ?dnlr for all damages, direct or indirect, pf whatever nature, and by whom- by and at the expense of the owner, suffered, arising out of the project described herein and has agreed to 1U• All work carried out under this permit shall be °demm(y and save harmless the Stale from suits, actions, damages and dance with established engineerin e and i workmanlike Performed in accor- 0SI ~ S pf every name and description resulting from the said project. 11, If granted under Articles 24 or 2S,thDe A manner, . Any material dredged in the hall Prosecution of the be removed evenly, without leavi g large refuse plles,kr dges hereincross the to reconsider this approval at an ^Kot reserves the right permitted continue, rescind or modif y time. and alter due notice and hearing to permit cd of the waterway nl flood plain or deep holes that may have a tendency he be just and equitable: If upon the a piration oh revoeaffoo 01 this "d o 'ntury to navigable channels or to the banks of the waterway, Y be ted,It to "q be madicantish of the wetland hereby authorized has not been permit' the 5. Any material to be deposited or dumped under this permit applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and fin such waterway or on sh , "r ore abov h' , either in Lime and manner as The Department of Environmental Conservation may require the Inca lily s n sh re lh° Igh•water mark, shall be deposited or dumped remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the Teen, within s ' e drawing hereto attached, and, if so prescribed site to ifs former condition, No claim shall be made against the State of New uehind a good and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such wi11 prevent escape of the material into the waterway, York account of any such removal or attention. , There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation D 12• This permit shall not be construed as Conveying to e 1 herein authorized. Y the right l0 trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights)of others any Io perform the Permitted ork w as authorizing the llapal(ment of any rights, That it future operations by the State pf New York require an'alteralion tall yto theere De r imit. real or 'he Position of the structure or work herein authorized, w it, in the opinion part personal property held w rested fn a Derson not a 1Se Department of Environmental Conservati shall cause unreasonable / +Iruction 1 t0 o [ ttic he free navigation of said wate on rs i1 or 11 prov13. als Tlands, Permiltee is health, safely or welfare of the Ood. flows or endanger i"any permits, a easeme lsrandN his-oi« obtainln P- 'he natural resources of the Stare People of trhe tate, of loss or destruction project, 8 way which may be other required for this owne 'I to remove or alter the structural work, obstr ctions, ordered by the pmay r ha aids ccaused of the requirements of Article 36 of the Environmental ^ebr without expense To the. State; and if, u 1a, It granted under Article 36, this pon the expiration or revocation 6 menu C permit is granted solely on the basis uermit, the structure, fill, excavatio Part e 500 r 0l n, or other modificalidn of the azartls - Building - pircs ourse hereby auhorizo shall not b NYCRR (mils) d IIn Flood Plain Are as Aavinvsion Law and 'gout e, pen a completed, the owners shall, free from flooding. Permlis) and n no wa g ecial Floyd se to the Slate, and to such extent and in such lime and manner Y Signifies Ihai the project will be the Department of Environrrlental Conservation may require, remove all or IS Y acceptance of this Permit inn ion of the uncompleted structure or lilt arid restore re its former g gent u n ' uon Inc• navigable and e(to l is contin po strict compliance twith etheltee agrees that the against the state of N capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall reverse side, permit ew Yurk on account of an special conditions on the -'anon' y such removal or 0.4(9/75) /(S.EE REVERSE SIDE) G- X Jy/Q/ % ^r7 - ~ ~ SPECIAL CONDITIONS ' 16. Applicant shall obtain any permits required by the Town of Southold, for construction in an A--4 (el8) flood zone, prior to commencing construction on the site. - 17. The shoreline of the site and the tidal wetlands vegetation located thereon shall not be altered and shall remain in a natural state., 18. Variance of 38± feet to the required building setback of 75 feet and 50± feet to the required septic system setback is granted. PERMIT ISSUE DATE PE IT ADMI ISTRAT ADDRESS 7 JA- M, L4U _LZ Zf 50 Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233-0 Louis Contra Chief Permit Administrator Application Received Disapproval Issued Permit I 19 19- i 19-'. ~ i FORM NO. 10 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT In the Town of Southold Le_ (q 19?y 1. Type of Development Proposed: .Now Structure (including storage tank s)[9 Addition and/or Alteration D Flood Proof Below Base Flood Elevation n Other (specify) 2. Elevation Data in relation to above mean sea level of: (a) Lowest floor elevation, including basement feet 'Inches (b) In a V Zone, bottom of lowest structural member feet inches 3. FIRM--Flood Insurance Rate Map, Zone designations 4. Owner of Premises er)le;`K-CL0f- zy• 5. Location of Property: HtloIF aTKEr-r I Nwr+l>,c~`~~ County Tax Map No., District, 1000, Section 11p Block Lot(s) 2S' Z Subdivision Filed Man # Lot( a)_ 6. Permission to be ranted: Owner as above)-INew Owner Under Contract (Lesseel-D Contractor _ I pw.nE rv,w Ofrt - y"s'i`0.ye 1 ~ U9'ltio~4lt~rt g-aA s tPo Ny 1 1L711, INAMr l.I. ncT Gr, ECN Hewn AN D MNI L,N G A:jZk LS 7. Approval from other(s) before Permit is issued; DEC ~O - ` - 0551 WETLANDS (Town Board) HEALTH SERVICE I'5-So ZBA BUILDING PERMIT I PLANNING BOARD 8. 1, Q)"S`MJe ~ . ~:~ada- , the applicant, am the Ownerjo, Co- Ownero, New Owner", nder Contracts=, Lessee, Agent;-la, Con- tractor and agree to comply with all applicable sections of the Code of the Town of Southold; Colznty, and State and to admit authorized in- spectors to premises authorized to•perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application, that all statements contain- ed in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that the work will be performed in the mannerset forth in the application filed therewith. STATE OF NEW YORK 11 COUNTY OF J,.t SS - 9V igna ure SWORN TO THIS / If DAY OF HELEN K 1 i*E A NORRY PUBLIC. Slate et Ner, vurk '`~-sue V 7Nt. 4N7878, Walk Coup; Notary Public 1(~' rermErpvesMaxi13O.19 ke_ Applicant's mailing 1;Ik address and phone ,+C LI~ U51 i1~sE un if not given above: 4/Co M Sib- L1a9 - 0Ljq 6 1 FORI4 NO. 10 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT (516) 765-1802 P.O. BOX 728 TO'WN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY MAIN ROAD 11971 SOUTHOLD, I1Y APPLICAT.iON FOR DEVELOPMENT PER117-T ' Instructions: The application to the Building Inspector includes (each in duplicate) 1. Form No. 10 filled out in ink or typewritten, 2. Sur- vey of premises with elevations above mean sea level, 3. Drawings of pro- posed work. The application must give complete information to show that the proposed can comply to the Local Law No. 1-1980, Chapter 46 of'the Code of the Town of Southold known as "Flocd Damage Prevention Law" of the Town of Southold. The applicant must submit approvals that any ether agency requires. General Standards as required in Section 46-17 of the law to minimize flood damage: A. Anchoring of structures, including tanks and mobile homes B. Use of construction material and methods C. Design and location of utilities D. Subdivision proposal with drainage, public utilities design and base flood elevations Specific Standards as required in Section 46-18.- A. Residential construction B. Non-residential construction C. Mobile homes The applicant must submit plans and specifications as well as any other information requested by the Building Inspector to substantiate the facts taiat the structure has or will have the lowest floor, including basement/ cellar, elevated above the base flood elevation or; if penaitted by the Federal Regulation, that: 1. such structure is flood proofed in such manner that below the base flood level the structure is water tight with walls substantially and impermeable to the passage of water, 2. that structural components are capable to resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy, 3. applicant must submit certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards set forth in Section 46-18B (1) (2) (3) of the Southold Code are satisfied. Coastal. Hieh Hazzard area (V Zone) 46-19. Appl=cant shall submit plans, specifications including the required certifications and such other in- formation as the Duilding Inspector may require is that :ahe provisions of 46-19 are complied with. Mobile homes are prohibited. The lowest portion of the structural members of the lowest floor cannot be lower than the base flood elevation with all space below open except breakaway walls. Sand dunes. If sand dunes exist on the premises and the applicant pro- poses to alter same, plans and specification must be shown in detailed nature of any alteration submitted. . Building Permit. A Building Permit is also required for any structure. Both a Development and a Building Permit must be issued before any work can start in a special flood hazzard zone. A- written disapproval or a permit must be issued within ten (10) working days. During construction,.the inspector shall be notified in time so he may make the required inspections. , Upon completion, the required. certification fo the final elevations and work must be submitted before the approval to use or occupy can be approved. (Fill out the form on the back of this sheet) 4/80 J TRUSTEES SUPERVISOR Jo M. Bredemeyer, III, President IN SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President o Henry P. Smith Ze Town Hall Jahn B. Tuthill 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson °r01 - :`Da EO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r 1 j, December 7, 1992 Doi Roy Haje 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Gus Wade SCTM #1000-110-7-28 Dear Mr. Haje: The Southold Town Trustees adopted the attached report of our wetland consultant, Bruce Anderson, on November 30, 1992. As his summary details deficiencies which must be addressed for us to consider the DEIS complete, we shall require a return on all attached comments. The Board is disturbed with the assumption expressed on pages 57 and 69 that with respect to the sanitary system Mr. Wade will have to deal with a Town Trustee reopening of Eugenes Creek in the future. The Trustees position in this matter is not negotiable. We shall not permit placement of Mr. Wade's sanitary system on our common property line as long as it may pre-empt us from the lawful use of our property for all present and future riparian purposes including but not limited to navigation and boat mooring under the principles of Public Trust Doctrine and Common Law. Absent a serious discussion of this issue we will likely continue to vote the document incomplete until we are satisfied it has been properly addressed. Also enclosed are the comments of the zoning Board of Appeals for your consideration. As the questions they ask may relate more specifically to their pending 280A application I would commend you to direct your questions to that office directly. With respect to the issue of lead agency status, the Trustees will continue to process this application as lead agency as identified by the DEIS and requested by the applicant and the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. However, any future changes in lead agency status shall be considered only by formal request, with requisite documentation such as Board votes etc. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely,-- ~~5ctti~p,~.~y g John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmd Encl. cc: ZBA Gus Wade t . f, Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant November 29, 1992 Hand Delivered: November 30, 1992 Mr. John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Gustave Wade Review of DEIS Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, As you are aware, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") was prepared by En-Consultants on behalf of Gustave Wade for the construction of a single family dwelling and related structures on 0.347 acre property situate on Eugene's Creek in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. Subsequently, the DEIS was rejected based upon recommendations provided by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates representing the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") dated February 3, 1992, my recommendations provided to the Southold Town Board of Trustees ("Trustees") dated February 2, 1992, and a memo from the Trustees themselves dated February 4, 1992. Thereafter, En-Consultants submitted a Revised DEIS, which was received by the Town on October 30, 1992 and it is the Revised DEIS that is the subject of this review. Given that the Trustees are now the "Sole Lead Agency" the scope of the attached review is somewhat broader. The Revised DEIS is more comprehensive than the initial DEIS having addressed most of the previous comments put forth by both the ZBA and Trustees. However, as supported in this review, a number of issues have not been addressed thereby warranting further revision. Therefore, I recommend this Revised DEIS be similarly rejected as incomplete for the reasons set forth below: (1) The Revised DEIS fails to adequately discuss the environmental impacts related to the proposed construction. The Revised DEIS limits the analysis of construction related impacts to those incurred after materials and equipment are 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 already delivered to the site. However, it is of paramount importance that the impacts resulting from the mobilization and demobilization of all equipment and materials be discussed in detail. In my earlier report of February 2, 1992, it stated, "It can be assumed that heavy equipment and bulk materials will be transported by same (barge). What are the expected impacts of this method of transportation to wetlands and waterways? Could a barge actually tie up to the dock and transport heavy equipment such as a back hoe, and bulk materials such as precast concrete septic rings across a dock that is only four feet wide? In the alternative, if the barge had to be beached, would not the transfer of heavy equipment and bulk materials result in the trampling of wetlands?' Moreover, could the existing dock support the loads applied to it resulting from the mobilization and demobilization of heavy equipment and bulk materials accessed across it? The Revised DEIS does not adequately address these questions and concerns. If, as a matter of practicality, it will be necessary to drive heavy equipment across wetlands to access the upland portion of the site, then discussion and analysis pertaining to the mitigation of this impact should be evaluated under the section of the Revised DEIS identified as Mitigation Measures. The statement appearing on page 23, "Since the piles for the home are already in place, all that is needed for construction of the house is a lumber shipment." was deemed false by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates. See their comments dated February 3, 1992. Therefore, this statement should be amended to reflect the full nature of materials required in the construction of the house. (2) The Revised DEIS fails to adequately describe the maintenance of cesspools in terms of how a tanker truck would access the site to affect the pumping of septic wastes. Yet, the Revised DEIS states that "Maintenance of cesspools, heating and other equipment will be a continuous process" (See page 23). As a matter of practicality, a tanker truck may have to park at the terminus of East Road and extend a hose across Trustee lands to affect pump-out as similarly expressed with regard to propane delivery. In the alternative, the tanker truck would have to access the property by barge, extending a hose across wetlands to the septic system on a continual basis. The DEIS should describe in greater detail, how such services are to be provided to the site. 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 (3) All statements that "the proposed septic system is in complete compliance with Health Department standards and regulations" such as stated on page 57 should be deleted or appropriately qualified. (4) The analysis pertaining to wildlife should be strengthened. In my earlier report of February 2, 1992, it was recommended that "(T)he applicant's a$ent should describe what efforts were actually made (ie. field inspections) to identify wildlife and which were actually identified on the site during those field inspections". The Revised DEIS should state when such surveys were conducted what species were actually identified on site. Later in the DEIS under Mitigation Measures, a statement relating how the proposed preservation of wetlands and a portion of the uplands mitigates impacts to wildlife. That is, in its present form, statements pertaining to wildlife are absent in the section entitled Mitigation Measures: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology. (5) In a memo dated February 4, 1992 from the Trustees to the ZBA, the Trustees required a description of the Cutchogue Harbor Wetlands System. Such description does not appear in the Revised DEIS as required. The Revised DEIS should be amended accordingly. It is recommended these comments and concerns be addressed and incorporated within the existing text of the Revised DEIS. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 4S1aFF0jjfCar& SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor lt~ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman y Z Serge Doyen, Jr. "p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. 't' pt P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa 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 TO: Town Trustees, Town of Southold Mr. Roy Haje, En-Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Review of Proposed DEIS of 11/2/92 APPLICANT: Gustave Wade SITE: Property near the End of East Road at Fleet's Neck Cutchogue, Town of Southold Based upon review, it is the opinion of the Board of Appeals that the document as submitted November 2, 1992, is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review. Included herein are specific comments pertaining to the document which outline deficiencies which are in need of additional discussion, clarification, documentation, and/or answers prior to circulation to outside governmental agencies and public comment. I. SUMMARY The summary should, of course, be amended to reflect changes in the text based upon the following. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Commencing at Page 4 - Background and History a) With regard to permits, permit and permit renewals were not attached. Expiration dates for each agency permit were not furnished. Building permits are renewable for dwellings under construction only; therefore, the building permits referenced could not be renewed and apparently had expired some time ago. Separate permit applications and reviews are subsequently required. b) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental permits were not listed of record prior to 1982. No mention is made of effect of building construction without N.Y.S. D.E.C. permits. Page 2 - Novembe27, 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck c) Background and history as well as the physical conditions of the site and the surrounding lands at the time of zoning (1957) and at the time of purchase, to the present time period, need to be addressed. d) Physical changes to the site and surrounding area during all specific time periods were not adequately described in detail, i.e. destruction and types of wetlands being replaced with the stone blend, gravel, and other materials onto the wetland area between East Road and the "island," and onto the island upland areas, etc. e) Reference is made to the claim that the island is no longer considered an island. This is questionable since the owner (Town) of the lands did not authorize the wetlands to be filled in and did not authorize the island to become a part of the mainland. Document should confirm ownership between the "island" and East Road to be other than the applicant's. Reference was made that this island is no longer being considered an island. Clarification of this statement is needed, substantiated by documentation as to how this was arrived at, which shall include the Town's anticipated re-opening of the channel at the end of East Road. Pages 6-8 Reference was made to certain "accusations in a court injunction" concerning a Town building permit in 1984 - 1985. Copies of all Court Determinations should be attached, and reference should be corrected to show that Court determined building permit was ineffective and construction could not begin. It should also be noted that a building permit could not again be issued unless all other agency permits were obtained and in full force and effect, as well as obtaining recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles to the island as provided under New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Status of all agency permits, including those now expired and not issued, must be listed. Copies of currently valid permits (if any) should be attached in Appendix. This document must confirm that there are currently no valid permits from any governmental agency concerning the construction of a dwelling, particularly since references mentioned are misleading. Commencing at Page 15 Effects by adverse changes in weather conditions, flood high tides, moon tides during storms, removal of unauthorized fill between island and East Road have not been addressed. Page 3 - Novemb*27, 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Page 16 How will owner, service companies, etc. gain access to house during freezing of creek and bay areas around island? Will neighboring property be utilized? Page 17 To what depths and what methods are being used to clear 6900 sq. ft. of land as proposed (see December 15, 1988 survey)? Why is 6900 sq. ft. of land area needed to be cleared, rather than substantially lesser areas if the house is 1260 sq. ft. in floor area? Mitigation measures to reduce area of disturbance have not been addressed adequately. Page 19 Propane delivery is not adequately addressed - applicant may not pipe underground on lands other than his own without express written permission from the property owner. The distance at its closest point from the island to East Road is 85 feet, or more (not 65 feet as suggested). Propane lines and servicing is therefore not feasible. Page 20 What alternative areas of sanitary system have had dye studies, and documents substantiating all studies of this island should be attached. Page 22 Contract between property owner and Cutchogue Harbor Marina for access is not attached for consideration. Also, information has not been submitted to show how, where and what time periods and seasons, contractors, back-hoe operators, and other building machinery or delivery trucks will be able to gain access by water. Will heavy equipment operators be using boat or barge access from and to the westerly section of East Creek, or other sections? Page 50 Noise levels of generator(s) with high and low time periods were not submitted. Effects of shutting down of generators has not been documented. Page 4 - Novemb0 27, 1992 • Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck Commencing at Page 52 - System Impacts Recharge figures may not be calculated on current standard requirements for reverse osmosis system should be re-confirmed with Health Department. Page 54 Need to address effects caused by nitrates into salt water at different tide levels - particularly storm tides, etc. Page 56 No currently valid Health Department permits or substantiated dye studies were documented for alternative sanitary system locations. Also need to furnish report on dye study when tide level is more than median. Page 68 Reference is made that since the "lot" is held in single and separate ownership and predates existing zoning, it is considered by the applicant's consultant to be a buildable lot. A lot is not a buildable lot until all valid approvals and permits are obtained, and proof has been submitted as to its single-and-separate ownership as required by the Zoning Code, and compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. The lot cannot be guaranteed a buildable lot by merely complying with one or two provisions of law. It should be confirmed that at the present time, no permits are currently in effect from all town, state, and county agencies that would render the lot a buildable lot for purposes of a residence. It should be confirmed that the use of this island, or "lot", is presently for boating and docking enjoyment, which has permit approval, for the property owner and his guests. Page 74 It is noted that "...6400 sq. ft. will be cleared for house and septic system construction... 5140 sq. ft. will be revegetated...." 6400 less 5140 sq. ft. leaves 1260 sq. ft. The planting schedule submitted as Appendix P shows a gravel area and deck areas around the dwelling which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. These figures do not agree. The 1988 survey map shows that the house would be 1300 sq. ft. although other references are for a 1260 sq. ft. house. What is the square footage of gravel areas, patio areas, and deck areas in addition to the square footage of living area? Page 5 - Novemb*27, 1992 Re: Review of Proposed Draft EIS Matter of Property of Gustave Wade at Fleet's Neck OTHER Reference must be made to this property as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by Suffolk County, also known as "Peconic Bay and Environs." This designation includes all of the bays east from the mouth of the Peconic River, to and including Block Island Sound, all of the land beneath the bays and all upland area within 500 feet of all bays and their tributaries. This designation took effect on February 21, 1989 by Local Law 29 Year 1988, Suffolk County and was enacted by the County Legislature. Reference should also be made to all areas under which variances are being requested, which should include: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees at less than 75 feet from the high water mark, from the Zoning Board of Appeals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for recognition of access for emergency and other vehicles, and the Suffolk County Health Department. In the event of new bulkheading with proper permits, other variances may be necessary (i.e. zoning code, Section 100-239.4B which requires a minimum setback at 75 feet from bulkheads or retaining walls). SURVEY - An up-to-date survey, with on-site surveying inspections, is requested in light of the hurricane damage and storm damages in the Town of Southold within the last two years. The survey map is shown that the property was lastly re-surveyed in December 1988, prior to the hurricane-storms. ACCESS - Additional information is required for decision-making to include: delineation of the points of access; water routes for access; the distances by water; ingress and egress of emergency vehicles; the time periods for fire and emergency vehicle response; the depth of water and dock suitability for sole access. These areas were not addressed as requested. The above comments have been prepared as a result of review of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for acceptance by the Town (Town Trustees as lead agency). Based upon this review, the DEIS has not been accepted. Review of revisions by the applicant would be expedited in order to commence the public comment process for this project. Dated: November 27, 1992 BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN October 30, 1992 Dear Mr. Haje, c~ This will confirm that you have delivered / sets of a Draft Environmental Impactment Statement in the above matter for the Town. As confirmed in our letter to Mr. Wade, with copies to you, dated April 2, 1992, the Board of Appeals is not, and has not by receiving these courtesy copies, assumed that role since the lead agency status is understood to be the Southold Town Trustees. Updated communications will be sent to you within a short period of time from the Town. Thank you for your courtesy. JJJ l~ • 1 /J ,y / 4 i'_F- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa 3 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 2, 1992 Mr. Gustave J. Wade 41 Willoughby Path East Northport, NY 11731 Re: Application under New York Town Law, section 280-A Dear Mr. Wade: This letter is in response to your letter received last week in which you question involvement by other agencies under SEQRA and your concerns that you are being asked to answer to more than one agency. Your letter appears to object to more than one agency reviewing this project under SEQRA, and although there may be only one lead agency, all agencies are permitted to review the file and comment as they deem appropriate to their permit reviews. The SEQRA process does permit one Lead Agency, and you will recall, that on February 26, 1990, you withdrew your wetlands application before the Town Trustees. The Trustees were read to commence Lead Agency action during early of 1990, and the reasons for withdrawing your application are unknown at this time. Finally, about 10 months later, your wetlands permit application was delivered to the Town Trustees for processing. During this time period, the Board of Appeals processed this application to the best of its ability, and jointly with the Town Trustees as an involved agency. We do understand your concerns in addressing questions from two consultants. In fact, there has been only one consultant authorized by the Board of Appeals (as the Lead Agency up until our letter of February 6, 1992 in which amendments were requested to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement). It is our understanding that the Town Trustees has asked an expert opinion under the role of the wetlands permit application which the Board of Appeals does not have control over. We have spoken several times with the President of the Town Trustees, and it has been agreed by Mr. Bredemeyer that you, as ' Page 2 - April 2, 092 To: Mr. Gustave J. Wade Re: Appl. No. 3913 - 280-A (Access by Water) the applicant and owner, would be billed under SEQRA for services only by one consultant - that being the consultant hired by the Lead Agency to represent the agencies under SEQRA. To confirm the status of your application, SEQRA is pending, and the last step taken was as indicated in our February 6, 1992 letter requesting an Amended DEIS addressing the issues and questions raised by the involved agencies and their representatives. At this point in time, the Lead Agency status has been transferred, as agreed between the Town agencies, from the Board of Appeals to the Town Trustees. The scope of review is broadest before the Town Trustees since their review involves, but is not limited to: (a) new retaining walls near the wetlands, (b) excavating near the wetlands, (c) new accessory structures within 75 feet of the wetlands, (d) leeching systems, (e) new dwelling construction, (f) various other construction activities within 75 feet of the wetlands, all on the entire tract of land. The review by the Board of Appeals is limited under New York Town Law, Section 280-A, and our application is not complete until such time as authorized legal access points for fire, emergency and other vehicles has been ascertained by you. (The bridge proposal we understand has never been permitted as a right-of-way over lands of others.) No documentation confirming the access points has been furnished or accepted at this point in time. Accordingly, the Board of Appeals has relinquished its role as lead agency (with a minimal scope of review at 5% or less for the overall project) and declaring that Lead Agency be and hereby is to become effective immediately by the Town Trustees, as agreed. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk cc: Mr. Roy Haje, President, Enconsultants, Inc. Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, President, Town Trustees Mr. Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS O~OSUFFO~,~~OG SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor o Charles Grigonis, Jr. ca _ Serge Doyen, Jr. 0-0 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Dinizio, Jr. .O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 1992 Mr. Roy L. Haje, President En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Re: Appl. No. 3913 - Gustave Wade i Dear Mr. Haje: Pursuant to Section 617.8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR, this letter will serve as notice that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) delivered for review is not acceptable for public and inter-agency review due to several deficiencies. Attached is the February 3, 1992 summary outlined by our environmental consultant, (Cramer, Voorhis & Associates). You will note that there are several issues, questions and information necessary in the amendments to the DEIS (instead of an Addendum). This will also help to expedite the updated review. Upon receipt of an Amended DEIS addressing the issues and questions raised in the attached letter, we will immediately forward one complete set to our environmental consultant for reviews under Section 617.8(b){1}. Please be sure to deliver fifteen (15) complete sets of the amended DEIS, with the amended maps and construction plans for all structures, in order that we may distribute them expeditiously at the appropriate time to all involved State, 7l~ County and Town involved agencies. hbr\ Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER ~)1 lk CHAIRMAN CC: Mr. Gustave J. Wade Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, President, Town Trustees Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation t o~o;UFFO(,y~ TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President c SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith, Vice President t'< SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Kmpski, Jr. a John L. Bednoski, Jr.1p Town Hall 1 ii[ `A John B. Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ ' January 27, 1992 Roy Haje En-Consultants FEB - 519T 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 - - RE: Gus Wade SCTM #1000-110-7-28 Dear Mr. Haje: The Southold Town Trustees considered your letter of December 30, 1991 and request for a waiver under 97-21J of our wetland ordinance at our January 16, 1991 regular meeting and offer the following: SEQRA With respect to Town and State SEQRA the Trustees will continue to work closely with the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in their role as lead agency and will attempt to make the review as orderly as possible by submitting our comments on completed documents, on the time table the ZBA establishes. We shall not suspend our role in the SEQRA process for the following items associated with the need of a complete application under the Town wetlands Ordinance as we believe they will not negatively cloud our "hard look" under SEQRA. Complete Application 97-21 E,G. The information provided on fill and slopes is considered adequate for the purposes of a complete application. 97-21J e Trustees are not prepared to issue waiver(s) for this ection at this time. It is the position of this Board that the placement of cesspools on our common property line will create an exclusive/private pollution easement over our property which may pre-empt the Board of Trustees from returning our land to navigable waters. Mr. Wade is encouraged to approach the County Health Department with a copy of this letter in an attempt to secure an alternative to the conventional sanitary system shown on the plan survey. We believe this is consistent with the bonafide offer Mr. Wade made at the SEQRA scoping session to install an alternative sanitary system. Site Restoration The Board would like you or Mr. Wade to detail in writing his interest(s), if any, in the cesspool which appears on our property adjacent to his and whether he maintains any interest in the sand and gravel he may have placed on Town and Trustee land at the terminus of East Road under prior authorization/permit(s). It is our intention to ask Mr. Wade (with NYSDEC approval/supervision) to remove these materials from the wetland zone and store them off-site should he claim to own them. The Board requests that all house support pilings installed under previous permits be removed, thus restoring the island to it's prior condition. If you have any questions on any of these matters, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, l~ John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmt cc: ZBA CAC Bruce Anderson APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS ~~7 BOG Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. n Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. 3 rJ y' .R a Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 -1~ Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD October 1, 1991 Mr. Roy L. Haje, President En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Re: Appl. No. 3913 - Gustave Wade Dear Mr. Haje: Pursuant to inquiries from Kathy of your office today, we would like to confirm that at this time the following items are outstanding: a) a complete application with the Southold Town Trustees must be filed for the entire project. (You may recall that the Trustees application was withdrawn on February 22, 1990 at the time Mr. Wade was contemplating an exchange of properties with the Town as an alternative or mitigation.) b) upon submission to the DEIS and pertinent documents, a filing fee check in the sum of $2,000 as payment toward the town's consultant fees to perform reviews under the Draft Environmental Impact Statement procedures, which reviews will be made jointly between the ZBA and the Town Trustees when your application to the Trustees has been refiled; c) six sets of the DEIS and pertinent documents (referenced therein) to each the ZBA and the Town Trustees, for a total of 12 sets. Please let us know when you have re-filed the application with the Town Trustees' Office concerning the 280A and the permit for the house and other amenities. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHR GER lk CHAIRMAN Mr. Gustave J. Wade I`' + AW • „tFa/ SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road SUPERVISOR P.O. Box 1179 n, Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765 - 1823. NNN TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1800 BOARD OF APPEALS OFFICE OF THE .800D OF APPEALS Gerard P. Goehringer TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Chairman 765-1809 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: John Bredemeyer, President l Board of Trustees FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: December 10, 1991 SUBJECT: ZBA Application - Gus Wade It is our understanding that Mr. Wade's application to the Town Trustees has today been filed for a wetlands permit, and Jill has provided us with a courtesy copy. In our letters to Mr. Wade, we have been requesting $2,000 under SEQRA in addition to the $500 fee paid in reviewing the Long Environmental Assessment Form. Up until today, we were not aware that fees were also being billed by the Trustees to Mr. Wade, fees which have been paid in full. It would appear that the fees collected by all offices must be applied to 2% of the appraised value of the land plus site improvements, the maximum to be collected under the State Environmental Quality Review Law. The applicant's consultant has requested a reconsideration of the amounts of fees which may be collected as shown on his attached letter. It is our recommendation, particularly in light of the fact that you now have a formal application requesting a proposed retaining wall and requesting approval of other activities, including buildings, structures, leeching systems, etc., that the Town Trustees assume the role as Lead Agency, rather than continuing as co-lead agencies. The Board of Appeals application before us is for consideration of access by emergency and other vehicles (New York Town Law Section 280-A) to the parcel, and not for buildings and other structural or other Page 2 - December 1+1991 To: Mr. John Bredmeyer, President Town Trustees Re: Application of Gus Wade changes to the parcel to be built upon. The Trustees will, of course, have a broader scope of review under the new application now filed. As of today, our office has collected $500.00 from Mr. Haje which has been applied only to review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. Please let us know if you are agreeable to assuming the lead agency role at this time, as well as the amount of fees you will be collecting, and the name of the Town's environmental consultant to be used (if other than Cramer & Voorhis) in order that we may reply to the applicant's requests. Thank you. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS t j r SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman > y~ Charles Grigonis, Jr. = ( Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. E P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 f' Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 1, 1991 Mr. Roy L. Haje, President En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Re: Appl. No. 3913 - Gustave Wade Dear Mr. Haje: Pursuant to inquiries from Kathy of your office today, we would like to confirm that at this time the following items are outstanding: a) a complete application with the Southold Town Trustees must be filed for the entire project. (You may recall that the Trustees application was withdrawn on February 22, 1990 at the time Mr. Wade was contemplating an exchange of properties with the Town as an alternative or mitigation.) b) upon submission to the DEIS and pertinent documents, a filing fee check in the sum of $2,000 as payment toward the town's consultant fees to perform reviews under the Draft Environmental Impact Statement procedures, which reviews will be made jointly between the ZBA and the Town Trustees.when your application to the Trustees has been refiled; c) six sets of the DEIS and pertinent documents (referenced therein) to each the ZBA and the Town Trustees, for a total of 12 sets. Please let us know when you have re-filed the application with the Town Trustees' Office concerning the 280A and the permit for the house and other amenities. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER lk CHAIRMAN Mr. Gustave J. Wade C ; jL~~ 2 o~U` 0,~O' ~?FFfJ!,~'', APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ' SCOTT L. HARRIS S s Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. '9~ _ a • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 March 15, 1991 Mr. Roy L. Haje, President En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 Nort Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Re: Appl. of Gustave J. Wade (As Amended 4/18/90) Dear Mr. Haje: Attached for your file in the above matter are copies of correspondence which have been received by our office under the SEQRA coordination process. Please be sure to furnish the information previously requested in the D.E.C. letters to your firm to both their agency and our office, and at the very least, prior to and/or in the submission of the proposed Draft EIS, together with those areas of concern mentioned in the County Health Department's communications. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosures cc: Southold Town Trustees G, Approved in accordr.rcc w determination dated 4,. ,s:3 -",5 _ ~i-d) , - ~ 6 to l C 17 k . { a` ; 1i •rr.7VE: d!'"~V<_' f 4 j to CP, 7 ~ .?9 1FrzSIY ST - WLsS. ~YGOh•; r1. Y. Il .Oe, r „ ,poy ~ -17ipnarsl Y • f . f FORM NO. 11 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT No 7 F Date _ 4--ru-.~ v , 19 Permission is hereby granted to: V r u sTR V~ w Amt Jesy J006 t0 ~ON $~.C hCI n C1~ I ;U r ./t T I IN :~oNe. ~ F~~ Ulm/so+U 8-U at premises located at /voo -5:--4sr je-CL c.1Jo@U a County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 1/0 Block 7 Lot -15' .a-pursuant to application dated SuuC o o , 19 ~4, and approved b'- the Building Inspector. Building Permit No. 1 3 z. L4 y z Ac u L ocC Building Inspector 4/80 'IDGES 26 NY J., 26 NYJur HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND BRIDGES §47 re deemed to create Highway Law requiring the laying out of a highway at least 3 rods by the statute, al- in width." However, this provision does not apply to highways 1'." Fences, walls, by dedication, special provision for the width of such highways public highway ac- being made.' Moreover, in case the highway to be laid out con- mits or boundaries stitutes an extension of a public highway already in use, and does not, as to such new portion, exceed a half mile in length, the town ,e a specified width superintendent of highways may lay out such extension less than rposes beyond that 3 rods wide, provided it is not less than the widest part of the high- soving that it was 1j way of which it is an extension.' 1 §46. Highways terminating at navigable water. hibodiesghway ys be concounties' A public highway which leads to navigable water will keep even - recifications of the pace with the extension of the land, whether the change in the g to the widening } land is due to natural causes, as in the case of accretions,' or the is are discussed in ] voluntary act of the owner, as where he fills in the adjoining land or constructs a dock or wharf.' The highway, by operation of law, is extended from the former terminus over the newly made land to Is in counties and the water.' under a statutory + s in this respect 10 ? § 47. Monumentation of right of way. ' The county superintendent of highways has the duty to ascer- tain and locate the corners of the established boundaries of coun- aw for the width ties, towns, cities, and villages and, where townships were original- itvay may be laid ly subdivided into lots, to accurately ascertain and establish such ption hereinafter lot corners if any such corners will be located within the bounds of s no authority to the improved part of any state or county highway or county road.' e provision of the Where such corners have been located, the state superintendent of public works must cause a monument of specified durability to be set at each corner.' Abutting Owners to ' ix for Cost of Slop- s The town superintendent of highways has the duty to have Grading Street, 6 + monuments erected, or to be erected, as the boundaries of town FORA's NO. 6;674. ~ 22. Re Daggett, 223 NY 580, 119 5. People v Lambier, supra. supra. NE 1037. 6. Highway L § 102, subd 10. 180. 1. Highway L § 171. 7, Highway L § 10, subd 17. :surements may be _ 2. Highway L § 180. As to monumentation already in Le computation of place, see Highway L § 102, subd town highway as 3. People v Lambier, 5 Denio 9. 10. der the limitations 4. Buffalo v Delaware L. & W. R. Y Law. 1955 Ops Co. 190 NY 84, 82 NE 513. People v Lambier, supra. 116 NY Jurl 211 ' :i J III INN 11 - C~ § 62-1 SOUTHOLD CODE § 62-2 ARTICLE I Use Regulations and Restrictions [Adopted 2-10.81 as L.L. No. 1-19811 § 62.1. Definitions. As used in this Article, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meanings given herein: RECREATIONAL AREAS - Includes all parks, ) playgrounds, athletic fields, boat-launching ramps, all areas between the ends of highways and tidal waters and other recreational areas, including approaches, driveways, parking areas and buildings and structures located thereon, owned, leased or operated by the Town of Southold. SUPERINTENDENT - The head of the Department of Public Works of the Town of Southold, who shall be in charge of all recreational areas. VEHICLE - Any vehicle which is or may be mounted on wheels and is or may be propelled, either by its own power C ) or by another power-driven vehicle to which it may be attached. The term shall include any trailer of any size, type or description. § 62.2. Certain acts prohibited. o/person in a recreational area shall: ( AJIv ark, deface, injure or damage any building, structure, property or equipment in or on any recreational area. B. Dig and/or remove sand or gravel or other material from a recreational area, or cut, carve, remove or otherwise damage any tree or plant in such areas. C. Hunt, molest, disturb, injure or kill any animal or mammal in or on any recreational area. D. Bring in or dump, deposit or leave any bottles, broken glass, ashes, paper boxes, cans, dirt, rubbish, waste, 6202 6.25.81 Vol ~ y l)"%I.Alt' I[I'ARI.IILUI OF TNVIRUNMINI.AL C(0 VA I ION . Ih'-III-SL U$ l/ PERMIT - UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW ARTICLE 15, (Protection of Water) 71~L ARTICLE 2S, (Tidal Wetlands) ARTICLE 24, (Freshwater Wetlands) Q ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Hazgrd Areas) r'ER(nr ISSUED TO Gus Wade AS DDRESS OF PER.IIITTEE 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon, New York LOCATION OF PROJECT (Sect;... stream, tidal wetland, dam, building) S en Harbor and HaywaterS Avenue O S oa a ace.. c ogee DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT t Town of Southold, Suffolk ..Count . Construct one-family dwelling and appurtenances and 120± feet retaining wall. I Place 35± cubic yards of fill. i I COnulUNl iY NAME (City, Town, V;Ilage) Hamlet of Qltchogue TOWN counTr - Southold Suffolk 'County FIA COMMUNITY NO. DAM NO. PERMIT EI(PIRATION DATE GENERAL Dec• 30t 1984 CONDITIONS t. the o•rnittee shall file in the office of the appropriate Regional g l• in adva ncre lot then llime of comme cement andeshall alsoaI least him . That thate York in to 46 0 Case be of Jnjury to theestrructu er ore work herein) authorized whichtmay for any damage Caused by ,rnmpNy in writing of the completion of the work. result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or 1. the permitted work shall be subject to Inspection by an authorized improvement of navigation, of for other purposes, and no claim or right tc 'v Prescnlative of the Department of Environmental Conservation who may co 9pensallon shall accrue from any such damage. ~Irder the work suspended if the public interest so requires. That if the display of lights and is not otherwise provided for by law signals pn any wok hereby authorized J. As a condition or the issuance of this permit, the applicdnl has ac• scribed by the United , such lights and signals as ma rnlcd ezpr con by the rxecution of issuance the application, the afull pplicant spon• States Coast Guard shall installed and y be pre, "hilily for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whom- by and at the expense of the owner. maintained -r suffered, arising out of the project described herein and has agreed to 1U, All work carried out under this permit shall be ''demnlfy and save harmless the State from suits, actions, damages and dance with established engineering Performed to accor- -o<Is of every name and description resulting from the said project. I1, It ranted under Articles 24 or 2S eth DePau1a•^e^rk^t inanlike manner. Any material dredged in the to reconsider this a hall be removed evenly, without leaving large ution ofthe workridges across the pporoval dify at any ti reserves the right Prosec herein cd of the waterway or flood plain or deep holes refuse Piles, permitted continue, rescind or modify this permit in seduchrar due notice and hearing to that may have a tendency to be just and equitable. If upon 'use injury to navigable channels or to the banks of the waterway. the expiration or revocation as this be molt, the found to modification of the wetland hereby a Pe uthorized has S- Any material to be deposited or dumped under this applicant shall' without expense to the Slate, a SW been completed, the nd 10 such ex a In e waterway or on shore above hi h-w permit, either in time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservatrion may requi et, the Incali(Y shown on the drawing hereto attachcdba d~(ISOd or dumbed remove all or an a -=.-i111 within or behind a good and substantial site o 10 ac loner condition.( claim $hall esm de aplttsltthe State tofe York on account Of an ll orevenl escape of the material into the waterway. to bulkhead or bulkheads, Such any such removal or alteration. w New 5 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the 12' This permit shall not be construed as conveying herein authorized, right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparianhrighi others st of 10 Perform the That it future operations by the Slate of New York require an alteration party to interest e in real work o a zing the Impairment of any rights, title or he pein real or personal l Property held or vested Ina person not a .he Position the Department rot Environmental Conservation it echo/I causeiunreasooa hie 13. The i health, to The free navigation of said waters or 11 permittee is responsible for obtainin health, safety or welfare of the . nod. flows ur endanger' Provals, lands, easements and righls•pf•wa which any other permits, an. I'1e natural resources of the State Dthele owner may Of the State, be ordered b r destruction Protect. y y be required for this by he Depart, 14. tcby m without move or alter the structural work, obstructions 11 granted under Article 36, this Bra ~ ca pence 1. the. Stale; and if, u permit is , or hazards caused of the requirements of Article 36 of the Environmental d evat ton Law and ~'C Permit, the structure, fill , pun the expiration or revocation Part 500 of 6 NYCRR (Construction in Flood plain ti eas hoer.. Solely Son the basis ':•rcourse hereby authorized shallxnotal' be omleted, the OR, Ofpother odfoation shale Hazards flooding, ~nm ezpense to the State, and to such extent c and in such time and manner Building Permits) and In no wa g Special Flood free from she Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or Y acceptance of this way signifies that the project will be portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former contingent :,on the navigable and flood is Permit the Dermittee a u n glees that the `ode against th capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall reverse side po strict compliance with the Derhe special the State of New York on account of an . conditions on the -'anon, any such removal or -'0-z (9/75) /(SEE REVERSE SIDE) cX1y/O/% ~A-~ I i SPECIAL CONDITIONS 16. Applicant shall obtain any permits required by the Town of Southold, for construction in an A-4 (e18) flood zone, prior to commencing construction on the site. 17• The shoreline of the site and the tidal wetlands vegetation located thereon shall not be altered and shall remain in a natural state., 18. Variance of 38± feet to the required building setback of 75 feet and 50t feet to the required septic system setback is granted. PERMIT ISSUE DATE PE IT ADM[ ISTRAT ADDRESS _LZ yi 50 Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233-C. Louis Contra Chief Permit Administrator FORM NO. 10 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT (516) 765-1802 P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY MAIN ROAD 11971 SOUTHOLD, ITY APPLICAT.iON FOR DEVELOPMENT PER111T Instructions: The application to -the Building inspector includes (each in duplicate) 1. Form No. 10 filled out in ink or typewritten, 2. Sur- vey of premises with elevations above mean sea level, 3. Drawings of pro- posed work. The application must give complete information to show that the proposed can comply to the Local Law No. 1-1980, Chapter 46 of'the Code of the Town of Southold known as "Flood Damage Prevention Law" of the Town of Southold. The applicant must submit approvals that any other agency requires. General Standards as required in section 46-17 of the law to minimize flood damage: A. Anchoring of structures, including tanks and mobile homes B. Use of construction material and methods C. Design and location of utilities D. Subdivision proposal with drainage, public utilities design and base flood elevations Specific Standards as required in Section 1}6-18.- W. residential construction B. Non-residential construction C. Mobile homes The applicant must submit plans and specifications as well as any other information requested by the Building Inspector to substantiate the facts that the structure has or will have the lowest floor, including basement/ cellar, elavated above the base flood elevation or; if pernni.tted by the Federal Regulation, that: 1. such structure is flood proofed in such manner that below the base flood level the structure is water tight with walls substantially and impermeable to the passage of water, 2. that structural components are capable to resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy, 3. applicant must submit certification by a r•egIstered professional engineer or architect that the standards set forth in Section 46-18B (1) (2) (3) of the Southold Code are satisfied. Coastal. Hieh Hazzard area (V Zone) 46-19. Applicant shall submit plans, specifications ireludingthe required certifications and such other in- formation as the Duilding Inspector may require in that Ahe provisions of 46-19 are complied with. Mobile hones are prohibited. The lowest portion of the structural members of the lowest floor cannot be lower than the base flood elevation with all space below open except breakaway walls. Sand dunes. If sand dunes exist on the premises and the applicant pro- poses to alter same, plans and specification must be shown in detailed nature of any alteration submitted. Building Permit. A Building Permit is also required for any structure. Bcth a Development and a Building Permit must be issued before any work can start in a special flood hazzard zone. A•written disapproval or a permit must be issued within ten (10) working days. During construction,.the inspector shall be notified in tine so he nay make the required inspections. , Upon completion, the required certification fo the final elevations and work must be submitted before the approval to use or occupy can be approved. (Fill out the form on the back of this sheet) 4/80 Application Received Disapproval Issued Permit 19 19 I 19_ i i FORM NO. 10 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT In the Town of Southold 1. Type of Development Proposed: Now Structure (including storage tanks Addition and/or Alteration[] Flood Proof Below Base Flood Elevation ? Other (specify) 2. Elevation Data in relation to above mean sea level of: (a) Lowest floor elevation, including basement feet -inches (b) In a V Zone, bottom of lowest structural member feet inches 3. FIRM--Flood Insurance Rate Map, Zone designations 4. Owner of Premises 5. Location of Property: n ' 1- \2fl~n~wce 1 t\ L~ UJL_ NOufF rtT GTK[r-r HAMCc County Tax Map No., District, 1000, Section 11O Block __~7- Lot(s) 25~ Z Subdivision Filed Map # Lot(s)_ 6. Permission to be ranted: Owner as aboveclNew Owner `Under Contract ~Lesseel~ Contractor p ~A FYene NYM BFrt - S~CaV e ( r lto0 ~t~~ 1 r~ 8 lAK N r 1 t7 li J`AMe CiF Nc~ &-rCN He~~<) AN 1] MMLW6 ADZX 5$ 7. Approval from other(s) before Permit is issued; DEC -tW - W - %a-- 0557 WETLANDS (Town Board) HEALTH SERVICE i~)-SO -p ZBA BUILDING PERMIT I PLANNING BOARD g. the applicant, am the Owner, Co- Owne r ,Hew Owner , Under Contractj~, Lessee, AgentEl, Con- tractor C], and agree to comply with all applicable sections of the Code of the Town of Southold; County, and State and to admit authorized in- spectors to premises authorized to.perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application, that all statements contain- ed in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that the work will be performed in the mannerset forth in the application filed therewith. STATE OF NUS! YORK COUNTY OF SS igna ure SWORi1 TO TIiIS If DAY OF 19 HELEN K DrVOE NOTARY PUBLIC. SIaMbY New vork Notary Public ft. 4MIS70, Suflolk Cour Term Expires Match 30, 19 Applicant's mailin j`i1~x ~~,r address and phone Un if not given above: Z Lt a~ l 7~, 4/8o 5~b- 4qq - dyQ b ' • FORM NO. 1 • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 'xamined . "k • • 190. TEL.: 705.1802 Received (01 1 • , 19. \pproved a.. ? A.... , 196.' . Permit No. )isapproved a/c u.; (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date 190 1. INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 :ts 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 r areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- ation. 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 call 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 call 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 luilding 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 demolition, as herein described. 'lie applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinance , building code, housing code, and regWations, and to dmit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessa n nc~tions.~/ (Si nature of licant, or name, if a corporation) . (Mailing address of applicant) sate whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. . Jame of owner of premises . (as on the tax roll or latest deed) f applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No. Plumber's License No. v Electrician's License No.K cT ~J is ,q - q a~ • 0 Other Trade's License No.- Location of land on which proposed work ~~will be done. . , , , , , .....................4~~ House Number Street Hamlet .7/ i County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 110......... Block / Lot 502...... , . Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot............... (Name) State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Lt~ J C7'-0 ..........1 ~ c t 0.. Ra.o t day c e- b. Intended use and occunancy S .n. 3. Nature of work (check which app able): New Building AdAt Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work 0~1 (Description) 4. Estimated Cost Fee (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor 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 n.......... H.:ight Number of Stories .................1 Dunensions of same stricture with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height t Number of Storics .Z. . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front . . . Rear Depth ~ J...... . Height Numbe ,.Af Stories.....................................,.., 9. Size of lot: Front . 5b t Rear Depth tt . i . 0. Date of Purchase 1 ~ . . . 1- Name of Former Owner tz.'~ dF:t ..63.%('4 -I, .:3' I. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ....~y a>"-:t: t pA . 2. Does proposed construction vio ate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..!4= . 3. Will lot be regraded . ` t" Will agpess fill removed from premises: Yes No)( 4. Name of Owner of remiss `~y Address :l na b" Phone No..`1 Name of Architect zlp, Address ° 40.. Phone No.. Name of Contractor Cv tT:.~ n c~ K , Address. .....Phone No.. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions from uoperty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether nterior or corner 1 t. \ - piNVe~~ it h I2K0.ct Jitisc~ow. nw. Al I ~ n),p TATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY OF being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) bove named. eisthe (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) f said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this dplication; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the ork will be performed in the manner set forth in the application tiled therewith. ,vorn to before me this r! ....day oof 19 P rotary Public, L-4~ounty e HELEN Y. VOE - dd 9 1;1C, NOTARY D ' . ..ir~~1..k . ur+'. ir.. 3izm 0, flew York 1 (Signature of applicant No a7nrar, s„aurh Cm~cr krm E,wm, hta¢h 30,199.5'- • FLEET'1IWECK ERTY OWNER.. SOCIATION, INC. D P. o T- S4 2 6 CUTCHOGUE, N.Y., 11935 DEPT. "U'P TOWN O SOUiMOLD Board of Appaals Re: Appeal of issuance of permit etc., TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - continued - IT IS PRAYED AND REQUESTED that the submission and filing of the within appeal and a service of a copy of same as noted below upon the Building Department and the permittee be deemed an automatic stay of any and all further action etc. on the part of the rermittee and the said Building Department. Very ttr ~ou ; WILLI NI L President AGN:nga CC TO: BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CM#P 443 878 733 - and GUS WADE CM# P 443 878 734 - 2 - • F!_EEVS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS`" SOCIATION, INC. f P.t?: SD~54 D CUTCHOGUE, N.Y., 11935 LbRA TOWN oFA September 22, 1984 Board of Appeals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal of issuance of permit bearing number 13244 Z dated June 20, 1984 to Gus Wade to construct a one family dwel- ling on premises being lot no.2F in Block 7, Section 110 on County Tax Map No. 1000 Gentlemen: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA- TION, INC., as owner in fee of premises abutting, adjoining and being in the proximity of the subject premises above cap- tioned, does hereby appeal the decision of the Building Depart- ment of the Town of Southold granting and issuing a building permit bearing no. 13244Z to one Gus Wade for the erection of a one family dwelling. The said appeal is hereby made and prosecuted by said FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC,, as a party aggrieved by the said decision and the issuance of the permit thereunder, in that the same was made, rendered and issued in violation of the Town Law of the State of New York and particularly in vio- lation of Section 280-a thereof and other applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances relating to, concerning and governing the same, and further in tnat the same was made and issued in the total and wanton disregard of the rights of the said asso- ciation, its members and the residents of the area and to the prejudice of their collective and individual rights and adverse. to their interests in the realty owned by the association and the respective realty owned by them in the area. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the matter be reviewed with or without a hearing and that a determination and decision be made, filed and issued revoking and cancelling the said permit and any and all rights or privileges thereunder and that tic commemncement of any work or the continuation of anv work if alreadv commenced undpr tnp calrf PPrmi- rtp gravi'ci .;Writ L. jli 1 lilda UULUrRUII" LOU v- • FORM NO. 5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. S7' F w o ILk, ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLA % TION QQ Date ~.:..1.........., 1911. TO L7 3 .a .0Z (owner or authorized agent of owner)`' 1 U9L (address of owner or authorized agent of owner) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of: Zoning Ordinance Other Applicable Laws, Ordinances-or Regulations 76f:t?N ZL of premises hereinafter described in that .R.N...... A.PP...~..... QI..~......4T 1. t7....~?.. (state character of violation) Z°.. .v9.... c 0...........W. p:......1 ......~I m~Q'......./... is...., E~1c F , < iUU Q'+o rJ o e - I 1 ......I....._..._.............5 ...................1........................................... in violation of ..-LO!V.N.....h~i tJ......i7a...4.7 (State section or paragraph of applicable law, ordinance or regulation) YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the law and to remedy the conditions above mentioned forthwith on or before the ...-?...4'?!).A~y day of ...:4,.1........ 197... 1 The premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers ore situated at ............County of Suffolk, New York. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of low may constitute on offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Building Inspector Approved in accordance «v determinallondracd f yam. o C] -TO'h'rt k+ C ; tl . r V Ve i a ? : Vv t 9 to-,~ - io _ U `A,7 ( C / ' i ~l+ur'i7 Z'rES." e R3YLGstr, -Zr;03 _ ~ ; C7 it J -f-,4 y^^..:y Y E' ce ,'1•~',. ,•i ` ~_°P r t sV MAP F"1t~PE~TY - _ F 1 t ~ ~ O Ar "o, CUTC HOGU L SP TOWN OF SQUFHOt-P N.Y. { 1 ~ f Y of ~ - _._r - . z % -r pT kit - - 6 i' 1 I :`,e' 1 ' WELL PT.* 1+a. a ?+ir~ _.-a'I r~_.~ ' FQR. R.O. SYSTEM i Di •/j~9~i-} ,L aROGo. SEPTtC ao P s, °p u It i .t v t t _ ~,b SCALE 20,I f,- T f. P T , Z t 9 ~ s , 0 sue. % MAD AMENDED MAR.11U,NWAPG.21,1989; y JAq 16 7 4„S!J'I' 1 w~ s s1:: vU Q YE YL L - DEC. _ IF ~ ,sm QrV~. G / L - G3 LIC. LANQ Stw`EYotZ5 - St2 IENPOIRp-j ?*4Y• • c, 4. J> 'J~G_' 1s MBA + 54=,~ _i=ti'EL~U.E.,,, V ) v~ McNULTY - SPIESS ATTORNEYS &COUNSELORS AT LAW 633 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 757 RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 516 - 727-8200 JOHN R. McNULTY FAX 516-727-8262 JAMES SPIESS EDWARD D. BURKE OFCOUNSEL JOHN RUSSEL SPRAGUE III March 13, 1990 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Gustave J. Wade Dear Mr. Goehringer: Confirming our conversation about your letter addressed to Mr. Gustave J. Wade dated March 2, 1990 and delivered to him on March 10, 1990 wherein you set a deadline for March 14, 1990, I wish to advise that your interpretation of the application is incorrect. Mr. Wade's application is for approval of access under Town Law 280-a. When Mr. Wade applied for a budding permit, he was told he had to obtain a permit for the construction from the Trustees and access approval under 280-a from the Board of Appeals. The Trustees indicated that they would require a fuU scale SEQRA review, EIS etc. and I believe the statement was something to the effect that he had to go back to square one. He was also informed that he could not process these applications in tandem but that the Board of Appeals would have to watt for the fullTnLstee review. The Board of Appeals application seemed to have the lesser impact under SEQRA and therefore he chose to proceed with the 280-a application. There is no bridge approval pending (at the present time) and access to the property will be by foot over the Trustee land or by water over Trustee land under water (creek bottorrd. Mr. Wade has permission from the Trustees to construct the dock complete with SEQRA approval. WNULTY - SPIESS ATTORNEYS S COUNSELORS AT LAW March 13, 1990 Page 2 I don't know where you got your information that Mr. Wade lacks authority to have access over the very property proposed in the present application. It is true that the trustees have denied Mr. Wade a permanent easement and blacktop driveway and have refused to entertain his application for a bridge permit, however they have stated that he does have access by foot as well as by water. Since the property is only a short distance from the public highway, it is our position that we have as much access as many homes which are located 100 feet or more distant from the highway and also have access similar to several of the islands in the Town. I think this confirms our telephone conversation and I hope that it clar(f les the applicationfor you. It was a pleasure talking with you and with kind personal regards. `7 Very s, J HN R. V JRMspt Enclosure i ~ ~ S~FFO~CO~~ Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD -STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 `7J01 TELEPHONE 1516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ?VjarC".Y1 2 1990 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Mr. Gustave J. Wade 41 Willougby Path East Northport, NY 11731 Dear Mr. Wade: On February 26, 1990 we were in receipt of the enclosed letter from the Town Board of Trustees. In quoting the third paragraph it states, "The Southold Trustees do not want any involved agency action concerning a bridge over Trustees land where the Courts have twice upheld our disapproval of granting an exclusive easement over Trustee Land to Mr. Wade". Based upon this letter we are attempting to determine how to proceed with your Appeal No. 3913. Obviously, you lack the authority to have access over the very property you proposed in your present application. We are bound by the proceedings before the Trustees as affirmed by the courts. It is our understanding that this Board cannot permit an access over another's land without their permission and therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to proceed with your application at this particular time, including SEQRA review. It is our preliminary belief that this application, if not withdrawn, will require full SEQRA review, including preparation of a environmental impact statement. Please advise this Board no later than March 14, 1990 whether you will withdraw the application or alternatively insist on processing this obviously academic matter. Yours 1et 1 . Gerard P. Goehringe Chairman df . FORM NO. 3 i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date z....., 19 9 0. . To f r`}l PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated 4~0 4 9........, 19 .71.9. for permit to ! !4.. 4...A++a..~ .vax~ )..l.q at Location of Property ..........ow~ r,un y,u , I, , , , , , , , , , , , House No. Street 1 Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 1/.Q Block ....0.7....... Lot . d?? Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. . is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds a. $ 9 . A 4~uwm.C~.rtati, X ~ ~ u ~ a.n•~ ~ulo,tiw ;4 • v u . ..Q tl A 44L D On . ,W7\ -C'4-4. .se's- Building Inspector RV 1/80 BO OF HEALTH 3 S OF PLANS FORM NO.1 SURVEY TOWN OFSOUTHOLD CHECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEPTIC FORM TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 NOTIFY TEL.: 765-1802 CALL MAIL TO:~{I ~JtQQ~ ut 6.4 Examined 19 Approved .19 Permit No...........: ~ Disapproved a/c N 1 91990 IQ (Building Inspector) Tr.,. APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date t .l 15 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 demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, bu' din; code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary ins ctto s. , or name, if a corporation) (Signature oi' appli kkl ~l. i~byyl,.bt, ?ti JIIiI~t ~u K (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name of owner of premises ~(15~0.~ Q...~ . (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 . Outer Trade's License No . I. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. . ~ZccA Cy~Z~c• V.rZ_ House Number Strcet~ Hamlet 1 County Tax \lap No. 1000 Section Q Block • , , . , Lot ...Z Subdivision Filed Nlap No. Lot . (Name) . State existing use and occupancy of p`rreem~..ises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy • • Intended use and occupancy . eo c~e~.c~ ~....~..`~-(.moo . i ~ 3. Nature of work (check whic s, If h applicable): New Building . Repair Addition Alteration • • • • Removal Demolition . . . . . . . . . . . Other Work ~y 4. Estimated Cost . . Q.~ e~Q Fee (Description) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ....O (to be paid on tiling this application) Number of dwelling units on each floor . 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 Height Depth . Number ofStories ...j,,,,,•,,,-••••• Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front . Depth IIeight............ Rear.................. Number of Stories . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front .....3a , . , , Rear . • O Height 3.......... Depth ~JO Number of Stories a-. • 9. Size of lot: Front • • • • . Rear.................... Depth . . . . . . . . . 10. Date of Purchase . . me of Former O ner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..V'.., . 13. Will lot be regraded ° ' ' • •4 A • • • • • • • • • - • ........Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes No 14. Name of Owner of premises(" ~ • , , , , Address . • Phone No.'' Name of Architect... 7•g.-py~ • • • ~ Address ...................Phone No.............. Name of Contractors Address Phone IS.Is this property located within300 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES ...NO.... *If yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW YORE, COUNTY OF . • . • ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Dame of individual signing contract) above named. fie 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 this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this /.9 ......day of 19 f~. Notary Public, i, & vI County NOM MEN K. DE el VOE Now Yak 1 ~ . Term (Signature of applicant' Art. 16 ZONING AND PLANNING 280-a act of the town outside the limits of any incorporated city or tillage until it has become a public street or highway and is duly ,!aced on the official map or plan, provided, however, that sub- lest to the discretion of the town board, a subsurface utility or j improvement operated for revenue by the town or by a special ! datrict may be constructed by the town in a private street, pro- f rifled a public easement satisfactory to the town board is obtained for such utility or improvement. L.1932, c. 634; amended L. i . 1038, c. 264, § 5; L.1939, c. 590, § 2; L.1942, c. 497; L.1945, c. tit; L.1949, c. 750, eff. April 22,1949. ii Historical Note laws 1949, c. 750, omitted provl- that part of section which Is now 6,ns relating to buildings not on section 280-a u ned streets which are now con- :.gncd In section 280-a. Amend- Law of 19 Derivation. ag09, og, c. 03Section is from Town •~nts by L1942 and L1947 airected , § 149-q, as added by L.1927, c. 175. t § 280-a. Permits for buildings not on improved mapped ! streets 1. No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued - unless a street or highway tare has been duly placed on the official map or plan, or if there ffij be noofficial map or plan, unless such street or highway is (a) an existing state, county or town highway, or (b) a street shown upon a plat approved by the planning board as provided in sec- lions two hundred seventy-six and two hundred seventy-seven of I this article, as in effect at the time such plat was approved, or td a street on a plat duly filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk or register prior to the appointment of such plan- ring board and the grant to such board of the power to approve plats. 1 Before such permit shall be issued such street or highway I 'hall have been suitably improved to the satisfaction of the town board or planning board, if empowered by the town board in e accordance with standards and specifications approved by the i ta.a•n board, as adequate in respect to the public health, safety Ind general welfare for the special circumstances of the partic- ! ctu street or highway. Alternatively, and in the discretion of rich board, a performance bond sufficient to cover the full cost fi ! of such improvement as estimated by such board shall be fnr- ! nshed to the town b3' the owner. Such performance bond shall issued by a bonding or surety company approved by the town ! ,ard or by the owner with security acceptable to the town board, 41 IacKinney ii 190 to End-2o 305 I 280-a TOWN LAW Art. it and shall also be approved by such town board as to form, sut9• ciency and manner of execution. The term, manner of modi3, cation and method of enforcement of such bond shall be detc-. mined by the appropriate board in substantial conformity with section two hundred seventy-seven of this article. 3. Where the enforcement of the provisions of this section would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, or where the circumstances of the case do not require the strut. ture to be related to existing or proposed streets or highways. 0.4 applicant for such a permit may appeal from the decision of tl.t administrative officer having charge of the issue of permits to the board of appeals or other similar board, in any town which has established a board having power to make variances or ex• ceptions in zoning regulations, and the same provisions are here by applied to such appeals and to such board as are provided in cases of appeals on zoning regulations. The board may in l _ ing on such appeal make any reasonable exception and issue the permit subject to conditions that will protect any future street or highway layout. Any such decision shall be subject to review _ by certiorari order issued out of a special term of the suprenu court in the same manner and pursuant to the same provisions as in appeals from the decisions of such board upon zoning reguls- tions. 4. The town board may, by resolution, establish an open dr velopment area or areas within the town, wherein permits maY be issued for the erection of structures to which access is given { by right of way or easement, upon such conditions and subjcd f to such limitations as may be prescribed by general or specW rule of the planning board, if one exists, or of the town board it ' r a planning board does not exist. If a planning board exists i» such town, the town board, before establishing any such opts is development area or areas, shall refer the matter to such plu• { ning board for its advice and shall allow such planning board a { M reasonable time to report. ~a 1 5. For the purposes of this section the word "access" 51LV9 mean that the plot on which such structure is proposed to bt erected directly abuts on such street or highway and has sufficient , frontage thereon to allow the ingress and egress of fire truc," ambulances, police cars and other emergency vehicles, and, t frontage of fifteen feet shall presumptively be sufficient for 011A - purpose. Formerly § 280 part; amended L.1942, c. 497; L-- 1945, c. 741; renumbered 280-a and amended L.1949, C. 7&03 L.1954, c. 750; L.1958, c. 334, eff. March 24.1958. qnr Irt. 1G ZONING AND PLANNING § 280-a. Note I Historical Note oichline amended by L.1954, c. Subd. 3, formerly last sentence of 1-~l eiff. April 17, 1954, which In- first par., so numbered and amended nl "Permits for" and "Improved". by L.1954, a 750, eff. April 17, 1954, , ?nhd. 1, formerly first sentence, so which substituted "or" for "and" fol- t:c:Jcred by L.1954, c. 750, eH. April lowing "hardship," In first sentence. Subd. 4, formerly last par., so num- Fulxl. 2, formerly second sentence, bored by L.1954, c. 750, off. April 17, w numbered and amended by L.1954, 1054. r .;A, off. April 17, 1954, which Subd. 5, added by L.1933, c. 334, off. +aborlred town board to accept per. March 24, 1958. ' l,m:mree bond from owner of build- Derivation. Section is from Town ;q not an Improved mapped street, Law of 1909, c. 63, § 140-r, as added i~ r (over cost of improvement, before by L.1927, c. 175. "m4 for construction of building is f a.rd. Cross References 'i II (wArming or changing regulations as to land platted, ace Village Low, 1 1" 0-p. Notes' of Decision s Gserally 4 Its terms. Brous v. Smith, 1952, 304 saass 5 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 503. s;;tAI 11 Uaditians on granting permit 6 Provision of this section requir- n tasitltutlonality I Ing that road giving access to pro- - f+ntruttlon 3 posed structure be suitably Improv- Csd of Improvement 9 ed before building permit may be Is- is rreslago 8 sued, merely conditions approval of x construction upon complinnee with (wounds for denial of permit goner- reasonable conditions designed for ally o 7 hood protection both of ultimate purchas- i I rrrfoso 2 10 ers of home and public, is within po- I,Kurl 2 lice power, and is not objectionable ttasrlly for performance 10 as compelling construction of roads on land at owner's expense without j compensation from town. Id. s tLrary references I Provision of this section that no + Zoning e+86. permit for erection of building shall ! U.S. Zoning § 65. issue unless street is on plat duly filed nod recorded, and that before L Constitutionality permit shall issue such street shall provision of this section requir- have been suitably Improved to satis- u that road giving access to pro- faction of town board or planning i ,-w l structure be suitably Improv- board as adequate in respect to public health, safety and general welfare for r «t Were building permit may be Is- special circumstances of particular w•d, and providing for rolaxatioa of street, is a reasonable and valid regu- ( w-h condition in cases of practical ]anon in light of importance of means il! t;01 not unnecessary hardship, 4xs not deprive an owner unreason- of access to outside world. Id. Oil of property if statute Is prop- Subdivision 2 of this section requlr- ay administered in accordance with Ing that street giving access to pro- II 307 I moor 5 280-a TOWN LAW Note I Art. is ' posed structure be suitabl hn ],,,proved y 1 guarantee that before bulWinp ,a before a building permit may be is. streets shown on filed map or cthw i sued is constitutional. Bayer v, Pugs- streets shall be occvyied and atrt.a j Icy, ]938, 13 1lisc.2tl 610, 17G N.Y.S. used, streets shall meet certain n .i 2d 848, affirmed 7 A.D.2d 828, 181 N.Y.S 2d 781, qutrnments for protection o[ Mvhs, safety and general welfare. Luis.:. This section Is substantially relat- Domes, Inc, v. Johnson, 1933, I, y, ed to public health, safety and gen. Y•S.2d 149. a ! oral welfare of community, Is not or- `.I bitrary, and is constitutional, as 3. Construction Z. against contention that it deprived pe- Under this section provision it.M titioner of property without due proc- no building permit shall Issuc tc:J ess of law and denied him equal Pro- roads shown on plat have Ixrn ta. I~ i I tection of the law. Brous v. Smith, proved to satisfaction of town bu rl ' 1951, 109 N•Y.S.2d 289, affirmed. 304 and that if applicant feels lie has.++ N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 303, ceptional case, he may go to rant: board of appeals which may mat, 'i 2. Purpose exception or direct issuance of fed Provision of this section requir- ditional permit, must be strictly .cro. ing that road giving access to pro- strued, in view of facts that pro.+ l Posed Structure be suitably improved sion is derogatory of common Is, before building permit may be is. and that town Is municipal mrizt+. sued, Is concerned with problem of tion of limited Powers. Lugil cuaunnnity planning and is designed Homes, Inc. V. Johnson, 1053, 1': X to secure uniform and harmonious de- Y•S.2d 149. velopment of growth, as are identical - provisions in the General City Law, 4. Generally 30, and the Village Law § 179-o. Town building Ins i rl~\'" Brous v, R1111111, lb.-i2, 304 N.Y. 164, have authority nudercezouin;idaN,. E 106 N.E._d 5503. nance to Issue a building IMnldl to 1 Provision of this section empower- gas and electric company fur as Ing the local planning board to re- structfoa of a substation in is n.. quire as a condition to the approval dential district. New York 91si. of a subdivision plat, that all streets bllce• & Cas Corp. v. BICCaIm, or other public places shown on plats 32 MIsn2d 898, 224 N.Y.S _d u.7. shell be suitably graded and paved and that other improvements install- 5. Access cd, or alternatively, that performance This section prohibiting Issuance .f Q" 1 bond sufficient to clever cost of ice- building permit unless street or Idr'L- provements shall be furnished by own- way giving access to proposed s4m, or, mflects legislative judgment that lure is on map or plan or stm4 r t building up of unimproved and un- highway exists or is shown on developed areas ought to be accom- proved plat did not require aunt. Ponied by provision for roads and and contract vendee of thrm 6e0 streets and other essential facilities fronting on town highway to Me to met basic needs of new residents division map to obtain building 1.0 1 of area, as does identical provisions mit. Jack Homes, Inc. T. Boldnoa Of the General City Law, § 33, and the 1963, 30 :llisc.2d G93, 241 XV.A2f Vilinge Law, § 170-C. Id. 487. _ Purpose of this section providhig One-acre plot resulting from r-L that building permits shall not be Is. division of two-acre tract would list, sued except for parcels fronting on, sufficient access to improved put:r i among other things, a street shown road over strip of land 17 furl *la on a map approved by planning board and 396 feet long as would went l j end that no building permit shall issuance of area variance. ?Ialfrv. issue until roads hove been improved monaco v. Bartels, 1962, IG XVA t ! to satisfaction of town board, is to 070, 227 N.Y.S.2d 74. j j 308 w.. ,w.. - .L ...h J ' ~T k ha~ t~~ P rr i ~ .ar 1. y § 280-a i ' sArt. 18 ZONING AND PLANNING r _w.. Note 5 - ~ Reronl disclosed each praettcal dif- served by two private roads, part of Smiles arising out of beetle, of one- fee title to which rested in other own . ' - #t ore plot to which access to lmprov eta arbitrary, unreasonable or enDri r 1900, 200 N ,4 public road WAS Provided by means clone. Merrill V. dis Jagger, , of lead some 17 feet wide Y.82d 847, appeal l dtamiseed 11 A.D. of ` eI a strip 396 feet long as would Permit -2d. 703. 205 N.Y.8.2d 86L y... panting area varfence.,Id. This section reflects the legislative as J un- l Cofer subdivision 2 of this sectionIndgntved that the ndevelo up Of prohibiting fiance of building Per IMProved and udev¢loPed areas mit unless a street or highway pro-. ought to be accompanied by provl- -rlJcs scoca to proposed structure, no stone for roads and Streets and other 'larticular form of Physical access be- -.essentlal facilities to meet the basic x_ tween'streets and proposed structure needs of the new residents of the t' I, required but physical aeeese must area and the Provisions are manda 'r IL to proposed structure and not Cory In nature and require the own t merely to portion of lot which fronts er prellminaeily to afford access by , A street. New York State Blea do suitable improved roads to the dwell- CU p. v. McCabe, 1901, 82 Miss ing he proposes to erect. Truesdale car y 593.221 N.Y.8.2d 527. p _ Lake Property Owners Assn, Inc.. V. Collin, 1959, 22 Mlaa2d 27, 189 NY l:asemevt held by electric tympany 82d 709. x' from state highway to proposed site for a substation did not meet the re- Issuance of a building permit by -e _ 4airement of subdivision 2 of this a town is not dependent on aceeea to ,lion that there be acme from the proposed structure by a dedlent• _F part or highway to Proposed mac- ' ed highway, but upon other state ..tam Id. s+."",At"P. tor9 qualifications concerning access. 0m-. Bayer v. Pugsley, 195a 13 Mlsa2d Under ordinance to effect that no 61C, 176 N,Y.S.._d 818, affirmed 7 A.D r + lot should contain building used for 2d 828, 181 N.Y.82d 781. rrslJence unless It had an onobstfight-oD a W easem¢nt of access or a right-ofWhere lot was loceted on a street , ny at least 15 feet wide to a street, ' - shown on a Dlnt filed and record n 45-foot easement owned one-halt by prior to appointment of town pl g _ - `vuner of one lot and one-half by own- ning board and the board's reception H of another lot, thus constituting it of power to approve plats, lot quail- w~. Woot unobstructed easement of ae- fund for building Permit insofar as um or right-of-way, was sufficient subdivision 1(c) of this section re- "se-! It was not xvtuirod that each quires that them be a street or high- r: . r"Ident should have a separate 15• - way giving access to the proposed foot rightof-way. McClasson Build- - building. Id. 'q», inc. Y. Tompkins, 1060, 203 N.Y. This section prohibiting issuance . -y.^.J Gi3. of permit for erection of building un The concept of "right-of-W807" is less there is a street giving access - rot of an exclusive nature so that to proposed building did not prohibit °T ;`-aam thnn one dominant estate may Issuance of permit by building in *are right-of-way or easement in specter of town for building on three- wmmon with other dominant estates _ acre tract where a public street ran - wet a common servient estate. Id. to a dead end formed by western line Of Aelion of town Board of Appeals tract. J. I`, Hennessy Assoclatee, is ndiuving owner of lot abutting on Inc. v Crlfdn, 1956 155 N Y 82d - nasl and located is a motel district 375. trrmltting construction of a marine, This section does not require as (AN strict enforcement of this see- condition of Issuance of permit for. f, _ don requiring that every proposed erection of building on lot abutting loliJing have access to a public street on an improved county highway, any sr street upon a filed map was not, form of physical access, but merely flub respect to such lot which. won any reasonable means. Annandale, - . . 309 - -a kll s ,.1 ,z TOWN LAW " Art. 18 ` IQ~F „ § 280-a ` i t"b:•, Hate 5 E Inc. ;:.Y. Brienza, 195% 1 A.D2d 785, 7 Grounds for donlal of permit gu•', ( •.:'148 N.Y.S2d 17. y I orally •,?Pi4?.sa;. ~I Although lot was located upm 1 A'Whore proposed residence was to -street giving access to lot. PetltlOm'r ' be erected about 400 feet back from was not entitled to a permit to erect improved county highway on which a house on the lot when town build- lot abutted, and Building Inspector of Ing department and Zoning Board at' " , town contended that them was 120 Appeals found that the ame Involved ; $ - proof Of access to the Proposed real" was without surface drainage and '.'denc0 within meaning of this ton, 'proper sewer facilities and building - ' ."and applicant for building Permit con- of dwellings thereon would create an tended that inasmuch as lot had extreme health hazard to people bur. t" fill r frontage on county highway, and legal Ing such dwellings. Green Am,a „ ` ,,,right of access thereby existed. build- Bldg. Core. T. Board of Zoning Ap• - Y`,Ing permit should Issue as of right.' peals of Town of Irondequolt. 1 order of Special Term directing Build- 22 Misc.2d 877. 197 N.Y.82d 5C5. ' s - king Inspector to issue a permit would iii be reversed and matter would be re- A building permit can be vnlidlt`• mended to Special Term for taking denied, under subdivision 5 of tbir "xx sisal to- section, only when conditions rc , 61 -a of proof with respect to Phy a cess from county highway to Proposed forth fire apHamtug and other l~out y therein eannot be met: #(g, .:residence. Id. gency vehicles cannot safely and wltb e P ' ' da n = - reasonable certainty travel to and - ranting permit. -from the proposed structure, Beta zY Conditions on If Town zoning board of appeals was Homes, Inc. Y. Dickerson, 1A,3, 18 - ,e not required to grant building Permit Mise2d 732. 179 N.Y.82d 171, alOrm "tat „ _ unconditlonnily to owner of land abut. ed 8 A.D2d 040, 180 N.Y.S.2d 215.. - -.;,M ti 1 ling town line toad which was in dis- ,Abuilding permit may not be Is. • - •"'repair and unused, but unconditional fully issued for the erectlan of a e. 4•%:'iu. dental was arbitrary, and board • building In a town not OR an lmprot should devise compromise to allow ad mapped street until them has best owner to use land without imPrOv- compliance with this section. 15 Op ~ K^ f ' ?ping road. Fink v Jagger, 1980, 211 , State Compt. 201, 195!1. Sec, also `I N.Y.S.2d 51. • n„ , 0"tate Compt 181, 1950. Planning board may squire inclu•Frontage s Stan of park facilities in approving a ' w ` ' • „ now plat or an undeveloped plat, but 'Town zoning amendment sego r At issuance of building permit could not a minimum width of 40 Legit On street 3 be conditioned upon payment to town line was not invalid on ground that of Islip of Sam to be allocated to it Imposed restrictions on fronm90 °f 4p ' 13 F yt ; town park fund. Beggs Homes, Inc. lots beyond those fixed pp catioei of ;l 1 . j t v. Dickerson, 1958, 16 Mlse2d 732 - 5 of section 2S0-a APP 170 N.Y,S.2d 771, affirmed 8 A D 2d Dc4o Cont. Corp.. 1902. 36 Mine- t . s r. 285, 232 N.Y.82d OM 030, 186 N.Y.82d 210 , A ~-A town planning board may not re- 9. Cost of improvement quire an applicant to improve a pre- ' Court bad no Pawer ta compel on c _ existing substandard town mad as a to sham cost of sheet improve mrat h condition either to subdivision SP, ncceseary for lntlldLug permits C" s j l ~y proval or to the granting of a build though other abutting owners mlti - ( r t 1 t t Ing permit, OP•Statc CompG 05-73. some day benefit from it without cow f Utere ta 811aao p A town board or planning board is tributing anything not authorized to require en aPPU- Baldtvln' ?001. 214 N Y 3 2d 78a Pt 5. z cant for a building permit to lm• P f 1p ya town highway as a condition IO• Security for partormano! 1 1, V -prov0 1 l -to the issuance of such permit 12 Acocptanco of and snit on Ignd qui >..:Op.State COI 30, 1958• md. by town Dlannin9 board. nor- . 15, • - _ M Art. 16 ZONING AND PLANNING § 281 *9 *'t - ? 11 sbotying new rd as condition streets por highways may 11. rr nt t its ~ APP y'ta. 13 OP.SGtte Compk ! ' &pproral Of Plat Mod by developer nauim filing of performance bond to t: when enforcement of provisions oft psure Installation of said improve- subdivision 3 of this section requiring _ vents does not preclude refusal of certain standards of sexes to 8 pro- ' ' • , banding permit under this section. posed structure before the issuance teamor Homes, Inc. v, Johnson, 1953, of a town buildin • ' r f- i._ I-- \ Y 3 2d 149 - - y permit results In , Practical difficulty or unnecessary f hardship, Property owner may appeal In to of regatrhng the applicant to board of appeals, which Is empow- to a building permit to Improve the Knit on which his Property Is locat- a e to grant nd which is subject to review by C A - rd, a town board may accept a cash certlorart. Bayer v. Pugsley, 1958 13 6•Imlt or a performance bond to 3flac2d 610, 176 N.Y.8.2d 848, affirm + d { amr the estimated cost of future ed 7 A.D.2d 828, 181 N Y 82d 781 281. Approval of plats; conditions for changes in zoning ~a li =1 s provisions s.- The town board is hereby empowered by resolution to authorize 't the planning board, simultaneously with the approval of a plat or plats pursuant to this article, to modify applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, subject to the conditions hereinafter lit forth and such other reasonable conditions as the town board • ; r, v `may in its discretion add thereto. Such authorization shall e t`specify the lands outside the limits of any incorporated vii r i bgeto which this procedure may be applicable. The purposes J - of such authorization shall be to enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land in such a manner as to pro- mote the most appropriate use of land, to facilitate the adequate " r and economical provision of streets and utilities, and to preserve t the natural and scenic qualities of open lands. The conditions hercinabove referred to are as follows : r (a) If the owner makes written application for the use of this procedure, it may be followed at the discretion of the planning fill ` board if, in said board's judgment, its application would benefit the town. , . (b) This procedure shall be applicable only to lands zoned for° residential purposes, and its application shall result in a permit. led nuiliber of dwelling units which shall in no case exceed the number which could be permitted, in the planning board's judg- ment if the land were subdivided into lots conforming to the ! minimum lot size and density requirements of the zoning ordi- oance applicable to the district or districts in which such land h situated and conforming to all other applicable requirements, r 311 k > _ I i r 05~~r~(J(C' FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, 111 JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR.QI HENRY P. SMITH BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 October 14, 1988 Mr. John Holzapfel, Chairman Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Holzapfel: Transmitted herewith is application No. 676 for a Wetland Permit submitted by Gus Wade. Please prepare a written report of findings and recommendations with respect to this application. Very truly yours, Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. President Board of Town Trustees FAK:hk Attachment cct. Bldg. Dept. Planning Board Z.B.A.. - , 1\ 1v1v~I}l (516) 7651892 110) kill) (IF 'f()\J'V 'I'RI TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1 1971 APPLICATION 1S HEREBY MADE TO THE TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE LAWS, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COASTAL AND INTERIOR WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS AND DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 32 OF THE CODES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. • APPLICATION NO._lY d-l-b ---------DATE OF APPLICATION 8/31/88 IDENTITY OF APPLICANT_ Gus _Wade-by-En-Consultants, Inc. PHONE NO 516- 643-2605 or 499-0496 ADDRESS OF APPL I CANT -c,/a.-A-Ll-laland-EquiL2mp-at.-Ia-jeragy_St West Babylon, NY 11904 TAX MAP NO. 1000-110-7-28 AGENT En-Consultants, Inc. ,_1329 North Sea Rd. PHONE NO. Southampton, NY 11968 --------SIb=283=6360---- PERMIT REQUESTED TO See Attached. LOCATION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH PERMIT WANTED .End _of_East -Road, Cutchoque__--- HOME ADDRESS OF PERMIT APPLICANT IF DIFFERENT FROM AFORESAID LOCATION 39_Jersey_St_i_West_Baby1on,-NY 11704 CREEK, BAY OR HARBOR FRONTING PROPERTY Eugenes Creek SIZE OF PROPOSED WORK See Attached project description LENGTH I It WIDTH 1. 10 HEIGHT ABOVE HIGH WATER 6+1 DEPTH BELOW LOW WATER N/A YARDS TO BE EXCAVATED N/A YARDS TO BE FILLED 1755+1 WIDTH OF CANAL, CREEK OR BAY FRONTING PROPERTY N/A DEPTH AT LOW TIDE N/A AVERAGE RISE IN TIDE 21 - 611 (but not applicable) DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL N/A FT. DISTANCE PROJECT EXTENDS BEYOND SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THE AREA N/A F• IS THIS FOR PRIVATE OR BUSINESS USE? Private AREA ZONING Residential A MANNER IN WHICH MATERIAL WILL BE REMOVED OR DEPOSITED Trucked in, dumped and graded INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY Residential A - No Change DESCRIBE ANY KNOWN PRIOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISE AND WHETHER ANY PRIOR LICENSE OR PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ERRECT STRUCTURES OR TO DREDGE OR DEPOSIT FILL ON SAID PREMISES AND WHETHER ANY PERMITS OR LICENSES WERE EVER SUSPENDED OR REVOKED BY A GOVERNMENTA AGENCY__NYSDEC_permit_10_88_0299_was_issue_d_t4 g~on1e--fami 1y-_ _dwelling_on_this_property_____ - DESCRIBE FULLY THE REHABILITATION AND PROPOSED CONDITION OF THE PREMISES AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETED INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE PROJECT SITE IF NECESSARY Beach Grass_ Wl_1_1_-b-e__pj-anta tTnn _ _ completion_of_project,,_______ WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IF NOT THE SAME AS THE APPLICANT.___aee_attached________________________ ARE THERE ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR DEED Tf1.lT WOULD PROHIBIT THIS PROJECT?As bridge will span trustees property (former bed of creek), we believe ere is no pro ibi ion against this. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Install a 65' x 8' (clear) prefabricated steel bridge to span former underwater (now filled upland) of Trustees. Bridge will be supported by concrete vertical members at each end. Approximately 175 c.y. of clean sand and loam fill will be trucked in and capped with 15 c.y. of gravel to create sloped "ramps" at each end. Purpose of bridge is to allow access to proposed house of appli- cant for which permission is also requested. House will be "pedestal" type and will have associated sanitary sys- tme, bluestone driveway, etc. All work will be as per attached site plans. 14.16-412167)-Text 12 ' PROJECT LD. 617.21 SEOI Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART f-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME [44. APPLICANT /SPONSOR Gus Wade b' y En-Consultants, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION- 3 Municipality ed of East Road Cutcho ue county Suffolk PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) end of East Road, Cutchogue 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ® New ? Expansion ? Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: SEE ATTACHED 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially •347 acres Ultimately -347 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? M Yes ? No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ® Res,dential ? industrial ? Commercial ? Agriculture ? Park/Forest/Open space ? Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? XKes ? No It yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals NYSDEC, e .le,„ fi,G' S4 Sys 1-1 s<Oy il. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPgpygL? ER Yes ? No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval NYSDEC #10-88-0299 (formerly 82-0557) 12. AS A RESULT O~33F(( PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ? Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ADDlicantlsponsor name: Wad En- risllltarit5 ZnC. Date. 8/31/88 Signature: (117 t TtheIfCacotion is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 ,,.,u.,-~n.u.x.r.n,u•ir~~~~~~nitNi (IU Li ~Gl,tiaulW Cy NyellGy'j A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.12? It yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL DAF, ?Yes ?No , B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6?• If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ?Yes ?NO C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: - C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly i CJ. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: Cd. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adapted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Ct-C5? Explain briefly. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ? Yes ? No If Yes, explain briefly i I I PART III-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) Setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ? Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. ? Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons Supporting this determination: N., n... m teal Agrncv 11unt or Ivpe Name of ResVUmihle UIl,cer in Load Agency fide al He.Vens~Lle Ulb(rr Ygnature at Kespons,bie Oil.,, in lead Agency Signa Nre or I npanr (It duterent 11-1 resVVnsihle o11-111 Dale 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Install a 65' x 8' (clear) prefabricated steel bridge to span former underwater (now filled upland) of Trustees. Bridge will be supported by concrete vertical members at each end. Approximately 175 c.y. of clean sand and loam fill will be trucked in and capped with 15 c.y. of gravel to create sloped "ramps" at each end. Purpose of bridge is to allow access to proposed house of appli- cant for which permission is also requested. House will be "pedestal" type and will have associated sanitary sys- tme, bluestone driveway, etc. All work will be as per attached site plans. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) STATE OF NEW YORK )SS: Roy L. Haje, President of En-Consultants, Inc BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMITS, AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT THE WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT, IF GRANTED. ize the Trustees agent or representative to enter onto my rty to, inspect tAe In completing this application I hereby aaOFPPLICAN premises in conjunction with review of thpl 69 ipn. SIGNATURE Roy L. Haje, Preside t SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC EXAMINED APPROVED "WETLANDS" PERMIT (CHAPTER 97) APPROVED "BOAT,DOCKS, WHARVES" PERMIT (CHAPTER 32) DISAPPROVED "WETLANDS PERMIT"(CHAPTER 97) DISAPPROVED "BOATS,DOCKS, WHARVES" PERMIT (CHAPTER 32) CONDITIONS, IF ANY EXAMINING BODY SIGNATURE OF CHAIRMAN COMPUTATION OF FEES Approved 2/27/85 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCENN: I authorize En-Consultants, Incorporated, to appl y ( or pcermi is oil III,, Lac hn 1 1 . ADJACENT OWNER SCTM# 1000-110-7-27 Board of Trustees Town of Southold, Town Hall Post Office Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE t.l TO THE ZON NG BOARD .OF.. APPEALS, TOWN OF SO/UITHOLD, N. Y. ~1~7` gV L'... W i ~l©v~ ~qc ~......V4 of 1; (We) Name of Appellant Street and Number ~ l~. I............HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO DATED ..........I..l.....ti.............. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of Applicant for Fermi of I1 i ' 'I I 1 J VV Street and Num er Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LPPS 2.....ZfM N....P?n .:.....QJ7 D~~! Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section~jo Block Lot Current Owner Mop No. Lot No. prior Owner 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 Section )KO :14r ' 3 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop (?Q A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 ( ) 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) as not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this prope y. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No .................................Doted REASON FOR APPEAL (00 A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that k0 inv. -;7- )If$5 tt~~ s ,J..c...eJ~t-~ is ~ti?,~ c.~t..,~ q L,. a Lim, Bbrm Zs1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL • Continued • 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because v I u CCua' ~e S rLC,_0 r.~_ t2 ~Me ~T o ~A t9 i 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 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because tsat ~'l~rt_ V \ cL tci ~ X10 ~~ex2 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss COUNTY OF` k-/J ~t ) nature Sworn to this .........~.0. r day of la'~LAZ.................................... 199'D Notary Public Notary Public, State of New y No. 4822663, Suffolk Coul Term Expires December 31,18_ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL Nq. DATE I ......~b TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) . ` 97:7 L!K ..r...... rSe ...............of .Ai... U8.'q' I 1" j.... Name of Appellant Street and Number n^ V\ ...1 . M~!./. I......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUI DING I PECCTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO DATED Z.........1.......... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO 5~. A, .1- Name of Applicant for permit of y~ kA' ~eeGiLA,~°1:,..J ............................s.........~~~:.. Street and Number Munici li .y State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( > `~'s7.1w,..;~T +L~.z-tea r ct 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..~E? ....I=. :oc R C9'~~) + W.i.\.i........ Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section(, Block Lot's ~,~t_ .Current Owner ~Ro~uy Mop No. Lot No. Prior Owner _ a10oA'C 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 Section aQ'n /ck - _:~5' 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop (Aq A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chop. 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) as not een mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for o variance and was made in Appeal No .................................Dated NNREASON FOR APPEAL ( Y~l A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that 4-0 o- 0~ \ ` k~ L~ Cs ~y t t~ +2cL q~ Q ~ t (11 N21ILC° I Form zsi (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL • Continued • 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because 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 \ a 7%~ 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because ` 15 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss t COUNTY OF J,,go ems) i nature Sworn to this day of...... ....(4u Pi.............................. 19 QlJ '..Z ory P blic LINDA J. COOPER Notary Public, State of New York No. 4822563, Suffolk County J Term Expires December 31,19 i c~~FFOt/~~, 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. -James Dinizio, Jr. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI March 19, 1990 Mr. John McNulty, Esq. 633 East Main Street P.O. Box 757 Riverhead, NY 11901 Dear Mr. McNulty, Enclosed you will find a copy of the Application of Gustave Wade, Appl. No. 3913, dated January 22, 1990. Also attached is a copy of the map, depicting proposed bridge and ramps, dated January 16, 1990 Kindly revise said application, excluding proposed bridge and ramps, as per our previous conversation so that our office may proceed with your clients file. Please communicate these changes to our office on or before April 1, 1990. Sincerely, Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman GPG/df a • ^ o~,~FFOt~,o • u' E Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 0 ~?eV P.O. Box 1179 ?y~l ';t \b~~ Southold, New York 119 71 JUDITH T. TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Dated: January 29, 1990 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3913 application of Gustave J. Wade for a variance. Also included is: Notification to Adjacent Property Owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form letter relative to NYS Tidal Wetlands Land Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; survey of property; and any other attachments relative ~to,this lapplication. Judith T. Terry D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ONVeMPIKV ED 1 tit I ~S ! d g P-14A APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR JAN 2 9 1990 APPEAL NO.?' c// DATE a!LAI..ry...&' Southold TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUT OLD, TN. Y,C1Cfk 1, (We) ~JUSTpJZ ,t', Wacde III Illo~ kb1~ ~'a`\ti~ of Name of Appellant 1{Street and Number n ~,vV"k ot`1 W.r.1°..••...1~.73.I...HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO . DATED K J.Rga WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of Applicant for permit of ~IJ.....kj1?s.!>4.~.a~~l~~.....a`t l. I~\\la(l~ac~f W,~ , I(-r3 Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY Co c'r 0. Nc Vtw, C1LOO V ~C\ 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY OP5D0 iw: T,,, d eTZ.ka(~u e W,u Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 110 B1ock0lLotag + .....................................................................Current Owner ~t+sTiv~ -a-, L-Qckd.e- - Mop No. Lot No. Prior Owner UJAv\dA Glove, -T t 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 Section a sO - k 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map (,p A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 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 appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a varionce and was made in Appeal No .................................Dated REASON FOR APPEAL (XI A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that ikQC T ~u « n ~ U vlel boa a cy 0 C tl1 ~4~5 co~ N6 3302 ~c ~6T4 10.5 { ~(>'t~c~ Av\ ~S S rcl`~ Z W t~s 2~ so vc 'a U c~'r \\ce ~ S ~v W. \ li Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) t~S ch~~ ~~\AC~~vt~ioN 3 ®F m ~T K--110 v:s\0 SeO-N:0 9-gO Q ~F !fie - -Cow~ti 1 IV Air' • i .,lip REASON FOR APPEAL • Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because ^ `11911kovT feL~2~ C eo K Socr,o~, ~Yo 0~ CowK Ce~1t' C0.N~~oT 0~1 t a". 0. P~ si ldC~ ~1 C'~u~ r t^ C- ko P__11 ~ ~eQT 0~ T N ow C) So~f t~ old , F I 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 ~yoeQA`v 1S S2 armed. aov~ `tlk ¢~_C\ 0Sr Yo0oK i~ea2' autie~c~ 2a~d b~ oz_ c--~ ~ C~eQ klCA ~ 0(vtc~-. mow 00ctw~ aAo ©w'~aaoe& zT4rtou~ v\ ~rvs'tes °C «m v. o F Soc~ rtio ~d All 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE §r CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because Wmt9\a v.o't ct~lten 0.~~ 'ex~s~,kCi LA~c~ Uut.oo Opt \i.~ 6v.2 c-a C1 4u~~~t b~ Seae~ ee~ bl\ ~au~~ C~~a cle~'t VQ~~C~~S 0k ~u~anc1~LIL ~cQ~~c\Q~j @S reciw~ ~6tW W~J~k~ g~~q~~~l Q~IJCiI K~ 6s - 75 ~aow~ w t, ~loccve O's VV' S r 0 x t\q c~ S ~ItiQJ~ o~ 1Rcl r c : o t S n ~v e ~'C r. ~ ~1~~ 1 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss t COUNTY OF Soak tute Lk Sworn to this UQ.k day of.....:. 19 9C 11ff I e - otory Public,. MARY L VISCEGUA. fttWy P Nbo. 4818081 WW Yak Ck mNNsd In Su11aMc County _ 1q9 a #Y88 Commhdon Expk" JIM. 11. I REASON FOR APPEAL 6 Continued 9 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sory HARDSHIP because tom'\Tko~+T re's c r~.. Sc, eT;c" c Ccwe Z Cctvtt cT V\q a" s_ ' mss' .c•.\,(k((r no . 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by all properties alike in the immediate I~vicinity of this property and in this use district because R- PJ.O PLI ~C t~ iS ~-L~-~~k'.A Ic<t~(( FC`0. ~u~~-~L\o~-cc2 C vConc~~ CL a-l~`~b~ C.s-CQ\~'n \ C\\\C.W l L"~ ~~.no(` 1~ ~C_nu C L C ~A 6 T ~~LR IQ.~ v\ ~,~J S~~~~ -~l^CL v1 C^ Y Sl'(.~C~p 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because w~ce\c~ "J,O~ CLt"Ve~ QV, Ee~S~~~(r L, (-A, tLurra~o 0A t~V~~~~t~~A(5.~(~~ Fv\L Secce~-jZe` b1l11 \c5u~. F s\E"` 1 Vc\it^~c~~ ¢lu~alclt .e ~.\Cl LEt1,V CCIS~ Mqi \,LkL ~kOCC4.l~ «S hL~ blilcl < Q~ek lLn~~~~ C IeL_~ ~~lCi VeyS 0,k C, 0, V2~1AC~ S ~1Svl~ C~C'(,c c o L A~J"CN STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF ` V-Rok L ) t nature Sworn to this V1 I/ t l~ Dj day of....................... 19 J......`....... otary Public (MANY L VISCEGUA NOW PWAIC. Stab of Nov York No, 4916MI dulNlad In Suffo* cau" commkWwtEvir"Jan. II. ig9z- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE ...aK. PIJqq ......ffpo TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. . 1, (We) ~JUSTaJe_ -T, W?cle ..................of ...'Il...LQ'11Io0gkb~........ a`t-h...................... Nome..of..Ap.pellant Street and Number C0.S`C al~k oa`C `v.r\°.......W.3.J...HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO . DATED 0. l V a l t 9 ~ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO1 Name of Applicant for permit of Street and Number M u n i c i Fali.ty State ( ) PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) \ ~,l w~~T 'Vu 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ......IDCY3...C(S,,,,(njLt y tz1Z1~loC~U e 1~).\~( Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section 110 B1ock0~Lot~ Current Owner GOSTtVe- -1_, U30,d_e__ Mop No. Lot No. Prior Owner Lggv\c~pl Gtoyea -:r:t 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 Section 12 80 - k 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop (10 A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 ( ) 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 appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No...., ............................Doted REASON FOR APPEAL (-)~l A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that ~C-T \.o O~ -V-~e fov vte~ 0 tll E4\S o,. Mb :63 0 2 Q)e_F a 6 10.Cr~{ . ~ct'~e c~ A 2- \ q g S .tN,S A ~I Wt3s 2eso~vcr, \ i Ua~ eS \s w0.t~ end 0.0A- (k, Vql etk\ 'o 'V\O:\5 %,(D x1 (+alsSc~Q~I`rt Form ZB1 v (Continue on other side) `T K.1-0 v:s\0vts off' SJbAk'vt0'iow 3 ®F SP_e~:ow ~1gO - 0- CF T REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because L.ie~ C=.~a„K See-t-~o~• ~Y'c~4_ l!F 'C-o~,,~w. 1.17.\~1loc?T re Ce~e Y cT Oa~- 43s:1~ ~ w.~r rya ` rC3~ilc~ pl ~NPr 0lz- *Tke gown (9 Sotq Yn01d. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties olike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because V\ ~IOe4~A `t~ IS SET-kAA~Ed Flo `ilt~ ~wc, 0~ Yo~K ,n Ck ~tk-v_~~ a a4_-t Road b~ c~_ c CJ-eQ r_ bFd. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because czvL~~ eK~s~;k~ Lai Rao OA as~0.~~ s l . ~M~ otiQ_ u ~',lc~ ~,ccjjIuC~ Ce1~o~ 1Ae Seae~I ae\ ~Qt1 \muo . F~s¢ 1- VQ~~~c`aS (b4 e U C~ S s r e[hv ~i J ~(r` `-6tU3 q~ o 1Rk \ ~ YJ.t _ _ at g \ ACL LVt" i17K b~- 95 tae V& ~kou4e CLS C(tv. vwv S amlra,\ \ ~lo~a s ~~~c~ EKP~q~~ 5 ~VS?~. Vti~ ~lPr: QA C, e V C\,kl t, Q S ~.hO yl.& . C@<? Q 'moo Uti~ PJ-o PabC e/\ a C.` . STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss 9......f\. COUNTY OF 1k ) Sin re ~G Sworn to this ~ day of... .UQI. 19 Qo fvldtary Public MARY L VISCEGLIA Notary Public, State of Now York No. 4816061 GuallrW In Suffolk County Commission Expires Jan. 11, 400 )qq Z TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. q / q 4 DATE ~4!~. a9.......IRRo TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) ~~~sTa~ Wa~e- ..................Of ...Z.!....1ul,llo~gk ....i'a`~~`...................... . Name of Appellant Street and Number . ~~kQ° T .r\°.......1173.~...HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPgE~CTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO . DATED.....aKv.!~.... .......~.~Ra WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENI`ED' TO ~u~~A,~ \~!0.A2_ Name of Applicant for permit of Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) PQIvH,Y ~o Covs`in~c~ }}0.--____Ntc ~Lw, ,1 C.Lz'p\(ti~ 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ......OPP...Iics .,,F~ 01C~1o(v W.\uf Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section~(0 B1ock0~Lot, Current Owner 6es~yave_ ~ o'd-e-- Map No. Lot No. Prior Owner I ~4v\cet rojoyet -.t , 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 Section a So - 1(i 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 Low Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 ( ) 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 appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No .................................Dated REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason thatC~ \o w e~~ ~u "~^~~O01r` @ ~~i ~`!\S o,. J~1a X302 ~e~ ab~`` ~0.~y . ~cx~e_~ ~A.~ 2 - \agS s~~~e~ Wks 2cSo\vc+~ '1na~\\av`~S t~w.~\,1,~ \s y(~ v~al~ crF 0.ti 0. e0.\ ~o ~-4:~S ©n~~ ~uf%oatk'`r norm ZB1 (Continue on other side) ~>ov:s~ot~s o~~ Sv\nc~~ul~iaw 3 ®F sp_e~:ow ~g0 - Q, @F `~-ke- `.C©t~v` ~,-.LLu~ . BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of ~~a~1p NOTICE TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: ec_ t\1 ~~p .l ~fbtlalsC PROPERTY OWNER G < 5 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 ( artance . Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] 2. That the property whichJ's the subject oft a Peti ion is I~p°ca~ed adjacent to our property and is des- cribed as follows: ~~~0 k'_aa k r t"~cll a e a (V` Uk-- t*L 0.k V~°'g-~ do 1 n(no I 3. That the property which is the subject of su h Peti[io is located in the following zoning district: 1 ~ - ~~fey\L~t~ 1 4 That b~ uch Petition, the undersigned will request th following relief: t~,.Q~.~,, ~r~~I~K SCOL.. ~j ~l'~IOL~ '~2SO 2 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Section W 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: 0.1 t 17 I Petitioner Owners'Names: 0"<Z'Voi0~ Post Office Ad ress ~I ( t c~'Il~ovc(lt~ ~i ~ttt 4*- yP ~~'l, Irz31 Tel . No. (.512 ) % Zlgq - C~gg6 Atj03.3 N J rNAdl thoY wall b owe Adu4 rw~ [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attachd@l~f}+ta4' nience purposes ZtnuoJ >ftMtu ai hNQ C!P ,r t n/L a rm~3 nO+iteinYlW7 1 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAME ADDRESS PS Form 3800, June 1985 ~ O D o D D fn o N °m O w m F N °m D O m x ~ °C^ ° m w 3 3 3 'n n m -b n q \ a Qo a ° 1 Z '2 02 m h w p tr y~. o f O F n m m m= nu Gaon S m .1 Z6 'M b 9r 3 a rC rn a mo ni ti D c b r " 1 ' VI Form 3800, June 1985 ~ O D O D H ' N O m ~ N 3 i W m m 1 m ^I ~ r am m m ¢ ~ ~ d m n V11 m ~ T g A j O m wF n m m o>z o <o m ~aT 3 S s `><m m N N = v -oo ru 1c ° C Q" ~ \ lu N l1 ON F STATE OF NEW YORK) ss.: CO~UN,TYn OF SUFFOLK) } y residing at H. oV4, 1( E- rrt l d1 c being duly sworn, deposes and says th on the 9 ~ day of t 19 -YC), deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- vers side hereof, 'rected 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 The Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fce at UJU.~ ti(~~t 0 ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified r istered) mail. i Sworn to before me this O_"1 day of 19 9C) tary Public MARY L "Ca" Alaw/ ? uMk lnM Gf Now lbrk Quemw In /ulblk Ca ualow n mok" wL ii, lq4 a (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) i • FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date z....., 19 9 0. . To ~i w. C a V 2 ~.t~ 0.d_ .F ..t1.Z...... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .O 9........, 19. c1.0. for permit to ~M at Location of Property r. ~UU...... k.t . House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section (/.O...... Block ....0.7....... Lot . AN Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. . is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds 0..41 ..;1.$Q.A.. P r c.i sswr,~.h.N~ rQ°~.a.~.?~ ..1J.c •rLSd4 . ~Y Ua,~.:•;4 ,~1~, , v~/u~ ~..gy~~,,Qs , 7~-. ~ A ~-T` . ~ 3 a 9 S ~ .D.>~..a...JP-a;~i..~ ............................................Y.~ nc.? tsc a o~ Building Inspector RV 1/80 • F0101 NO. S t TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. S7o-? W o 12 ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION Date ....~(J (m . 9......., 199f. ro ....1 U S ~..A ~E U (owner or authorized agent of owner) t ~n{ l s (address of owner or authorized agent of owner) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of: Zoning Ordinance Other Applicable Laws, Ordinonces'or Regulations -TPL! )Aa...4A.w. .....v~.~?.7..... at premises hereinafter described in that ..!4.91..._a.~P•' 41Ae•••••• w• tCl..... (state character of violation) XP 1I ~~:~.......4?.~....APP~u•s....,.......>~:mid........./...3.~.`.~:`~..~ N / Nq........ (:5....1~~`~CKe !e9.!. ~.Ag . .~'v .....Srz.cS,.e.r?..... Iocr..4L!..n in violation of Ts?W.N....... L4W. -.....2-Le--~ (State section or paragraph of applicable law, ordinance or regulation) YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the law and to remedy the yY1 M t• q~~~ . ..--.L•••••...••••••.~• I conditions above mentioned forthwith on or before #4e day of U..4!~e......!O....... 19. A.7. The premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers are situated at _..County of Suffolk, New York. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Building Inspector t; P PROJECT 1.0. AUhIUER , ~ 1 617. SCOR v Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART t I-_ For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PROJECT INFORMATION (To he completed by Applicant Or Project sponsor) • APP CANT 15 PONSOR VS~Q.V °c- 2 \ 2. PROJECT NAME 3. PROJECT LOCATION:/~ V d MUnI°IPallfy ~,12 Q_ S ~~-o l I\ e. PRECISE LOCATION (street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, retc, or Provitle map) t ODD ~QS~i' 0 0. ~ 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ `W VtM y1.LC~1 Eh~- ~ tLSr{ (ZoQ 3. IS PR OSED ACTION: New ?Exoanslon S. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Mo°i/tcatloNarteranon ~ntA COYtS~IA ncT ~IVIcf1~-mow 7• AMOUNT OF LAND nAFFECTED: Y Initially _ r 9~( , 8. WILL PROPOSED ~ ACCTI-, - acre! Ultimately ON COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OT acre! ®Yes ?Np LAND USE HESTRICTION57 If No, tlescrioe 0rielly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? IwRes,dcnlut Olnaustnal r '0 Commercial Describe: O Agriculture O ParkiFOresl/Open space 0 Omer 10. OCAS AC710r/ INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NO STATE ESACT t4 IN 7 W OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, '93 Tes 0 NO If yes, list agency(s) and Permitla 7 V QC-,C PProvals i r _V ko It- ODES ANY ASPECT - THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID pERMIi OR APPROVAL? ~YC! ONO I! yes, list agcn.Y name and Permitlapproval Il . " t 1\ ^ r 12. AS A RESULr OF PROPOSED AQTIOrI WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? 0 Yes rlo 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE APpncanusponsor na e: Ctl~V)LVQ. ^ Oats: Signature: E\`-'A\-ryr^A^pv~J`e~- If the action is in the CO3St31 Area. and you are a stale agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Farm before proceeding with this assessment OVER (Continued on reverse Side) The N.Y.S. Environmental of this Yorm, and an environme Qualintalty Review Act ore an reguires submission review will un bet-ore any action is taken. n:•ine l,y this .,uaru ' SHORT fNVZI201INEpIT. . aSSESSp1E.^tT FOR.i{ Z:7ST3U~=S. that the 11 order to answer the questions preparer will use currently in this short EAF it is assumed project and the likely impacts of • available inforation concerning the additional studies, research or the a nction. It is not other ivestigations wil expected that " (b) If an 1 be undertaken. ni£icant and cam question has been answered Yes the pro' pleted Environmental Assessment Form is]act may be sig- (c) If necessary. proj all questions have been answered No it is likely that the ect is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment l• toltheroroce result in a large physical chance , than 10 acres tofi land? Ye 2- Will there be s unusual a major change to any unique or land form on the site? Yes )(170 3. Will project 7 alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? K NO Will project have a - Yes =`No pote groundwater quality?ntially largcimoact on 5. Will Yes^lo project significantly effete drainage flow on adjacent sites? - _Yes KNo ' 5. Will plant pr oject affect any threatened or endangered or animal species? 7. Will project result in a ma -Yes =`"10 air quality? ]or adverse effect on K,/ S. Will project have a major ---Y2S .Ja.~•o actor of the community or effect on visual char- known to be importantto or scenic e co views or vistas ' community? Yes 1V" o ' 9. Will project adversely intact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological.' importance or any site designated as a critical envircnmental area by a local agency? 10. Will .Yes ~No project have a major effect on existing or , future recreational opportunities? 11. Will ~Vo -Yes project result in major traffic problems or r sysCems'ma7or effect to existing transportation I NO Will - Yes /ENO Project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, Vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's operation? 13. Will YCS INo Project have any impact on public health OC +^aLCCy? 14. Will -Yes ~No direct i,°)CCt affect the existing community by 1 causing a growth in permanent popula- tion at more than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a major negacive etfect on the --Yes -10 character of the community or neighborhood? 15. is there p pro?^cc? controversy concerning the /J Areparer's Signature: ' Ves tg Reoresentin 291 7/75 9:V\) Q , ~s,` Date: _-I :(L(qqo PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor 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 form, Parts A through E. 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 that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) East Road, Cutchogue, Suffolk NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE En-Consultants, Inc. (516)283-6360 ADDRESS 1329 North Sea Road CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE Southampton N.Y. 11968 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Gus Wade (516)643- 05 ADDRESS c/o All-Island Equipment Corporation, 39 Jersey Street West Babylon WAY. T1'~ BE4 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Construct a one-family dwelling. Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ?Urban ?Industrial ?Commercial EResidential (suburban) ?Rural (non-farm) ?Forest ?Agriculture ?Other (vacant) 2. Total acreage of project area: W,Jz4ff' 1 s . f APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 161060, S,G, PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 1 , 500 s . f . 3t 1,500 s . f . atre:g Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 12,060 s.f. & 11,060 s.f. Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres 1 , 000 s . f . &CYC4 Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? sand a. Soil drainage: ®Well drained 90 % of site KlModerately well drained 5 % of site MPoorly drained 5 % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? n~/a acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ?Yes INNo a. What is depth to bedrock? Unknown (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: i 20-10% 100 % 1110-15% % 1115% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ?Yes NINo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ?Yes 7No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 5± (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ®Yes ?No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 10 Yes []No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ?Yes KNo According to Rny L. Haje Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ?Yes KNo Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ?Yes X:No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Eyes ?No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Eugene's Creek b. Size (In acres) 100+ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ?Yes IIRNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ?Yes ?No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ?Yes ?No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Dyes 34No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? XYes ?No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ?Yes CRNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ~sifa8s8 b. Project acreage to be developed:1200 5 -f . A=s initially; 12 00 s . f .xarm ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 10 , 860s . f fiumK d. Length of project, in miles: n/a (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed n/a f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed 2 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 5 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 1 Ultimately 1 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; 36' length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? n/a ft. 3 2: How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes ?No MN/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ?Yes ?No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ?Yes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction .2 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: n/a a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ?Yes ?No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ?Yes ®No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 6 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 PlNo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ?Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? 13Yes ?No Type sewarae 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ?Yes RNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ®'Yes ?No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? OYes ?No a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? IRYes ONo c. If yes, give name Sduthold Landfill ; location Mattituck d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ?Yes MNO e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ?Yes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ?Yes (INo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ?Yes ONo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ?Yes ®No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ®Yes ?No If yes , indicate type(s) Domestic oil and electricity 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 2.3 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 300 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ?Yes ®No If Yes, explain 4 25. 'Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board ?Yes ENo City, Town, Village Planning Board ?Yes ?No City, Town Zoning Board 91Yes ?No Access relief City, County Health Department RIYes ?No SCDH Sani tar-' System Well Other Local Agencies MYes ?No Southold Trustees-wetland to he submitted Other Regional Agencies ?Yes ?No State Agencies ;Yes ?No DEC TW - approved (see attached) Federal Agencies ?Yes ?No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes CINo If Yes, indicate decision required: Ezoning amendment .[Rzoning variance Especial use permit ?subdivision Esite plan ?new/revision of master plan ?resource management plan ?other 2. What is the zoning class ification(s)of the site? - R-40 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? One one-family dwelling 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? n/a 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? n/a 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Eyes ?No 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/. mile radius of proposed action? One family residential 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a Y. mile? 10Yes ?No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? n/a a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ?Yes ®No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, foa protection)? ?Yes &No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ?Yes ENo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ?Yes MNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ?Yes ?No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that t information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor, ame Consultants Inc. Date 1/23/90 Signature Title President Roy 1,1 Ha]e If the action is in the Coastal Area, nd you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 ;yew Yore: S;'ote G rtment of Environmental Conflation yL:_=cUrv -c Unit - RegioiI BIcq. 40, SJNY, Room 219 Ston" Brook, NY 11799 # i` .a art "C"F= 5: 5 j 751-70 00 Thomas G Jorlir~ t$s I9 8 COF[JTJ7~SS+Of78Lk'y o- r + AMENDMENT TO PERMIT Former Permit # ( if anY~` &,x OSs7Y~ Sri Yj' Permit No. 5 location: 10-88-0299 at east end of East itd CutcTiague, i110u,3by x a i" i~ort::ncrt, = 11731 u. ° r. _ -.YsSy been. rev ewed ,1 ;mss;, r -rez _r, t :Ecu ,-est to extend tne above Dermit has D ant t0 o'v , P art 621. It has been determined -thn~ th 2S Q' 1.125-: AOt. ,;.,u, bee7: _ ma er cna.n.y^e in envirbnmenta_ conditions, relevance tech .clogy 'or v4 =nn _cable law or regulations since the issuance of-'the existing pe=mit,~,'r -ter = r _1 on date is extende od to June 30, 1990 Your rec-at _request to modify tine above permit has been-ieviewed s e3 . T has been der _e_,_ rrir._oa l that the prcoos p1 _d"'- to ',art 671 _ t ns not substantially change the scope of t'_ie permitted cr `.e ing permit conditions. __Ore, tnE- permit is amended to _.uthorize: S _?-S 01 A2FT 3 4 Y q, Th s letter to an amendment to the original Perm-;t and as such, <h~lt be nested at t::e -ob site. '4 L YP, All other terms and conditions: remain as written in the origina "Y.=:}"'~~ ~vL lLySG .y1ca `!id septic sy5um is to lk i, aczor -r^ w_tr. sin. plan W. ser:vey Very truly yours, ; TY v 1 Liyt =_Lfnd 11/9/S2. Reta+nit-g X11 g 4 t^ 1 _z. c=_'-.::: .i&. site plan 177 r. dytC~j E/3/3? latw~ t ~ r.."'-. Christine J. Costopo os a- C_7Uty Regicn:al Permit Ad in ln1l' raEOr ~I L Riley yht: Ae ir- NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION I ,TW-10-82-05S7 PERMIT + L UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW 8 ARTICLE 15, (Protection of Water) ® ARTICLE 25, (Tidal Wetlands) ARTICLE 24, (Freshwater Wetlands) ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Hazard Areas) PERMIT ISSUED TO Gus Wade ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon, New York LOCATION OF PROJECT (Section of stream, tidal Welland, dam, building) S en of S o8 adjacent to c ogue Harbor and Haywaters Avenue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Construct one-family dwelling and appurtenances and 120± feet retaining wall. Place 35± cubic yards of fill. j j COMMUNITY NAME (City, Town, 'village) TOWN Hamlet of Cutchogue Southold COUNTY FIA COMMUNITY NO. DAM NO. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE L Suffolk County Dec. 30, 1984 I GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The permittee shall file in the office of the appropriate Regional B. That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage Permit Administrator, a notice of intention to commence work at least 46 or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or hour in advance of the time of commencement and shall also notify him result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or promptly in writing of the completion of the work. improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized compensation shall accrue from any such damage. representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation who may 9. That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authorized rider the work susuended if the public interest so requires. is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be pre. 3. As a condition of the issuance of this permit, the applicant has ac- scribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained cepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal resPon- by and at the expense of the owner. x ibililq for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whom- 10. All work carried out under this permit shall be performed in accor. ever suffered, arising out of the project described herein and has agreed to dance with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike manner. indemnify and save harmless the State from suits, actions, damages and costs of every name and description resulting from the said project. 11. If granted under Articles 24 or 25, the Department reserves the right to reconsider this approval at any time and after due notice and hear-rig to 4. Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted continue, rescind or modify this permit in such a manner as may be founu to shall he removed evenly, without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the be just and equitable. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the red of the waterway or flood plain of deep holes that may have a tendency to modification of the wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, the cause injury to navigable channels or to the banks of the waterway. applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, i. Any material to be deposited or dumped under this permit, either in remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the (he naterway or on shore above high-water mark, shall be deposited or dumped site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the Slate of New the localit, shown on the drawing hereto attached, and, if so prescribed York on account of an such removal or alteration. r,~on, within or behind a good and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such y will prevent escape of the material into the waterway. 12. This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others 5. There shall he no unreasonable interference with navigation by the to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any rights, work herein authorized, title or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a 7. That if future operations by the Stale of New York require an alteration party to the permit. in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion 13. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, ap- ol the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable provals, lands, easements and rights-of-way which may be required for this obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger project. the health, safety or welfare of the people of the Stale, or loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Depart- 14. If granted under Article 36, this permit is granted solely on the bans ment to remove of alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused of the requirements of Article 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law and then-by without expense to the State; and if, upon the expiration or revocation Part 500 of 6 NYCRR (Construction in Flood Plain Areas having Special Florxl of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the Hazards - Building Permits) and in no way signifies that the project will be watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners shall, free from flooding. ..dhuut expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner 15. By acceptance of this Permit the as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or permittee agrees that the permit any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its farmer is contingent upon strict compliance with the special conditions on the condition the navigable and flood capacit- of the watercourse. No claim shall reverse side. be made against the State of New "ork ee account of any such removal or Aleralion. 95.20-4 (9/751 (SEE REVERSE SIDE) r, t SPECIAL CONDITIONS - 16. Applicant shall obtain any permits required by the Town of Southold, for construction in an A-4 (el8) flood zone, prior to commencing construction on the site. 17. The shoreline of the site and the tidal wetlands vegetation located thereon shall not be altered and shall remain in a natural state. 18. Variance of 38± feet to the required building setback of 75 feet and 50± feet to the required septic system setback is granted. I I ~I ICI I I i I PERMIT ISSUE DATE PE IT ADMI ISTRAT ADDRESS Z 21 Cn Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233-00 1 Louis Concra Chief Permit Administrator i QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED MTH YOUR APPLICATION FOT4S 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 ~o 2.a)Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.) Yes No b)Are there any areas open to a waterway without bulkhead? es No 3. Are there existing structures at or below ground level, such as patios, foundations, etc? Yes o 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 fe t above average ground level? State total: ft. Ye No 6. If project is proposed for principal building or structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above average ground level? State total: ft. Yes ~O 7. Are there other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? If yes, please submit copy of deed. Yes P 8. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership, if any)? Yes o 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 No Town Board Yes No Town Trustees es -No County Health Department Yes No Village of Greenport Yes No N.Y.S.D.E.C. Yes No Other Yes No 10. Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes, please submit copy of names or purchasers and conditions of sale. (from contract) Yes o 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 O you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under the requirements of Ch. 97 of the Town Code? Yes Io 13. Please list present use or operations conducted upon the subject property at this time ®tU and proposed SC a~ ( R u„~ ~g Please submit photographs for the record. I certify that the above statements are true and are being submitted for reliance y the Board of App~peeaa~lls in considering my application. Signature Proper Owner Authorized Agent 1/88 G WETLANDS [Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2-1976; .4-26- 85 by L.L. No. 6-19851: A. TIDAL WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently env- 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 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. B. FRESIiWATER 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 B(1) and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- • ward edge of a "freshwater wetland:" ( 9705 2.25. ss If PF 29 (12/79) Standard N.Y. Form 8002 Bargain and Sale Deed, with Covenant agar Iantor's Acts-Individual or Corporation (Single Sheet) CONSULT YOUR I.AWY*ORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS INSTFWNT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. U LlBtK9fi'3 PAGL 310 ViJ~Y, p3~(~ This Indenture, made the 30th day of August, nineteen hundred and eighty-four N.Y.S. Between LEANDER B. GLOVER, JR., residing at (no #).Cox'S Lane, TRANSFER Cutchogue, New York, TAX STAMPS $ 90.00 10c.3bi party of the first part, and GUSTAVE J. WADE, residing at 41 Willoughby Path, East'Northport, New York, party of the second part, 10~ Witnesleth, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the part of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the parry of the second part, the heirs or successors and aigon's of the party of the second part forever, v 3 _ All that ertain plot, piece or parcel of land, KbIlwalixes"at situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and 1000 State of New York, being more particularly bounded and described as fo1lo s: Dist. B GINNING at the northeast corner of the premises being described 110.00 herei , said point being the intersection formed by the southerly Sec, side f Eugene's Creek with the northwesterly side of land now or formerly of Southold Town Trustees; running thence from said point 07.00 or pl ce of beginning along land now or formerly of Southold Town Blk. Trust es the following five (5) courses and distances: (1) South 62° 111 00" West 103.0 feet; (2) North 78° 04' 00" West 72.=7 feet; 028.000 (3) N rth 55p 00' 00" West 52.94 feet; (4) North 300 49' 20" West Lot 55.45 feet; (5) North 50 56' 00" East 39 feet ;wore or less to the mean igh water line of Eugene's Creek; and running thence along the m an high water line of Eugene's Creek along a tie line bearing South 69° 58' 10" East 244,69 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING, BEING AND INTENDED TO BE Parcel VIII in a deed dated June 28, 1969 ~urtd recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on July 2, 1969. ~n Liber 6578, page 147. RECEIVED ~Fv. REAL ESTATE lk~'3~3 OCT 2 3 1984 TRAN!----r R TAX SI IF, 701..K CQ' ILITY _ 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 the party of the fi rst part in and to said pram ises; To Have And To Hold the premises herein granted unto the party o the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. And the party of the fi rst part covenants that the party of the fi rst 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, i n compl lance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receivetheconsiderationforthisconveyanceandwillholdtherighttoreceivesuchconsiderati:masatrust fund to be applied.first fgr,th.e purpose oflpayI ng the cost of the i mprovement a nd will apply the same first to the payment of the costof the improvement befOra using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party': Shaltpq construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. \ \'v In Witness Whereof, the partj'of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. IN PRESENCE OF: LeAaaer B. Glover, Jr. MISER 9663 ~E 317 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF as: On the 30th day W AuguStr 1984 before me On the day of 19 before me personally came LEANDER B. GLOVERr JR. personally came I to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that HE executed the same. that executed the same. ry Public YARY LOU OOROGK Yom' p Sts" *I CwegB~ pet~kuNe EratrM "6h 11' STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF as: On the day of 19 before me On the day of 19 before me personally came personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with say that he resides at No. whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he knows that he is the to be the individual of the corporation described described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such cprporate seal; that it was so affixed by execute the same; and that he, said witness, order of the board f directors of said corporation, and at the same time subscribed It name as witness thereto. that he signed It name thereto by like order. SECTION &-roa tt aid Oitt1P Wrb BLOCK With Covenant Against Grantor's Acts LOT CITY OR TOWN Title No. COLINT'(1 q!, 13:n,Yu,. LEANDER R. LOVERr JR. Recorded at Request of TO WMFE TIITmLE INSUR~AkNCE GUSTAVE J . qADE RETURN BY MAIL TO CRON AND CRONf ESQS Standard Forma New York MAIN ROAD P . 0. BOX 953 Board f Title underwriters CUTCHOGUE r NEW YORK 11935 Dirtrib ted by U-VFE TITLE INSURANCE Zip No. Com nyofNowYork W ~Ol7b\ G U VV ° o G m Tart ii 0 T r1 GJ in S .\C> -t - rn p tv > LL c ^N C Z 4 rn 7 t• ~ I l C: EFUL Southold o,~.• Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 7651809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3302 Application Dated October 26, 1984 TO: Cron and Cron, Esqs. as attorneys [Appellant(s)) for GUSTAVE J. WADE Main Road, Box 953 Cutchogue, NY 11935 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May 2, 1985 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 ( ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article Section [X) Request for Reinstatement of Building Permit #13244Z,~;; -7 Application of GUSTAVE J. WADE by Cron and Cron, Esqs., Main Road / Cutchogue, NY for a arV- lance to rticle XIV, Section 100-142 as utilized for ab alleged violation of Section 267 of New York Town Law, for rein- statement of Building Permit #13244Z issued for the erection of a dwelling upon premises known and referred to as 1000 East Road, Cutchogue, NY; Tax Map District 1000, Section 110, Block 7, Lot 28. This is an appeal of a determination of the Building Inspector whereby he purportedly revoked Building Permit No. 13244Z issued to Appellant Wade for the construction of a dwelling on Appellant's land adjacent to Eugene's Creek at Cutchogue, New York. L., By Appeal No. 3295, this Board determined that Building Permit No. 13244Z was improperly issued and declared the same void. Since the permit was void from its inception, it should not be reinstated. As stated in Appeal No. 3295, in which Appellant herein participated, Appellant's remedy is by way of an appeal to this board pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, board AS RESOLVED, that Appellant's remedy is by way of an appeal to this W pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law. Vote•of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution wa-s adopted-by-unaF14 of all the members. 1 w J .°~ND d?7 BY Dl.TE H0uR Towii Clcr", Torn cf Scutho' DATED: May 2, 198 5.• HAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TQ4 ZON NG BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) lk ~i - - M~ F)11GPE12Py N CV CI{`J.,Ui. U y (rtt:'tt..E) fiJWU 'Jf S= U CH0.J N.`L _ I 14 WELL PT.? FOR R. G. SYSTLM l" i` `f ` vROVD SEPTIC ~ tl` -TZ SCALE-20 1 2'+aj? o) - . 000 6 a / P -+1 ~ Nfp Atilt fly P.: NA(. C) JANJ I e `t ,rte i-~~-" icJDE ~cf. +?,='~t I iJ~[ t. r Uc. WMOSU"EYOkS - GQE-ENP"1 T IJ.1 p't^_Ir', F74-. S!.F .il: L: f JlvTa_J.?;I `1 i!c'a LCVE'~,U •.::1 v.D} 4a \ / t as fa f ~ uc eus-o a a Ax. C . ~p°, t A} S ~sm ? 1 1 y T n • r li aa. , r a ~ CI.. C ai IF ~ t 6`" F t ea x' C- x a ` en . 4. y • 6 m a www[I t. a » + •.a' ° • . 'v i a .a r' ~ o -a- o' s S~ f.,+e aaa. r , . ~ ~h ± + ` ~•A ~ ~ C Aa r ti~C ~ p a a'' a ,O 01 EL vo .m-m-mo.ox w.oua 1.'~' 'Pr 4 A + f Yx ~ p ~ \ Ate. :.•r` e, 0 m i Y o[v[.w.ln n ~ K J r ~ tlwad \ . n e0. ryyl =n. a rM R 3 :P n.r.. n.r. rmr•nr. r._ 'uurx u[ •w. w ~n 'j ,r-nn.un--.m t.„.d COUNTY OF SUFFOLK +axa SOUTHOLD • - Jr...._ _ r..>.....~ _ Real Property ce Agency' ..._..r_ .,xn._ o-......_ © ...n..... n. - .•.~..~r. x r. T t Tax _ _ _ • _o-nnc. IDDD eu.r. rr o...x.r r- r•.x x. n v.. nun N • - 1.11 Ri ' v. I Y - .u on..nr_ _ vx-. .-o... f - +u.... e~.w nil rw.~u a. n...~ ,a 11a11 111 Al 1 \ Ls A-C A-C \ HD s -80 \ L. R-AO 0 YFi i TCHOGW- R-80 l L A-( i MCA r ° R- Creoh w YD IN) A-C 'i J ~ '•r?ovF uM< o/ °?o °rO all ? °1• Sp CrNk o ~ r y. v m a < s ~/Gl L° `ter o bI ' A .r ~ c^ as 2- i. 3 r 'Q? _ ~40 :R IN r7"~-4 NEW ~SUFFOLY f FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date ..~.wwK;?r~ ? i....., 19 g . To PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated Qi ti .D-AAA . • ( j, , • , , , . • 193.Q' for permit to ............at Location of Property q, 1 1'µm House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 11-Q Block ....0.7....... Lot . Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. . is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds l' 4t 319St`.0.~.. ~4au•1i Building Inspector RV 1/80 FORM NO. 5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. S?off w o ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION qq o Date if (kAt : 19g.~.. TO . .U s L i A ICE U (owner or authorized agent of owner) 1-11 1A,2 . ~..r 4.} -..~J....r. r..Y...... ( (address of owner or authorized agent of own.er) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of: " Zoning Ordinance ..............I.............................. Other Applicable Laws, Ordinances•or Regulations Tom. :1~1...4A.!k.....~..6.7..... at premises hereinafter described in that AN RVO I le d w r t~ . 7~Q (state character of violation) „ ~.^.!.!.^~~.....~.w~!~"!~-.!t ....APP. ,s..... n,.ftl-... ..1...3. ,.`.F..`~...................... t.~....ReyoKe :.....AAT ~.1~.......;"' =.r?.....100 in violation of R.W..N.......L.! i37... .~t.7 (State section or paragraph of applicable low, ordinance or regulation) YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the law and to remedy the N7 !r~ ! iCE~ . ....1............ I conditions above mentioned forthwith on or before tF'e day of ,(.u<......~ 19.G1.Z. UUU TFe premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers ore situated at 4-0,-County of Suffolk, New York. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Building Inspector HOJECT LD, NUhtUER , I j' e "7~ ~,•6 ' 0 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART I_ y P For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed b )Meant or Project sponsor) t. APP CANT/SPONSOR cJ0 ~t WO' 2. PROJECT NAME , a. PROJECT LOCATION: G1 Muntelbadty, e-(~ G1 k3 'C'_ County S e. PRECISE LOCATION (Street adaress and road mteraecbons, prominent landmark. etc. or provtCe m pF~ `t ` ~ t FOOD ~'RS~C Ct'oct 0.r ' - ¢twti n~r~ . BC= ~~s i C~ua~ 5. IS PRgPOSEO ACTION: New ?Esoansfen ? MOdifli:.U.nlalteratlon 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY. Co~~siA ~~T ~inc~l 2 C aw Ll~ dwell: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially acres Ultimately B. WILL PROPOSED ACTION CC-MPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR w'ntK EXISTING acres LANG USE flESTgICTION57 N Yes ONO If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (WReswcntial ?Industrial r Desenbe: Commercial ?Agriculture ?Pdrk/Foreslloped soace ? Otner 10. OCES AC7ICN INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STAT(EE R LOCAL)7 -93 Tes ? NO It yes, list agency(s) and Permil/aOprovals! 1~ V . i f'lC,C. i I1, DOES ANY ASPECT CF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OCR APPgpy~ ~YCa ?Ila 1! yes, list agency name and permitlaoProval tl . 9 V V, i I 12. AS A RESULTgF PROPOSED AC WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ? Yes NO I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Aooncanusoansor Dale: Signal Wy: ~r~ - If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you arc a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form belOrD proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 (Continued on reverse side) The N.y,S, Environmental Qui ` of Chia form, and an environment Y before an action any is taken, ill uorepuir al review a es sub mission nape 6Y this woaro SNORT f"VTR011b1E`1T; 2):ST3U~=7=• L aSSESSAtE)1T FOR?f . ~41 In order to answer the questions that roject and in this short Exp it is assumed , the likely impacts of - f the actavailable infomat the p r . will use research or currently ion. Zt is not expected that additional studies ion concerning the other inves tigations will be' e undertaken. n.1. (bt and eompleestion has been answered Yes the Environmental Assessment Formpisjnec nay be siq- (C) If all questions necessary, project is not signi£icant•have been answered No it is likely that the (d) Environnental , Assessment " 1• Will project result to the project site in a farce physical change than 10 acres of land? physically alter Wore 2- Will there be a major than moves ~~,0 unusual land form on ge to any unique or the site? 3- Will project alter o Yes kC,10 an existing bpd r have a large effect on y of water? 4• Will project have a Yes no groundwater quality?p°ten tially larSeimoact an 5. Will project significantly Yes`1p on ad effect drainage flow jacent sites? V 6. Will project affect an --yes n No - Plant or animal species?threatened or endancered 7• Will project result in a ma -Yes ~~1p air quality? jot adverse effect an S. Will project have a major effect o Yes ~•.o char- acter of the community or n visual known to be important to scenic views or vistas the community? 9. Will YesNO , project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pro-historic, or paleontological' importance or any site designated as a critical envircnmental area by a local agency? 10. will Yes ~NO - project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? I. Will _YCS LVo causOP~ojeet result in major traffic problems or systems? major effect to existing transportation 12* - Yes K NO Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, - - ance as a result or electrical disturb- of the project's operation? YV~ 13. Will ~Ycs -Lyo project have any impact on public health _ or satct7? 14. dill Project affect the existing community by ~-Yes INo Lion of0 more than major centnoverma none-Pear a Period character of negative effect on C 'Yes A10 the community or neighborhood?" 1S. Is there p lie projeec? controversy concerning the pre patcr.s Sig/nla Cure: L ~ ~YCS Vp 1 23Ary~75[1nq: CQC R.liF Date: C PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor 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 form, Parts A through E. 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 that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Gus Wade by En-Consultants, Inc. LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) East Road, Cutchogue, Suffolk NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE En-Consultants, Inc. (516)283-6360 ADDRESS 1329 North Sea Road CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE Southampton N.Y. 11968 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Gus Wade (516)643-2605 ADDRESS c/o All-Island Equipment Corporation, 39 Jersey Street CITY/Po STATE BE E West Babylon N.Y. ~1~84 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Construct a one-family dwelling. Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: []Urban []Industrial []Commercial ®Residential (suburban) []Rural (non-farm) []Forest []Agriculture []Other (Vacant) 2. Total acreage of project area. W141V Is . f a4ftg APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 161GEG, g,f, PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 1 . 500 s . f . at*g 1 , 500 s . f . at&4 Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 12 , 060 s . f . gc 11 , 060 s . f . A&4 Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres 1 . 000 s . f . a Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? sand a. Soil drainage: MWell drained 90 % of site 91Moderately well drained 5 % of site IZPoorly drained 5 % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? n In acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? []Yes INNo a. What is depth to bedrock? Unknown (in feet) 1) ` C r 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 910-10% 100 % ?10-15% % ?15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ?Yes QQNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ?Yes L%No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 5± (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ®Yes ?NO 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ®Yes ?NO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ?Yes KNo According to Roy L- Ha3a Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ?Yes ENO Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ?Yes XNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? K'Yes ?No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Eugene's Creek b. Size (In acres) 100+ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ?Yes MNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ?Yes ?NO b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ?Yes ?NO 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Dyes . !No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? 3C-Yes =No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ?Yes ERNo B. Project -Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)/~) Cfdi a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor }131A> 08 - f acttX9.c b. Project acreage to be developed:1200 s . f . mums initially; 1200 s . f -xorm ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped10, 860s.f 8&XX d. Length of project, in miles: n/a (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed n/a f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed 2 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 5 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 1 Ultimately ; 1 n / i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structured height; -3'5 width; 35 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? n/a ft. 3 i 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ?Yes ?No CRN/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ?Yes ?No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ?Yes ?No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ?Yes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction Z months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: n/a a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ?Yes ?No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ?Yes ®No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 6 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 13No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ?Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? LAYes ?No Type sewarge 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ?Yes ONo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ERYes ?No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? 91Yes ?No a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons b. If yes, will an existing s91id waste facility be used? IRYes ?No c. If yes, give name Southold Landfill ; location Mattituck d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ?Yes @No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ?Yes MNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ?Yes h7No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ?Yes ®No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ?Yes ®No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ®Yes ?No If yes , indicate type(s) Domestic oil and electricity 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 2.3 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 300 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ?Yes ®No If Yes, explain d 25.' App+rovals Required: Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board ?Yes ?No City, Town, Village Planning Board ?Yes ?No City, Town Zoning Board ®Yes ?No Access relief City, County Health Department Eyes ?No SCDH Sani my Systam K Well Other Local Age'icies SIYes ?No Southold Trustees -wtl and to hp anhmi tt Other Regional Agencies ?Yes ?No State Agencies 2Yes ?No DEC TW - approved (see attached) Federal Agencies ?Yes ?No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ?No If Yes, indicate decision required: ?zoning amendment 12zoning variance ?special use permit ?subdivision ?site plan ?new/revision of master plan ?resource management plan ?other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? - R-an 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? One one-family dwelling 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? n/a 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? n/a 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Eyes ?No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a mile radius of proposed action? One family residential 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a mile? 2Yes ?No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? n/a a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ?Yes NNo 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fi,? protectic-i)? []Yes KNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ?Yes ?No_ 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ?Yes CRNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ?Yes []No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that tt," information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsorame E21 Consultants Inc. Date 1/23/90 Signature IJ Title President Roy Ha e If the action is in the Coastal ~rea, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 • \ 4` '`or' Qie a4 -,,tmeni of Environmental Con( Jafion UniC Bicc,. 90, SUNY, Roon 219 Stony sroob:, NT 11799 omcs'G 75 ;.-79.;0 Tin Joril t r ~Q ~S oJ~wr..G. 5 CT 1 CoEnr~usroner 'G, Ab4ENDMENT TO PERMIT r k,. Fcrme; Permit II (if any. )i, 6~ 0557 Lccation: 10-88-0299 eC east end o East Ra ,.Cutchague; y. Cus ;;ace `i. r _orc _7ocr, _IY 11731 Yccr rec recuest to extend tn~- above permit has been reciswed. LC_3..3 rat :art 621. It Pas been determined t'nat there has been _ T.n_ca1 cna nge in envi ronm..ent ' condi Lions, relevan echi Olog17-'Or a-.Dn-' b 2 'ab; reculat ions. Since issuance of' the existing permit,.; June 30, 1990 {pi ration date is E? ^..ed to "Our rec, _acuest to modifv t^e above permit has be°_S]'reviewed P=rt 621 It :7been deterSri CeC that Lnc oLGDGSed. t_r,nS n3-- SLbS tar`ially :.3nQe the scope G` t.^e LErm1t ed _ e :C-ng oe rmit`CG nC_`:C :S. m -4 z; is amended to _ tho_ize: tte_ 1Z an ame::dment to the c7:-inal oermit. and as SuC)-i -ShH 11 be, All Ci:n2r terms and conditions. remain as written in the G iginal Pe rII-I zod sa 1.C Sy-St4m 15 t0 . r'. -.:`__J Site p~ c? a=v'S% Very truly you-s, -1-7211--111-1 fE2. F t3 i. t, 11 ' -.-4&, sit.- Dl= T ~ yT_ Christine J. Costopo los L_^u~-y Regicnal Permit zdmini-atos. "l L. Riley ar A3, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION I Trtr_10-82-USS7 PERMIT L UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW 8 ARTICLE 1S, (Protection of Water) ® ARTICLE 25, (Tidal Wetlands) ARTICLE 24, (Freshwater Wetlands) ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Hazard Areas) PERMIT ISSUED TO Gus Wade ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE 39 Jersey Street, West Babylon, New York LOCATION OF PROJECT (Section of stream, tidal wetland, dam, building) s en o s Road adjacent to tchogue Harbor and Haywaters Avenue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Construct one-family dwelling and appurtenances and 120± feet retaining wall. Place 35± cubic yards of fill. COMMUNITY NAME (City, Town, 'village) TOWN Hamlet of Cutchogue Southold COUNTY FIA COMMUNITY NO. DAM NO. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE Suffolk County Dec. 30, 1984 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The permitlee shall file in the office of the appropriate Regional 8. That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any dam. Permit Administrator, a notice of intention to commence work at least 48 or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused b1 hour, in advance of the time of commencement and shall also notify him result from future operations undertaken by the Slate for the coriservation promptly in writing of the completion of the work. improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right 2. The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized compensation shall accrue from any such damage. representative of Ine Department of Environmental Conservalion who may 9. That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authon order the work susuended if the public interest so requires, is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be ; 3. As a condition of the issuance of this permit, the applicant has ac- scribed by the United Slates Coast Guard shall be installed and mainta, cepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal respon- by and at the expense of the owner. +i Aility for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whom- 10. All work carried out under this permit shall be performed in acc ever suffered, arising out of The protect described herein and has agreed to dance with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike manner. ndemn lv and save harmless the State from suits, actions, damages and costs of every name and description resulting from the said project. 11. If granted under Articles 24 or 25, the Department reserves the n to reconsider this approval at any time and after due notice and hearse 4. Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted continue, rescind or modify this permit in such a manner as may be fourr: shall be removed evenly, without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the be just and equitable. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, bed of the waterway or flood plain or deep holes that may have a tendency to modification of the wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, cause injury to naylRable channels or to the banks of the waterway, applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in s, S. Any material to br de y0srted or dumped under this permit, either in time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may requ remove waterway or on shore above high-water mark, shall be deposited or dumped move all or any portion of the uncompleted structure fill and reel ore aI the Iocalil, sho. n on the drawing hereto attached, and, if so prescribed site to its former condition. claim shall be made agai nst the Stair of !hr ,,on, within or behind a zood and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such York on account of any such removal or alteration. a> "ill Drevert escape of the material into the waterway. 12. This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant , right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of oth,. 5. There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any righ ,Ork here in,authon zed. title or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person no 7. That if future operations by the State of New York require an alteration party to the permit. in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion 13. The permitlee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable provals, lands, easements and rights-of-way which may be required for t obstruction to the free nav'Ratior, of said waters or flood flows or endanger project. The health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Deparl- 14. If granted under Article 36, this permit is granted solely on the ba .meni to remove or aher the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused of the requirements of Article 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law . Ih!-r!•by without expense to the Stale; and it, upon the expiration or revocation Part 500 of 6 NYCRR (Construction in Flood Plain Areas having Special Flt of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the Flazards - Building Permits) and in no way signifies that the project will waterrourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners shall, free from flooding. wnnuut expense to the State, and to such extent and in such lime and manner as the Department or Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or 15. By acceptance of this permit the permittee agrees that the per any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its loaner is contingent upon strict compliance with The special conditions on condition The navigable and hood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall reverse side. be made against the State of New "ork co account of any such removal or allwation, 95.20-4 f9/75r (SEE REVERSE SIDE) SPECIAL CONDITIONS 16. Applicant shall obtain any permits required by the Town` of Southold, for construction in an A-4 (el8) flood zone, prior to commencing construction on the site. 17. The shoreline of the site and the tidal wetlands vegetation located thereon shall not be altered and shall remain in a natural state. 18. Variance of 38± feet to the required building setback of 75 feet and 50± feet to the required septic system setback is granted. I I I I, I I PERMIT ISSUE DATE PE IT ADMI ISTRAT ADDRESS 17-L7- 150 Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233-0C Louis Concra Chief Permit Administrator QUESTIO14NAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED VdTH YOUR APPLICATION FORi-IS 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 6 2.a)Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.) Yes No b)Are there any areas open to a waterway without bulkhead? ep- No 3. Are there existing structures at or below ground level, such as patios, foundations, etc? Yes O 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 fe t above ft. Ye No average ground level? State total: j 6. If project is proposed for principal building or structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above average ground level? State total:" ft. Yes IO 7. Are there other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? If yes, please submit copy of deed. Yes No 8. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership, if any)? Yes Io 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 No Town Board Yes No Town Trustees '-T_e_sD No County Health Department Yes No Village of Greenport Yes No N.Y.S.D.E.C. Yes No Other Yes No 10. Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes, please submit copy of names or purchasers and conditions of sale. (from contract) Yes co, 11. Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at ,5 feet or less as exists? Yes No 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 0 you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under the requirements of Ch. 97 of the Town Code? Yes DO 13. Please list present use or operations conducted upon the subject property at this time 4 CCkA_,V_ and proposed S" aw:.tc c "c Please submit photographs for the re ord. I certify that the above statements are true and are being submitted for reliance y the Board of Appeals in considering my application. Signature Proper yowner Authorized Agent) 1/88 c WETLANDS (Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2-1076; 3-26- 85 by L.L. No. 6.10851: 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 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; anti/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. B. 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 13(1) and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a "freshwater wetland:" ( 070G z•zs•Hs »a w M V. PT 29 (12/79) Standard N.Y.B/~ I. Form 8002 Bargain and Sale Deed, with Covenant again raptor's Acts Individual or Corporation (Single Sheet) CONSULT YOUR LAWYER .=ORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT-10 TENT SHOULD BE USED By LAWYERS ONLY. Q~j L18tr Jf1UJ PAGE V 1•q a- u ~ mq This Indenture, made the 30th day of August, nineteen hundred and eighty-foul N.Y.S. Between LEANDER B. GLOVER, JR., residing at (no #)~Cox's Lane, TRANSFER Cutchogue, New York, TAX STAMPS $ 50.00 party of the first part, and GUSTAVE J. WADE, residing at 41 Willoughby Path, East Northport, New York, party of the second part, lo~ Witnesseth, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by CO-) the paof the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and asigns of the party of the second part forever, 3 _ All that pertain plot, piece or parcel of land, go situate, lying and being x at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and 1000 Stateiof New York, being more particularly bounded and described as Dist. follor,s: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the premises being described 110.00 herein, said point being the intersection formed by the southerly Sec, side of Eugene's Creek with the northwesterly side of land now or formerly of Southold Town Trustees; running thence from said point 07.00 or place of beginning along land now or formerly of Southold Town Blk. Trustees the following five (5) courses and distances: (1) South 62° 14' 00" West 103.0 feet; (2) North 78° 04' 00" Wezt 72..:7 feet; 028.000 (3) N rth 550 00' 00" West 52.94 feet; (4) North 300 49' 20" West Lot 55.45 feet; (5) North 5° 56' 00" East 39 feet more or less to the mean igh water line of Eugene's Creek; and running thence along the mean high water line of Eugene's Creek along a tie line bearing Southj69° 58' 10" East 244,69 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING, BEING AND INTENDED TO BE Parcel VIII in a deed dated June 28, 1969 and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on July 2, 1969. ~n Litter 6578, page 147. RECEIVED REAL FSTATE O CT 2 3 1984 TRANS-,-P TAX $1 IF, 701..K C',0"1ITY _ 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 Nave 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 partforever. And the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first parthas 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 party of the first part will receive the.conside.ration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration :ts a trust fu nd tb be applied.first for.thfi purpose oApaying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost Of the improvement beforeusing any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party'; $hall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. In Witness Whereof, the party of fhe first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. IN PRESENCE OF: Leander B. Glover, Jr~ lair 9663 PAGE 317 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: On the 30th day of August, 1984 before me On the day of 19 before me personally came LEANDER B. GLOVER, JR. personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that HE `executed the same. that executed the same. . a.ry Public may Lou 00"Sttt Nolhav PYSL10, state of swr yen / us, 52.lgM54 setloia Cwati p! C ..I aioe Esaina Marco as, is STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF $a: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF as: On the day of 19 before me On the day of 19 before me personally came personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with say that he resides at No. whom I am personally acquainted, who, beingg by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. that he is the ; that he knows of to be the individual the corporation described described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by execute the same; and that he, said witness, order of the board of directors of said corporation, and at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. that he signed It name thereto by like order. SECTION ilttraMlri anb ~M1P Bppb BLOCK With Covenant ~gainst Grantor's Acts LOT CITY OR TOWN Title No. •r LEANDER B. LOVER, JR. Recorded at Request of TO LRUFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of New York GUSTAVE J. WADE RETURN BY MAIL TO I CRON AND CRON, ESQS. New York Standard Form of rw torsen MAIN ROAD ^ P. 0. BOX 953 Board of Title underwriters CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 Distributed by "FE TITLE INSURANCE Zip No. Company of New York i w ~f1y~ 0 rn w rn 77 0 LL o c m v Z -.tip-1 ~O N 0 G rnrn zx 0 rr, w w ~ DO w 0 N rn Y t~ r 27 Coq G r ~t Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 2S SOUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 7651809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3302 Application Dated October 26, 1984 TO: [Appellant.(s)I Cron and Cron, Esgs. as attorneys for GUSTAVE J. WADE Main Road, Box 953 Cutchogue, NY 11935 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May 2 1985 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 [ ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article Section [X] Request for Reinstatement of Building Permit n13244Z:,: Application of GUSTAVE J. WADE by Cron and Cron, Esqs., Main Road,.• / Cutchogue, NY for a arVianc`e to rticIe XIV, Section 100-142 as utilized for ab alleged violation of Section 267 of New York Town Law, for rein-. statement of Building Permit n13244Z issued for the erection of a "dwelling upon premises known and referred to as 1000 East Road, Cutchogue, NY; Tax Map District 1000, Section 110, Block 7, Lot 28. This is an appeal of a determination of the Building Inspector whereby he purportedly revoked Building Permit No. 13244Z issued to Appellant Wade for the construction of a dwelling on Appellant's land r adjacent to Eugene's Creek at Cutchogue, New York. LJ By Appeal No. 3295, this Board determined that Building Permit No. 13244Z was improperly issued and declared the same void. Since the permit was void from its inception, it should not be reinstated. As stated in Appeal No. 3295, in which Appellant herein participated, Appellant's remedy is by way of an appeal to this board pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehr.inger, IT WAS RESOLVED, that Appellant's remedy is by way of an appeal to this board pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law. Vote_of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted-by--una-imea-9--ye of all the members. . T r=~iVD i T_7 BY ,r nk *I 1:-% CV-l iv To1en Cle:k, Torn cf 5cutnco'l DATED: May 2, 1985.., HAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD T ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) lk 94 I y4 t 4 p> u ll- -0~ w fig xii[ u~ a «.e,- ,•.a` ~ ~ ° ' a: `'~F! ,.d" l ~ p. ' x e 4`A?. ~ i~ A ai ? n t' ~ ~wM y;'e a. ? Ae ~~ey?ra4. lrv?'S. ,r ` iY Q.x as ..a" . ? a x • iew , \ '4• a . at?~ w / x j iNtl ~ R • S -0 I1 f ii,N Y ? f ? p4 ' i it Q r` ~-0 ' ~ s / . ~ , _ I;Ja 4 . '+r as a 4 M1 a + 4. S gyp. ~ J _sae• ~ I ~ scNb i w\~ Mvuaa„ Fwnj• ~ ° Il~ `V ~ V J -Ift .1 wo aot e„ rGA" n • ' .-4.d__ © COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TMs- SOUTNOLo Real Property Tan Service Agency • l!ia>__.-_ w~ Cow„ c.. wvs~,o [000_ _ PO .i-h-J, 1. 1., N.n Yod - ./OIt11. YAI s +tr , I-A 1 LB A-C A-C \ 1 \1\ M•P. y A C\ \ HD e -80 Apo t \ 6\ q a R-80 TCt10GU _ R-80 I ~ A- Y crook „t ,m s A-C l 1. a ,t) y ~ Ast Cr"k e ~ 1 R- -NA RA y `f r J ' 1Y1 1 Yl `a ° ` NEW SUFFOLK " 40