Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthport Development-withdrawn 0~' DRAFT ~ ADDRESS l' O B,,x ~;~6 PERMIT APPI.II.'D FOR AND PETITION N[ ~IB~JR: Change SEQR DETERMINA'IiON A SEQR LEAD AGENCY: South- old Town Board· AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft envir- CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Ter~'. Town Clerk Town oF ~uthold, Town Hall STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Mary K. Degnan of Greenport, said County, being duly sworn, saya that he/aho Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, publlahed et Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk end State of New York, and that the Notice of whi=h the annexed a printed copy, has been regularly publlahed in said Newapaper once each week for weeks successively, commencing on the 2 dayof No~r ~mh,= r · / ~lnclpel Cierk~' ~,f ~.--ANN M. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: NOTICE O F RECEIPT OF DRAFt ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPLICANT: Southport De- velopment; DATE: November 19, 1985; ADDRESS: P,O. Box 616, Southold, New York, 11971. PERMIT APPLIED FOR & PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from ' C" Light Indus- trial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning staVas of the pro- ~er~y changed to permit the developer o~ · motel com. plex. PRO~ECT LOCATION: South of the M~in 25) Roed, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenpon, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental implct statement has been prepared on this project and is on ~e. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUB- LIC COMMENT: The dr~h environmental impact state- meal may be reviewed at the address listed below. Com- ments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Per- son indicated below no letar than December 27, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terr~, Town Clerk, Towu of Southold, Town Hall, M~in Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801. IT-I 1/28/85(4) Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for .................. ~ ........ weeks successively, commencing on the ...................... day of ..~-.~ .... .~ ....~'~ .(M/..~--.~- --' Sworn to before me this day of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Pub;lc, State of New York No. Qualifitd in Sus. f,,ik Cotmtv Commission Expires March 30,' 19 ?~. JUDITH T ]'ERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 19, 1985 APPLICANT: Southport Development ADDRESS: P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statment may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 27, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 27, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Department of State Southport Development JLTDITH T TERRY TOWN CLIRK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 19, 1985 APPLICANT: Southport Development ADDRESS: P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. ABAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statment may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 27, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 27, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Department of State Southport Development OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 19, 1985 APPLICANT: Southport Development ADDRESS: P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file, SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. ABAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statment may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 27, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 27, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Department of State Southport Development STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 22nd day of November 1985 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Receipt of Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Southport Development. Comments no later than December 27, 1985. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 2~,nd day of .~o_v~l 9~5_~_. Notary Public/ ~LIZABETH ANN NEVILL~E NOTARY PUBUC, State of New York No. 52-8125850, Suffolk County Term Expires March 30. ).9.J~d~ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR $OUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT BOX 616 80UTHOLD,, NEW YORK BY LAND USE COMPANY WADING RIVER NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 26, 1985 ~tOV 1 9 1985 DRAFT ENVIROi~SIYrAL IMPACt STATiJIENT FOR ~RT DEVELOPI~I~T NEW YORK PREPARED BY: LAND USE ODMPANY WADING RIVER,N.Y. DATE: SEPT~IB~ 26, 1985 DRAFT ENVIRONbIENTAL IblPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK This document has been prepared in accordance with Part 617, the State Environmental Quality Review Act; Environ- mental Conservation Law, Article 8-0109. The scope and contents are in accordance with recommendations of the lead agency, Town of $outhold and other involved acencies. Land Use Co. North Country Rd. Box 361 Wading River, N.Y. 11792 (516)-929-3575 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Sage Blve., Greenport Town of Southold, N.Y. This action is to rezone approximatley 12.35 acres from "C" Light Industrial District to General Multiple Residence District to permit the development of a motel-restaurant complex as well as the reconstruciton and expansion of an existing marina facility. Lead Agency: Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. Contact: Judith Terry - Town Clerk Tel: (516)-765-1892 Preparer: Land Use Company N. Country Rd., P.O. Box 361 Wading River, N.Y. 11792 (516)-929-3575 Date of Acceptance of DEIS Deadline date for comments I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMblARY DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY LOCATION DESIGN AND LAYOUT MARINA CONSTRUCTION UPLAND REDEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION APPROVALS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING TOPOGRAPHY GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATERS VEGETATION WILDLIFE HUMAN RESOURCES ZONING, LAND USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER 1 2 5 6 ? 8 10 12 13 14 15 NOt. 16 17 17 19 20 21 26 27 30 30 30 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VEGETATION WILDLIFE ZONING AND LAND USES COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OF RESOURCES GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ALTERVATIVE USE NO ACTION TRAFFIC REPORT ENGINEERING, FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PREPARED BY DUNN P.C. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 Exhibit A I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY The proposed action for which this En¥iromental Impact Statement has Been prepared to address is the rezoining of pre-existing marina site from "C" Light Industrial District to General Multiple Residence District. If approved, the project sponsor proposes to reconstruct and expand the afore- mentioned marina facility to encompass 121 boat slips and support improvements, the balance of the site will be developed i~to an approximate 82 unit motel complex and restaurant facility seating 125 persons. Significant beneficial impacts to be expected are= Increase economic benefits to the Town of Southold derived from augmented tax revenues and increased tourism, preservation of a local historical landmark and improvement/diversity of plant and wildlife habitats found at the site. Develop- ment of transient motel base to support the unique historic character of the Town of Southold and its budding tourist attractions such a wineries, historic villages and marine recreation activities. Concerns expressed for potential adverse impacts ares possible loss of tidal wetlands, possible adverse effect of shellfish resources, sanitary waste disposal, subsoil conditions, increased density and traffic. Mitigation measures have been-incorporated into the concept- i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ual design. These items include: Creation of tidal wetland systems and wildlife habitat improvement plantings. Estab- lishment of buffer areas, storm water drainage control and a denitrification sanitary waste disposal system. Alter- natives considered include: single family residential) and no action. Alternate land uses (industrial, alternate design and technology Matters to Change royal, and 25 Services be decided include: Southold Town Board Zoning Application, Southold Planning Board site plan app- N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Art. 15 permit approval and Suffolk County Dept. of Health Sanitary System Approval. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Objectives of Project: The objective of the proposed project is to seek a rezoning encompassing approx. 12.35 acres from "C" Light Industrial to General Multiple Residence. Within this total acreage, 8.63 acres can be characterized as upland property with the balance lying below the mean high water line. The project sponsor proposes to upgrade the existing marina facility and construct a motel/restaurant complex to be operated in conjunction with said marine complex. As boat owners today, demand premium services, the marina complex will reflect I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I state of the industry standards but will incorporate limited boat yard (repair) facilities. The entire complex will seek to preserve important natural and man made land forms through design characteristics such as wetlands creation/ preservation and the use of an architecture that will include the preservation of the old factory "chimney". Potential impacts to ground water and surface waters from future industrial operations will be removed with the change of zoning. The anticipated residential/commercial sanitary effluent will be recharged via denitrification system with the objective being to eliminate significant impacts of the local water resources. -3- I I I I ! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT The proposed Southport Development project has been designed to fill a growing demand for recreational facilities on Long Island's north fork. This demand has increased dram- atically in those areas associated with marine use and tourism. The project sponsor will attempt to promote the north fork's water oriented tourism industry by offering needed dockage for both seasonal and transient use as well as providing a restaurant/motel cemplex that will augment the marina use. Said combination will serve to provide an installation that serve residents as well as hold existing and potential visitors in the north fork area for longer periods of time. This attribute will create additional economic stimulus off site in non-related industries and will also expand the local real property tax base without an increased demand for public services. -4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The subject parcel as well as much of the adjoining prop- erties was once the location of the Long Island Brick Co, established in 1887 by DeWitt Clinton Sage. Said facility was located at this site because of the availibility of a sufficient supply of clay soil utilized in the manufacturing process. At its peak, said facility produced twenty four 1 million brides per year and employed 200 individuals. During this manufacturing process, clay soil had to be mined and transported to the factory site. This mining operation resulted in the formation of the present "basin" area as well as a freshwater pond located to the northeast. Said basin was characterized by freshwater dominance until the hurricane of 1938 broke through the barrier beach and created the present inlet and tidal ecology, In recent times, the factory complex has housed a marina/boatyard/recreational complex known as "Youngs Marina". This operation has resulted in further modifications of the man made basin through dredging and bulking activities. In general, the site has been highly impacted by these past and present activities which the formed site conditions presently found on the property. 1. Who's Who of Long Island "DeWitt Clinton Sage" page 677-678 --5-- LOCATION Geographic Boundaries~ The proposed action is located in the Town of Southold, directly west of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The site lies on the west side of Sage Blvd. approximately 2000 s.f. south of its intersection with N.Y.S. Rte. 25 (see map #1) and encompasses an area of approximately 12.35 acres. Access: Access to the parcel is presently accomplished utilizing Sage Blvd. connection to N.Y.S. Route 25. Southport Develop- ment has easement over Sage Boulevard from the adjacent land owners. While the existing Sage Boulevard accommodates the Southport Development activities, as demonstrated by the traffic report within this document, future improvements can be expected since the adjacent landowners, who control Sage Boulevard, are currently making application to the municipality. Existing Zoning: The current zoning of the site is "C" Light Industrial. Under this classification lots having a minimum area of 80,000 s.f. would be permissable. Permitted uses by special --6-- exception of the ZBA and Planning Board include industrial uses~ manufacturing, research laboratories~ warehouseing printing plants, food processing, marinas, launching facilil- ities, restaurants, boat services and repair complexes. Building heights are restricted to 35' with conformance to "Bulk to the "Bulk and Parking" Schedule required. As disc- ussed previously, the existing industrial category could attract operations which use various compound in their pro- cesses which would significantly impact the environmemt if spills occur. Further impact through increased noise may also be experienced either as an expanded repair marine facility or other used within "C" Light Industrial Zone. Additional site conditions would accelerate surface water contamination down gradient of the spill occurance. DESIGN AND LAYOUT. Site Area: As discussed under "Objectives of the Project" the intent of this action is to seek a rezoning of 12.35 acre parcel and develop a marina/restaurant/motel complex. The site has several unique characteristics, both positive and negative which will be addressed in detail in subsequent sections. Since the action is for a rezoning classification~ a detailed site plan was not prepared as part of this Environmental -7- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Impact Statement. Instead, a conceptual design layout of both marina reconstruction and upland redevelopment was laid out in order to show the special characteristics of the improvements and how they relate to the site. Said proposal is intended as one possible configuration. The ultimate design layout may vary to allow for other criteria in the final plan, as may be required by the Town of Southold Planning Board in their site plan approval process. The design con- cept for Southport Development is to provide an economically viable project under the existing zoning ordinance, under the General Multiple Residence District, while protecting desireable natural features and enhancing the impacted areas of the site. Consultants were retained early in the planning phases to assure that various environmental concerns were addressed. In addition, close attention has been paid to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan developed by the Town of Southold Planning Board, to assure that the proposed plan for the Southport Development application conforms w~th the proposed new Zoning Ordinance now under consideration by the Town Board. It should be further noted that the applicant was required to make application under the General Multiple Residence District for the applicant to secure a motel use consistent with the objectives of the Master Plan. The conceptual site plan can be broken into two entities as follows: ~IARINA CONSTRUCTION As stated previously, the subject parcel has, for many years, been operated as a commercial marina/boat yard facility. This operation encompassed the majority of the site and utilized a portion of the deeded 3.72 acres of underwater land for the dockage of approx. 91 vessels. Said dockage was provided by utilizing various float docks, fixed docks, bulkheads and rip-rapped shorelines. A travel lift and small boat landing ramp are also a part of the existing facility. Generally all structures can be characterized as being in poor to fair condition. As will begin with the partial lying in the approx, center proposed, the marina redevelopment removal of a small peninsula of the aforementioned lands under water. Said peninsula consists of old fill, with a small section of high marsh and intertidal marsh areas. Once accomplished, a maintenence dredging program will be comm- erced to provide at an average basin depth of 7' to 8' at mean low water. Current depth average 5'- 6' within this area. Maximum depths approach 10' at MLW with a 10 year U.$.S.O.A. permit in effect for the maintenence dredging of the channel entrance. Approx. 17,000 cubic yards of spoil will be generated by this operation. Suitable sand material recovered will be added to barren shoreline areas for creation of tidal wetlands areas. and planted with S. alterniflora, S. hamlimifolia. Approx. 8000 s.f. of If some spoil material is found to be creation, said material will be stock --9-- adjacent to basin Spoil will be graded patens and Baccharis wetlands will be installed. unsuitable for wetlands piled within the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upland section of the site and utilized in the final grad- ing plan for the motel/restaurant complex. Subsequent to the dredging operation; board walks and timber float docks will be installed as to provide berthing for approx. 121 vessels. The berthing schedule is as follows: Slip Length Total No. 32' 63 42' 52 48' 6 Additionally, the present travel lift will be maintained in its present location to provide emergency boat haulage as well as the potential for winter storage. Parking lots and upland structures will be separated from shoreline areas by a natural buffer area designed to eliminate the need for structural erosion control when used in conjunction with the constructed wetlands. Fuel storage for resident and trans- ient vessels will be provided according to all applicable regulations regarding on site fuel storage and retail sale. Lastly, the beach front section adjoining Sou~hold Bay will be preserved and enhanced as a natural dune community. No structural alterations will be employed and buffer of nat- ural vegetation will seperate turf areas from native features such as wetlands and beaches. UPLAND REDEVELOPMENT As stated previously, the aforementioned marina facility -10- will enhance the proposed construction of a restaurant and moted complex on the balance of the subject parcel. This upland improvement will consist of approximately 82 motel units (two phase construction) with decking, two tennis courts, swimming pool, office and restaurant with outdoor dining area. The restaurant will cover approx, 5,500 s.f. and will offer a view of both the marina and bay[ The motel construction will be consistent with Town of Southold building codes and will provide dramatic, panoramic views from all units of Southold Bay and the marina. Within this complex, it is proposed to utilize, and preserve the old factory chimney as a focal point for the facility entrance. Total parking will include 288 spaces allocated as follows: Marina parking (1 per slip) = 121 Motel/Restaurant Parking = 167 Total = 288 Total parking spaces satisfy zoning requirements and in addition the different components of the complex will have staged peak hours of use, making for a surplus of available parking. Parking surfaces will be comprised of pervious material as to reduce storm water run off. Said run off will be generated from impervious to semi-impervious surfaces associated with the site improvements including: roof surf- aces, sidewalks and parking. All run off will be controlled by a common storm water management system design to eliminate any possible impacts to groun~ or surface waters. On site run off control will -11- prevent flooding or damage to property. The sewage disposal system will be subject to the approval of the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. said agency would indicate de-nitrification type will Preliminary conversations with that a sanitary system of the be required. This system will be designed to adequately handle and treat the estimated peak usage of 13,300 gals./day and will minimize any impact to ground or surface waters. by Greenport Water Authority. is located at Sage Blvd./Rte. Potable water is provided The water distribution system 25 and is fed by the product- ion wells and elevated storage of Greenport. Maximum usage 14~000 gals./day. Water for will be provided by a separate will. said water ards. tank located in the Village from all sources will be approx. boat washing and irrigation All construction of supply will be performed to Suffolk County stand- CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION The major construction of the entire complex is anticipated to take a minimum of two years from the receipt of all necess- ary approvals. During the construction phaser approximately 35 jobs will be generated. The first activity will be to begin the maintenence dredging operation concurrently with upland demolition and debris removal of all unnecessary structures. Subsoil testing will be conducted to determine_if any additional soil material -12- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I should be removed in order to rity of any improvements. If design criteria will be Proper erosion control guard against siltation insure the functioning integ- such material ~s found~ proper developed to address the situation. m~thods will be utilized to safe- of the desirable wetlands during all phases of construction. Once major improvements are completed or at a stage when final grading may occur, land- scaping material will be installed. The exact timing will depend on the season, however~ a cover crop will be planted as soon as possible to reduce possible erosion impacts. APPROVALS Approvals necessary for this proposed action are: 1. Town of Southold change of zone from "C" Light Industrial to bi-1 General Multiple Residence. 2. Town of Southold Planning Board Site plan approval. 3. N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Article 15 and 25 approvals. 4, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers biaintenence dredging and dock approvals. 5. N.Y.S. Dept. of State Coastal Consistency Certification. 6. Town of Southold Chapter 97 approval. 7. Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Article 6 approval for sanitary discharge/water supply and Article 12 app- roval for heating oil tank registraction and construct- ion. -13- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resources Soils: The proposed site has been previously disturbed to a great extent. A review of the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service shows the majority of the prop- erty as having a "bla" soil classification (Made Land) with a smaller section located along a basin area designated as Cu (cut and fill) land. Ma (Made Land) is defined as followsz "Made land is made up of peices of concrete, bricks, trash, non-soil material. Some areas are original soil, others are in large oses and still others are areas that are mostly covered with wire, metal and other on the surface of the holes dug for disposal purp- in old gravel pits converted to this Cut and Fill land is defined as follows: "Cut and fill land is made up of areas that have bee altered in grading operations for housing developments, shopping centers and similar non-farm uses. Areas of Cut and fil land contain deep cuts in or near the sandy substratum of the soil or sandy fills of 28 inches or more. Generally, cuts so deep or fills so thick that identification of soils -14- I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ! I ! I I by series is not possible. The soil material that remains after grading operations are completed has low available moisture capacity, is droughty and is low to very low in natural fertility. The areas of Cut and Fill land have severe limitations to use in establishing and maintaining lawns and landscaping. These areas are not suited to farming operations because of the alteration existing soil material and the presence of buildings and other works of man" Although the Soil Survey discusses "Made land" and Cut and fill lands", each site has its own characteristics depending on the history of the disturbances that have taken place on The site. For this reason, soil borings and/or test holes must be installed in areas of structural improvement~ san- itary systems. Said soil data can then be analyized for possible design modifications. TOPOGRAPHY The topography of the site is generally descending towards the basin and bay. are approx. 8' above mean sea level (USGS Datum). buildings are centered at The old factory site in imate center of the parcel with a tennis court and level with slopes Average elevations Existing the approx- pool complex located towards the eastern property line. Shoreline areas are of varied slopes from gentle to moderate with several sections of structural controls such as bulkheading and rip- rap. The Southold bay/upland-interface forms a sandy beach -15- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! front that has maintained it's natural function and appear- ance. GROUNDWATER Groundwater resources at the subject parcel are entirely derived from precipitation. In the Southold area, this quantity is estimated to be approx. 47 inches per year by long term averages of this quantity, approx. 22 inches per year is lost to the atmoshpere via evaporation-transpiration and 2 inches per year makes up the overland flow component of the hydrologic cycle. The remaining 23 inches/year perolates through unsaturated soil to a level below which all underlying soils are saturated. ground water system described as the hydrogeology of the aquifers the Upper Glacial aquifer is the concern relating to this project. project site fall within the 208 Zone IV. This hydrological zone The upper level of the the water table. Due to underlying the subject site, only groundwater unit of All upland areas of the Groundwater Management covers all of Long Islands North Fork and is characterized as having unique groundwater conditions resulting from a limited depth of fresh water and intensive agricultural activities depth to ground water on the subject site varies between 0 to 81, however, fluct- uation of up to several feet can be expected due to precip- itation damages. Groundwater beneath the subject flows south- ward and east ward as a result of the tidal waters of Southold Bay. _ This is -16- gradient caused the to say that nearly all recharge from this site flows in a shallow groundwater system and is discharged into said surface water. SURFACE WATERS Southold Bay is the sole surface water resource contained within the project boundaries. The waters of this ecolog- ically important waterway provide residents of the state with recreational boating, commercial and recreational shell- fishing, recreational and commercial finfish industries as well as aethetic attributes. Water Quality in the area is classified as satisfac~or~ for shellfishing purposes by the N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Agency observations taken at sample stations in close proximity to the subject revealed satisfactory water quality during both dry and wet weather conditions. VEGETATION The existing vegetation found within the site is varied. Most areas have been disturbed and as a result, pioneer species predominate. No protected or endangered species were observed during our field investigations. A repres- entational species list is as follows: -17- Bay Berry Sassafras Black Cherry Juniper Black Locust Poison Ivy Sumac Red Oak Chestnut Oak Arrowood Willow Autumn Olive Wild Grape Honey Suckle Greenbriar Hickory Apple Phragmites Beach Grass Cord Grass Salt hay Scientific Name Myrica Pennsylvanica Sassafras albidum Prunus serotina Juneperus virginiana Robina Pseudoacacia Rhus radicans Rhus Vernix Quercus rubra Quercus prinus Viburnum recognitum Salix sp. Elaeagus umbellata Vitis sp. Lonicera sp. Simle$ sp. Carex sp. Malus sp. Phragmites communis Ammophila arenaria Spartina alterniflora Spartina patens In addition to those identified, numerous forbes and grasses were observed throughout the site. Compaction and disturbance has resulted in a limited vege- tative succession in the recolonization of the site. The predominate vegetation type is herbacious roadside weed species, above to withstand adverse conditions. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WILDLIFE Numerous visits to the project area revealed limited popul- arities of upland wildlife species. Various song birds, Grey Squirrels and Cottontail Rabbits were observed inhabit- ing the primary complex site and several Norway Rats appear to be u~ilizing a number of the and shorebirds utilize both the the basin section of the site. expect to observe would include: out buildings waterfowl, beach front area as well as Some species that one would Common Name Black Duck Mallard Canada Geese Greater Scaup Herring Gulls Terns Scientific Name Anas rubripes Anas platyrhnohos Branta canadensis Arythya marila Larus argentatus Sterna Species through Weakfish, Sea Robin, Claw Crab, winkles, Various Ribbed Mussels, of finfish and shellfish inhabiting or migrating the project environs may include Bluefish, Flounder, Silversides, Common Killifish~ Flatheaded Minnows, Massbunker, American Eel, Blowfish, Porgy, Blue Calicus Crab, Hermit Crab, Moon Snails, Peri- Welks, Starfish, Hard Clams, Soft Clams, Blue Mussels, Razor Clams and Scallops, -19- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HUMAN RESOURCES Transportation The traffic analysis is being prepared by Dunn Engineering, P.C. and is appended to this document as exhibit A. Marina access to the site is provided by the existing stab- ilized entrance to basin from Southold Bay. As stated previously, said channel is currently subject to a 10 year maintenence dredging permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The channel parameters call for a width of 20', length of 180' and depth at low water of 6'. Mean Tidal range is approx. 2.5'. It should be noted that in addition to the existing marina facility, this stabilized channel is utilized by the previously mentioned private residence lying along Sage Blvd. As well as a small canal front development located on Tarpon Drive and Albecore Drive to the west. Inspections of said access to Southold Bay revealed no anticipated problems with navigation. Public transportation within the Greenport area is currently limited to the Long Island Railroad located in Southold to the east. Said facility provides transportation to and from New York City and points west. -20- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ZONING~ LAND USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS The project site is currently zoned "C" light industrial under the Town of Southold Zoning Regulations discussed previously in the text. Surrounding land use patterns are primarily residential with the exception of a small commercial strip located in the Port of Egypt area of N.Y.S. Rte. 25. Said commercial center is primarily devoted to Marina/Rest- aurant/Motel use and contains numerous business establish- ments. The predominant zoning within ~he project vicinity is the "A" residence classification permitting the construc- tions of single family residences on 80,000 s.f. lots. Current zoning of "C" industrial is deemed to be inapprop- riate for the area and could present significant environ- mental threat if developed under said regulations. Land use policy, generally expressed within zoning ordinances and master plans, can be found and observed most succinctly in the recently adopted Master Plan (Summer, 1985) and the Proposed Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold. The Master Plan, the document outlining the future land use of the Town of Southold, indicates the need to 'maximize public access to the wa%erfront and achieve economic benefits from water-enhanced and water-dependent activities, partic- ularly well planned seasonal and commercial activities in appropriate locations.' (Master Plan UPdate Summary, April, 1985, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Pages 3 and 13). In this regard, the Master Plan clearly distinguishes the subject parcel as a 'marine recreation area' to permit -21- greater access to water related activities. In addition, the Master Plan recognizes the need to support the area's econ- omy ~ encouraging seasonal resort development, i.e. motels. In this regard, the Master Plan for the subject parcel add- resses land policy goals with both the expansion of the existing marina and the proposed 82-unit motel complex. Further, the land use policy concerning this parcel is more definitively structured within the Proposed Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Southold presently being considered for adoption. Specifically, the subject parcel is included within the proposed Marine Business District and Marine Recreation District, which would permit use of the property consistent with the application, i.e. expansion of the existing marina, motel development and related uses (Proposed Suffolk County, & Weiner, Inc., Zoning Ordinance, April 1985, Town of Southold, New York, prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine Tarrytown, New York)." Development of the subject parcel also falls under the land use regulations promulgated by several other agencies of government. These regulations have been briefly mentioned in the "approval" section of this report. General require- ments are as follows: N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Regulation of the proposed redevelopment falls under the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S.D.~.C. through Article 15 and -22- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Article 25 of the Environmental Conser- vation 1~. Article 25 (tidal wetlands act) provides land use regulations des- igned to protect and preserve the sign- ificant values attributable Tidal Wetlands in the State of New York. Said regulations establish density requirements for develop- ment located within its jurisdictional area and dredging dock approval processes. Eventhou§h the proposed project i$ con- sidered a redevelopment of an existing facility, design criteria have been incorporated to satisfy N.Y.S.D.E.C. policies. Land impacted by the redevel- opment project are defined by Art. 25 as; 1) Adjacent ARea, 2) Intertidal Marsh, 3) Coastal Shoals, 4) High Marsh and 5) Littoral Zone. Town of Southold Chapter 97 Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code requires that permits be obtained for any operation conducted in or within 75' of a tidal wetland. Therefore, the subject marina redevelopment as well as a number of upland improvements fall within its jurisdiction. Said ordinance was enacted -23- I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I in order to preserve and protect tidal wetland values within the Town and pol- icies generated generally coincide with those maintained by the N.Y.S.D.E,C. N.Y.S. Coastal Consistency Certification Under the N.Y.S. Coastal Managment Program, 44 policies were promugated and implem- ented to assure that New York STates coastal resources were properly utilized and that a balance was acheived between the protection of important natural resources and necessry economic development. The policies designed to promote the use of coastal resources are as follows: - Revitalize under-utilized water- fronts (policy 1) - Facilitate water dependent uses (policy 2) - Expand the States major ports (policy 3) - Expand the states commercial fishing industry (policy 10) - Development Coastal Energy Policies (policy 27 & 29) - Redevelop the existing built environment (policies 1~4,5, & 23) - Expediting Permitting Procedures (policy 6) -24- I I I I I I ! I i I I I I I I I I I ! Resources indentifies as being in need of protection are as follows: - Significant fish & wildlife habitat (policies 7 & 8) - The traditional character and purpose of small harbors - Historic and cultural resources (policy 23) - Exceptional Scenic Areas (policy 26) - Agricultural lands (policy 26) - Dunes, beaches, barrier islands, and other natural protective features (policy 12) - Water and Air Resources (policies 31, 32, 33, 26-28 & 40-43) It should be noted that design of the project seek to adhere to said policies by preserving important natural facilities, promoting water dependent uses and in- creasing the opportunity for water related recreation and supporting facilit- ies, which include expanded access to marine activities by the expansion of the existing marina and development of the 82 unit motel complex to support tourism. As noted earlier, these are consistent with the land use policy goals established by the Town of Southold in its Master Plan. -25- I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I .I I I CObIMUNITY SERVICES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES A sufficient discussion on public need for the project can be found in the beginning of this Environmental Impact Statmen~. However, a recap of the significant points for this section is relevant. 1) The old brick factory's chimney is a sig- nificant cultural resource of the site that will be ~eot~i-~rd~rd preserved. As the north Fork area is primarily a water dependent recreational community, the proposed plan will enhance and promote the utilization of these locally important industries. The proposed plan will not create increased demand for public services and will augment the existing real property tax base as well as support tourism within the area by pro- viding overnight accomodations to tourists. The project sponsor will redevelop an exist- ing deteriorated facility creating a new complex in an undisturbed area. 5) The project rezoning will remove the poss- ibility of the parcel being developed under its existing industrial zoning . Said zoning poses a significant threat to area ground and surface water resources. The proposed rezoning will be a significant step in implementing the Town of Southold's recently adopted Master Plan and Proposed Zoning 0rdinance. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following table is an outline of significant environmental impacts which sould be expected if the proposed action is carried out. The impacts are listed under the appropriate "setting" classification and further categorized as to whether they are considered as adverse impacts with regard to the setting. Settin~ Soils Topography Groundwater Surface Waters Adverse Impact -potential unstable subsurface charact- eristics because of made land and cut/ fill soil types -potential for design modifications due to impermeable soil types -Change in existing drainage patterns -Discharge of sewage effluent subsequent to treatment by denitrification sys- tem -discharge of storm water run off from impervious surfaces -overland flow from landscaped areas -increased potential for fuel line and holding tank failures due to expanded marine facilities -27- Beneficial -Protection of undisturbed types. -Improvement of existing soil conditions (dune enchancement) -Aesthetically pleasing land forms. -upgrading of existing sanitary system utilized on site -removal of potential for future industrial discharges -control of suspended solids from present up- lands -creation of biological filtration systems Settin~ Vegetation Wildlife Wetlands Adverse Impact -Increased potential for improper human utilization of marine resources -Removal and/or replace- ment fo sections of natural upland vegetation found at site' -Temporary loss of approx. 7,000 s.f. of HM and IM areas. -Disruption of exist- ing conditions -Temporary loss of 7,000 s.f. of HM & IM areas Beneficial -Increased opportunity for proper recreational use of marina resources -Maintain greater vegetative cover than with industrial zoning -Increase diversity of vegetation useful for wild- life habitat -Institute dune enhancement program for beach preser- vation and stabiliz- ation -Institute shoreline basin stabilization utilizing vegetation rather than structural controls -Increased diversity by improving habitat in previously impacted areas -Increased diversity of vegetation -Improvement of wildlife habitat -Protection of natural areas -increasing surface waters -isolating passive from active uses -removal of under- desireable species Se ttin~ Transportation Zoning and Land Use Community Services and Cultural Resour- Adverse Impacts -Loss of future industrial develop- ment potential -loss of industrial tax base Beneficial -protection of wetlands from potential indus- trial spills -New development on Sage Blvd. will require upgrading of road surfaces -no impact on safety on N.Y.S. Rte. 25 roading system -removal of industrial potential on area surrounded by residential uses -improvement of visual qualities site of -removal of potential for industrial spills, noise or air impacts -Adherence to Town of Southold Master Plan and Proposed Zon~n§ Ordinance -Adherence to N.Y.S. policies -limited demand on services from town -Preservation of local landmark -Augmentation of tourist industry -improve local economy -revitalize deterior- ated waterfront area -increase real property - tax revenues -29- MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The proposed action has been conceptually in order to reduce as many adverse impacts as possible early in the planning sequence, The type of land use and special areas of concern have been addressed and incorporated into the design. Numerous meetings and conversations have taken place with involved agencies on all levels of government, The following is a description of the mitigation measures which could be made apart of the proposed project. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY Cut/fill areas will be regraded and top soil installed in order to provide proper planting base. The existing drainage patterns will be modified so that all overland runoff does not enter any natural or created wetland areas. The present topography will regraded so as to create aesthetically pleasing land forms to screen undesireable views and add interest, diversity and views on a presently monotonous site. GROUNDWATER The intent of the project is to adhere to Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services standards for disposal of sanitary -30- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I effluent. This disposal will include a de-nitrification system as to reduce nitrate impact on groundwater resources. It should be noted that at present, a standard leaching sys- tem is utilized at this site for effluent discharge. The storm water management system proposed in the project description includes many of the recommendations found in the Nationwide Urban Runoff program (NURPS). The primary contaminants associated with storm water are: Hydrocarbons~ heavy metals, asbestos, chlorides, nutrients and bacteria. The storm water management system will remove pollutants via a simple physical process. Separation of suspended contaminants will occur in the catch basins which will contain the initial runoff. Pollutant levels have been found to be highest during the first 30 minutes of a rain event. the majority of the contaminants will be filtered as occurs. Accumulated sedimants will be removed from the basing as necessary to assure effective operation. Therefore, leaching catch A small percentage of the overall site will contain turf of landscaping which may require supplemental fertilization to enhance growth and appearance. Potential impacts may result from the possibility of excess nitrogen, phosphate or pot- assium leaching into ground or surface water. This possible impace can be mitigated by applying fertilizer at a rate which will insure that applied nutrients are utilized by grass and shrubs and do not become an environmental pollutant. The folowing turf ground or surface management program is to insure that water impacts occur: -Iow fertility requiring §rasses such as Kentucky Blue and Tall rescues shall be established on site. -Slow release forms of nitrogen fertilizer shall be applied to promote bacterial nitro- gen fixing and maximum plant utilization of nitrogen. Fertilizer application is recommended during late summer and spring for maximum success -Irrigation shall be used as a supplement to natural precipitation. Heavy irrig- ation shall be avoided to minimize nutrient leaching. -32- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SURFACE WATER The storm water, sanitary system and previously outlined shall also serve turf management program to preserve and protect the integrity of the surface water quality of Southold Bay. Maintenence dredging will be conducted only during non- critical seasons to insure minimal impact on shellfish/fin- fish resources. VEGETATION Presently the area proposed for development is barren or vegeatated with what is considered predominately roadside weed species. The existance of these species is a direct result of what has taken place previously on the site. Through regrading, topsoil placement and planting of native plant species the wildlife and aesthetic values will be improved. Undesireable species such as phragmites will be removed and a maintenence program established to assure that the species does not re-establish itself after construction is completed. Areas lying between the beach zones and landscaped turf area will be included in a dune establishment and enhanc- ement program. This band of vegetation will serve as a transition and buffer area as well as improve habitat for local wildlife resources. Additional native vegetation will be utilized instead of the traditional structural solu- tions to stabilize the shoreline slopes along the "basin area". Said slopes will buffer upland uses form the IM and HM wetland areas proposed for construction along the -]3- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I slope toes. S. alterniflora, S. patens and Baccharis hali- mifolia will be utilized to establish natural wetland commun- ities along the entire basin shoreline. 33% slopes seaward of the wetland zones will assure stability from wave wash. WILDLIFE As previously discussed, the project site presently has limited wildlife value because of present and past oper- ations. In order to provide better habitat~ it has been proposed to create and enhance wetland and transition zone vegetation and limit turf areas. All plantings in these areas will be comprised of species recognized for their value to wildlife as nesting, shelter or food habitat. -34- ZONING AND LAND USES While the proposed zoning will decrease tax revenues from future industrial uses, the real property taxes to be paid by the project sponsor will more than offset ~his loss. Further, the proposed complex will require little demand for public services. a parcel that is now to a land use that is If the proposed zoning change is granted, inappropriately zoned will be converted consistant with CZM policies and area market demand. A water dependent use will be continued, a deteriorated facility will be redeveloped and the facility willl promote/enhance related recreation and tourism within the area, as well as establish consistency with the Master Plan and Proposed Zoning Regulations. -35- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES As stated, the proposed project will create little demand for public services while paying significant real property tax revenues. The project will also serve to preserve a local "landmark" that does not designation that would assure zoning change will remove the mental pollution and improve the site. at present carry any official its survival. Lastly, the potential threat of environ- the visual characteristics of -36- I ! ! I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED As extensive mitigation measures have incoporated into the project design, most potential environmental impacts have been reduced or eliminated. The primary adverse environmental consideration that remain are as follows: Possible increase in surface water contamination due to increased utilization of "basin" area. Said contamination will result from fuel spills and unauthorized direct discharge of effluent recreational vessel operation. Increase in boat traffic through existing channel entrance. Temporary disturbance of approx. 7,000 s.f. of IM and HM wetland areas. No significant effects are anticipated for local finfish and shellfish populations. Harvesting of said resources may increase ~n direct proportion to the number of vessels utilizing the area with the availability of more berths for said vessels. -37- IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OF RESOURCES If zhe Southport Development project is completed as proposed, the following human and natural resources will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. 12.35 acres of industrial property will be converted to expanded marine recreation and motel use through the proposed zoning change to the multi-family classification. The majority of the existing vege- tation found at the site will be converted to species more beneficial to shoreline erosion control and wildlife habitat. Additional shellfish and finfish resources may be consumed as a result of the increased size of the marina complex. The present property will be made unavailable for alternate future development plans. I i i I ! I I I I I I ! I ! I I .! i I GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS If completed, the Southport redevelopment project to enhance the desireability of reconstructing and commercial ventures within the Town of Southold. will serve expanding This trend will be reinforced by the present lower interest rates, the availability of a~itable properties and the projected success of the new businesses locating in the community. Such a pattern would not contribute appreciably to area population increases as most commercial endeavors will be of the retail/ service character rather than manufacturing firms. -39- ! I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ALTERNATIVE LAND USE The site is presently zoned for industrial land use. Such zoning introduces the possibility of numerous potential hazards associated with industry, particularly: use and handling of toxic or hazardous material and industrial discharges and noise pollution. Industrial land use has caused extensive ground and surface water impacts across Long Island. The regulatory and inspectional services required to police industry are time consuming and often ineffective. Industrial land use is considered to be a to environmental and public halth safety. transportation noise, odor and aesthetic associated with industrial development. potential threat In addition, impacts are often The proposed project requires a change of zoning from indus- trial to M-1 General Multiple Residence. The requested zoning appears justified by assessment of potential environmental impacts. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Single family residential use of the subject is not an economically viable altervative. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I NO ACTION The alternative of no action is one which could ultimately have more significant environmental impact onthe site and surrounding area than the proposed use. If redeveloped for the zoned use of industry, the storage and handling of toxic or hazardous materials and industrial discharges could be considered as a potential threat to environmental and public health safety. Continued operation as the facility currently exists is both unrealistic and not economicall feasible. The present facilities require a significant capital contribution due to defered maintenence. Said capital contribution is not supportable from the revenues generated by present facilities. Additionally, industry standards incicate that the present facilities are inadequate and inefficient relative to the operation of a modern marina facility. Therefore, redevelop- ment of the site becomes and economic necessity in order to remain competative in todays market place. -41- lNG EAST / / $OU~O£D PIPE~ 1965 Paradise S L ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 0 · Z bJ LU bJ 0 r~ Z .d I j ?. 0 fy') SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATONS AND SERVICES LAND USE COMPANY, INC. Land Use Company was formed in 1981 in order to provide its clients with a wide range of professional services relating to real property valuation, development and environmental concerns. These services include ~he preparation of environmental impact statements, si~e develpment plannin8, restoration and/or creation of tidal and freshwater wetlands systems, stream diversions, pond constructions, real property appraisals, stream diversions, pond construction, real property appraisals, feasibility analysis, shoreline erosion control, mined land reclaimablon plan and revegetation planning as well as environmental permit processing. Current staff members include Land Use Analysts, Marine Biologist, Licensed Landscape Architects, as well as numerous additional personnell involved with all phases of the environmental and realproperty segments of the company. LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS: Long Island Lighting Company, N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation, Town of Brookhaven~ Sid Farber Homes, Inc. ~ Flower and Plotka, Esqs., Tooker and Smith, Esqs., Tooker and Smith, Esqs., Meadowmere REalty, Inc., The Public Land Trust, Booth, Marcus and Pierce, Esqs., Group for the South Fork, Winer, Neuberger and Sire, Esqs., Costel/o biarine Contacting, Shamrock Properties, Allision Marine Contacting, Costanza Marine Contracting, Johansen Realty~ Town of Riverhead, Swan Lake Folf Corp., Charmer Industries, D.STone Industries, Wishbone Trading Corp., Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, Esqs., Riverhead Building Supply, ViaCom Cablevision, Roanoke Marbro Inc., Metski Excavation, Inc., Heartland Executive Plaza, North Hempstead Sand and Gravel, 3.P.Stevens Company, Inc.~ Peconic River Yacht Basin, Vantage Petroleum Corp., The Metro Group, as well as numerous other corporatons, law firms and many individuals. I I I I I I I I I I I QUALIFICATIONS-CHARLES W. BOWMAN EDUCATION - New York State Ranger School and the N.Y.S. College of Environmental Science and Forestry American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course IA, "Basic Appraisal Principles, Methods and Techniques" A.I.R.E.A. "Capitalization Theory and Techniques I" A.I.R.E.A. "Capitalization Theory and Techniques II" A.I.R.E.A. "Rural Valuation" S.C.C.C. "Real Estate Appraisal Principles and Practices" Numerous seminars, conferences and lectures re- lating to real property development, appraisals and land use analysis. EXPERIENCE- Eight years employed by the N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Real Property Bureau. Worked closely with the State of New York Attorney General's Office on Court of Claims and Supreme Court Actions. Prepared appraisal and/or established values for the acquisition of wetland/upland property in the New York-Long Island area. Prepared Environ- mental impact statements, coordinated SEQR Reviews, and established potential land use policies for the Long Island Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Program. Presently Real E~tate Appraiser, Environmental Consultant and principal of The Land Use Company, which.since 1981 has provided its clients with a full range of services including: feasibility, market and environmental/development potential analysis of real property, SEQR completion and coordination of projects with affected governmental agencies, unconsolidated surface mine revegetation and reclaimation plans, bluff erosin and revegeation programs as well as the creation and/or restoratinn of tidal and freshwater wetland areas. Have been tested and qualified by State of New York as an approved independent fee appraiser and land use analyst. Have testified in the Supreme Court of New York (Suffolk County) on real property potential and values as well as providing expert testimony on revegetation of erosion prone areas and/or the environmental impacts associated with Long Island preservation and/or development projects. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I QUALIFICATIONS-CHARLES W. BOWMAN Page 2 LICENSES - Licensed Real Estate Broker-State of New York MEMBERSHIPS- Council Member, Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council, National Association of Realtors, New York State Association of Realtors, Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Board member, Long Island Coalition for Sensible Growth. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR SOUTHPORT RESORT GREENPORT, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 616 SOUTHOLD BY DUNN ENGINEERING, 66 MAIN STREET WESTHAMPTON BEACH NOVEMBER 1985 I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic INTRODUCTION . . . Purpose of Rep~r~ Location . . Area Map . . Location Map Site Map . . . STUDY APPROACH ............. EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ......... Roadway Descriptions ...... Major Intersections ......... Grades and Sight Distances ..... EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS ..... Traffic Volumes and Available Capacity Available Gaps .......... Accident Records ..... EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES . . SITE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS . . DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS . . ACCESS EXAMINATION ..... ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS . . CONCLUSIONS ...... APPENDIX ......... Traffic Volume Counts Accident Records Qualifications Page 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 10 10 11 12 12 14 16 18 22 25 28 30 32 35 38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IHTRODUCTIOH I I I I I I I I I m o. I I I I I I I I I PURPOSE OF REPORT This Traffic Impact Study contains the results of a traffic engineering ex- amination of the proposed development of Southport Resort in Greenport, in the Town of Southold, New York. The Southport Resort will consist of a resort motel with an accompanying restaurant, and the addition of 30 slips to the ex- isting 91 slip marina (Young's Marina). This report appraises the traffic aspects of the proposed development of the 82 unit resort motel with an ac- companying 125 seat restaurant, as well as the improved marina, with par- ticular emphasis on their impact on the surrounding street and highway net- work. LOCATION The proposed Southport Resort will be located on a 8.6 acre site that has ac- cess off the southeast side of Route 25 via Sage Boulevard, in Greenport, in the Town of Southold, New York. Sage Boulevard is located just south of the Long Island Rail Road crossing on Route 25. Figure 1, Area Map, indicates the location of the Town of Southold in the New York Metropolitan area. The project site is shown in Figure 2, Location Map, while Figure 3, Site Map, presents the boundaries of the property and the adjacent roadway network. At present, the property is occupied by a 91 slip marina and a tennis court facility that consists of four tennis courts and a swimming pool. STUDY APPROACH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As part of the preparation of this Traffic Impact Study, the following tasks were undertaken: Several personal, on-site field observations were made to observe the traffic movements under various conditions. 2. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network. e An analysis was made of the traffic volume data obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation. Supplementary manual traffic counts were collected as necessary to update the available volume counts. Be An examination was made of the traffic flow on New York Route 25 and the available capacity of the surrounding street network. An evaluation was made of the safety factors by reviewing recent acci- dent records obtained from the New York State Department of Transporta- tion. A trip generation analysis was performed to determine the additional traffic attributable to the proposed development. A directional distribution analysis was made to distribute the site- generated traffic onto the surrounding street network. A trip assignment analysis was performed to examine the composite traffic volumes, that would result due to the addition of the site-generated traffic to the existing traffic volumes, in order to determine the traf- fic impacts on the surrounding roadways. -7- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Intersection capacity analyses were performed at the unsignalized inter- section of Sage Boulevard at New York State Route 25 in order to ex- amine the ability of the intersection to accommodate the addition of the site-generated traffic. A review of the access arrangements was made. An evaluation of the parking proposed was made in regard to traffic cir- culation, safety, maintenance, and adequacy of layout. Roadway improvements were examined to determine their potential to safely handle the increase in traffic generated by the proposed develop- ment. Discussions were held with representatives of the New York State ~epart- ment of Transportation and the Town of Southold to review the traffic aspects of this project. Conclusions were made of the traffic impact of the development as a re- sult of the data and facts gathered in this study. -8- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E)~ISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS The major highway facility that provides access to the proposed development is New York State Route 25. New York State Route 25 is essentially an east/west route that consists of an undivided highway with one travel lane in each direction and no separate turning lanes. In the vicinity of the site, New York State Route 25 runs in an approximate north/south direction with the pro- posed site being on the east side of Route 25 and the south side of Sage Boulevard. Sage Boulevard is a private roadway that is 16 feet wide on an easement that is only 16 feet wide. No pavement markings currently exist on Sage Boulevard. Sage Boulevard serves as the major access road to the three residences, the existing Young's Marina, the existing tennis and swimming pool club, and the 31 cottages that are located on the "Sage parcel" It should be noted that the owners of the proposed site have an easement over Sage Boulevard, but they do not own any property adjacent to Sage Boulevard that would allow them to widen Sage Boulevard. MAJOR INTERSECTIONS There are no major signalized intersections that are located in the vicinity of Sage Boulevard at New York State Route 25 that this project will have a traffic impact on. GRADES AND SIGHT DISTANCES At the intersection of Sage Boulevard and New York State Route 25, the grades on Route 25 are essentially flat. Although there is a horizontal curve on Route 25 south of the site, there is no sight distance restriction at the intersection of New York State Route 25 and Sage Boulevard. As a result, the vertical and horizontal sight distances at this intersection are adequate based on the posted speed limits in the vicinity of the site. -10- EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY Available traffic flow information was obtained from the New York State De- partment of Transportation. According to the information obtained, the average daily traffic on Route 25 in the vicinity of the site is approximately 7,450 vehicles. An examination of the traffic volume information revealed that the peak traf- fic conditions occur during the weekday hours of 8:00-9:00 A.M. and 4:00-5:00 P.M. The available traffic information consists of machine traffic volume counts at the following location: 1. Route 25 between Oaklawn Avenue in Southold and Route 114 in Greenport. The available traffic volume information is contained in the section of the Appendix entitled "Traffic Volume Counts". AVAILABLE GAPS In order to appraise the opportunities for safe ingress and egress from the site at the intersection of Sage Boulevard and Route 25, two variations of safe gap studies were performed. The first type appraised the opportunities available to make right turns out of the site. The second variation of the safe gap study examined the simultaneous gaps in both directions of travel on Route 25. The results of this second study are generally used to evaluate the opportunities to make left turns out of the site. Our observations revealed that based on the acceptable gaps of 8 seconds, there will be 7.5 acceptable gaps available per minute during the peak hours -12- of highway traffic. Since 44 vehicles per hour are being generated as addi- tional traffic from the site that desire to make make right turns out of Sage Boulevard onto Route 25, there will be a demand for less than one vehicle per minute to utilize these available gaps. Thus, only one gap out of the avail- able 7.5 gaps will be utilized. Therefore, the additional traffic from the site that desires to make a right turn out of Sage Boulevard can be readily accommodated without creating any traffic operational problem or deteriora- tion in the level of service of this unsignalized intersection. This situa- tion occurs since there is sufficient available roadway capacity on Route 25 that exceeds the demand of the site-generated traffic to make the right turn. The average headway in the northbound traffic stream on Route 25 is 12 seconds, which is 50% greater than the acceptable gap utilized in this an- alysis, resulting in even greater available capcity to accommodate these turns. Thus, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient available gaps to accommodate the safe right turns out of the site from Sage Boulevard onto Route 25. In a similar manner, an examination was made of the simultaneous gaps in the flow of traffic on Route 25 that are required for a vehicle to make a left turn out of Sage Boulevard onto Route 25. With 29 vehicles making left turns out of the site during the peak hour of operation on a Saturday afternoon, there is a demand for less than one vehicle per minute to utilize the avail- able gaps. Thus, there is less demand to make the left turn out of Sage Boulevard than the available roadway capacity. No operatinal levels of ser- vice will occur at this intersection of Sage Boulevard and Route 25. The average headway for both directions of flow in the traffic stream on Route 25 is 8.5 seconds, which is again greater than the acceptable gap utilized in the analysis, resulting in even greater available capacity to accommodate the left turns out. Thus, based on the anticipated traffic volumes, there will be sufficient simultaneous gaps in both directions of traffic flow on Route 25 to permit the safe egress of left turns from the site onto Route 25. -13- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ACCIDENT RECORDS Information was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation on the accidents that have occurred in the immediate vicinity of the site from 1982 through 1984. This data made it possible to identify existing accident hazards and to evaluate what effects the proposed development would have on the rate of accidents in the area. Table 1, Accident Summary, contains the summary of the accidents at the high- way section on Route 25 in the vicinity of Sage Boulevard. The review of the accident data indicates that this section of Route 25 is not considered a high accident location. As a result, it is not anticipated that the addition of the site-generated traffic will increase the rate of accidents at the intersection of Sage Boulevard and Route 25 or along the section of Route 25 in the vicinity of the site. -14- I I I I -15- EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES The availability of police protection and fire protection services in the vicinity of the proposed site is excellent. The Town of Southold Police De- partment patrols the area of the site. The closest firehouse in the Greenport Fire District is located in the north- west corner of Third Street and South Street, which is approximately two miles from the site. Due to the excellent patrol coverage of the Town Police and the close prox- imity of the firehouse, it should be recognized that excellent emergency services are availabe to service the site of the proposed Southport Resort. -17- ! I SITE TRIP GENERATION AHAI,.YSIS Information on trip generation rates for a marina and a resort motel with a restaurant facility is contained in the latest issue of the Institute of Transportation Engineers "ITE Trip Generation Manual". Applying these nation- wide average trip generation rates, the hourly and daily average number of trip ends for the proposed development were determined. Table 2, Comparison of Site Generated Traffic to New York State Route 25 Traffic, indicates the relative percentage of Route 25 traffic that the site will generate for each hour. This table also indicates (a) the present traffic that uses Sage Boulevard, which includes the Sage parcel that contains 31 cottages, (b) the anticipated total traffic on Sage Boulevard that will result from the proposed development and the 31 cottages, and (c) the additional site traffic at- tributable to the Southport Resort. It should be noted that a "worst case" scenario has been utilized to determine the site-generated traffic. In essence, the information contained on site generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is high, based upon our ex- amination of the facilities on the North Fork of Long Island. For instance, the trip generation rates for a marina that are included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual are based upon a national average of marinas surveyed throughut the country. The marinas surveyed include marina facilities that have party boats for charter fishing, large size commercial fishing boats, and large size recreational boats that accommodate a substantially greater number of people on board than the anticipated boats that will be using this private marina. As a result, the number of trips per day for the marinas surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is substantially higher than what will occur at this facility. Furthermore, depending upon the nature of the businesses as- sociated with the slip, the peak hours of the marina will vary. Based on the recreational nature of the proposed marina, it is anticipated that there will be (a) a lower generation of trips, (b) a distribution of trips throughout the day rather than in a concentrated time frame, and (c) the non-coincidence of trips with the peak highway traffic hours. All of these aspects will result in a reduced generation of traffic and less of a traffic impact. For in- stance, with a pleasure fisherman, one vehicular trip would result from the -19- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fisherman arriving in the morning to begin the fishing trip, and one trip out would occur in the late afternoon after completing the fishing trip. Thus, a total of two trip ends per slip would be the generation rate; however, the ITE Trip Generation Manual uses a generation rate of 3.8 trip ends per slip which is double the anticipated volumes at the proposed Southport Marina. In addition, with multiple land uses on one site, the site-generated traffic is generally not determined on a cumulative situation. In other words, the traffic generated by each of the individual land uses when added together would result in a substantially greater number of trips than can be expected. A lower generation of traffic would result with the multiple use site because of the sharing of uses. For instance, if an individual arrives at the South- port Resort motel, one trip end would occur; however, the individual could then stay at the motel, eat at the restaurant, play tennis, use the swimming pool, and go out on a boat at the marina while generating only one trip end instead of a cumulative number of trips. Thus, the overall number of trips that will occur at the Southport Resort will substantially less than indicated in Table 2, which presents a worst case situation. -20- HOURLY TRIP ENDS ADDITIONAL EXISTING SAGE PROPOSED SAGE SITE GENERATE~ N.Y.S. RT. 25 BLVD. TRAFFIC BLVD. TRAFFIC TRAFFIC HOURS TRAFFIC (IN & OUT) (IN & OUT) (IN & OUT) 12-1 70 10 20 10 2 50 6 13 7 3 20 3 5 2 4 20 3 5 2 5 30 4 8 4 6 60 8 16 8 7 160 21 44 23 8 330 42 88 46 9 400 52 108 56 10 540 70 145 75 11 560 72 150 78 12 580 75 156 81 1 610 78 163 85 2 600 77 161 84 3 630 81 171 90 4 630 80 170 90 5 680 88 183 95 6 590 76 159 83 7 430 55 115 60 8 370 48 99 51 9 220 29 60 31 10 260 34 71 37 11 210 27 57 30 12 140 18 37 19 TOTAL 8190 1057 2204 1147 (13% of (27% of (14% of Highway Highway Highway Traffic) Traffic) Traffic) TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC TO NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 25 TRAFFIC -21- ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION AHALYSIS The directional distribution was estimated based on (a) the anticipated orig- ins and destinations of the users of the Southport Resort facility, (b) the existing distribution of traffic volumes on Route 25, and (c) the existing directional distribution of traffic at the intersection of Route 25 at Sage Boulevard. Figure 4, Directional Distribution of Site-Destined Traffic, indicates the percentage of the vehicles that will arrive at the proposed development via the existing roadways. -23- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40% ISLAND 24 SOUND FIGURE 4 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITE - DESTINED TRAFFIc TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS -25- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The site-generated traffic and the directional distribution were assign traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 25 and Sage which serves as the primary access to the site. utilized to Boulevard, Figure 5, Site-Generated Traffic Volumes, assigns the site-generated traffic during the peak hour traffic of 4:00 to 5:00 P.M. on a Saturday afternoon. -26- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ 44 ISLAND SOUND 27 FIGURE 5 SITE - GENERATED TRAFFIc VOLUMEs 4:00-5:00pm SATURDAy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROADWAY -CAPACITY ANALYSIS -28- m m Based upon the existing traffic volumes and the capacity of Route 25, there is available capacity on Route 25 to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed Southport Resort. Our examination of the available gaps in the traffic flow on Route 25 in the vicinity of the site as presented in a previous section of this report, re- vealed that there is sufficient available capacity to safely accommodate the anticipated traffic at the intersection of Route 25 at Sage Boulevard. As a result, there will be no discernible impact on the operational levels of ser- vice of this unsignalized intersection. Thus, no separate intersection capac- ity analysis was warranted. Thus, the site-generated traffic can be accommodated on the adjoining roadway network without degrading the existing level of service. -29- I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ACCESS EXAMINATION -30- I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As a result of our examination of the intersection of Sage Boulevard at Route 25, no revisions are planned at this access point to the proposed Southport Resort and the other existing land uses of adjacent properties that will re- main. Thus, as indicated on the site plan, the major access to the site off of Route 25 will be the existing 16 foot wide Sage Boulevard. The access along Sage Boulevard is via an easement. There will be one major access point off of Sage Boulevard for the site. At present, two unpaved roadways serve the ex- isting site. The site distance in the vicinity of this access point on Sage Boulevard is excellent and will create no sight distance restrictions. -31- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS -32- I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I No roadway modifications are anticipated at the intersection of Sage Boulevard at Route 25. However, due to the existing condition of Sage Boulevard, the developer of the Southport Resort will resurface the existing Sage Boulevard from Route 25 to the access driveway to Southport Resort. As previously mentioned, the owner of the proposed development does not own any property adjacent to this 16 foot easement. As a result, the developer cannot widen Sage Boulevard to a greater width. It is recommended that a center line be painted along Sage Boulevard to separate the two-way directional flow along this 16 foot wide roadway. The developer also proposes to trim the existing vegetation on both sides of Sage Boulevard in order to permit traffic to util- ize this cleared area as a shoulder which in essence will provide a wider roadway section along Sage Boulevard. Furthermore, the trimming of the ex- isting trees on both sides of Sage Boulevard will enhance the sight distance along Sage Boulevard. It should also be noted that there are several locations along Sage Boulevard where traffic could pull off of the roadway to wait for an oversize vehicle to pass if the unusual situation arose where there would not be sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass. In ad- dition, it is recommended that a speed limit, sign be posted for 15 miles per hour on Sage Boulevard to assure that low speeds are maintained on Sage Boulevard. Based on the normal width for a vehicle, sufficient roadway widths exist to permit the safe passing of vehicles in opposite directions at low speeds. The proposed improvements for Sage Boulevard (repaving, reconditioning, center line pavement markings, clearance of side vegetation, and posting of speed limit signs) by the developer of Southport Resort will safely accomnmdate pro- jected traffic loads from the Southport development and the existing 31 cottages and three homes within the Sage Boulevard property. It should be noted that Sage Boulevard has existed as a two-way roadway that has safely accommodated the passage of vehicles for many years. In addition, the owners of the adjacent Sage property are currently preparaing an application to the Town of Southold for a proposed development. While the existing recon- ditioned Sage Boulevard meets the needs of the proposed future traffic and -33- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I existing traffic, the municipality will have an opportunity to require the de- velopers of the Sage property to make additional improvements to Sage Boule- vard, as deemed necessary by the Town. As a result, the proposed roadway modifications, will enhance the traffic flow along Sage Boulevard and provide for a safer travel environment. -34- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -35~ CONCLUSIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I With the implementation of the recommended roadway modifications along Sage Boulevard, our study and analysis have concluded that the construction of the proposed development of the Southport Resort will have a minimal traffic impact on Route 25, Sage Boulevard, and the adjacent roadways in the immediate area of the proposed development. Although the development of the Southport Resort will add traffic to the adja- cent roadway network, the traffic impact will be minimal and the existing highway network will be able to accommodate this additional traffic. The following points should be recognized. 25 e The location and design of the access driveway off of Sage Boulevard for the site will provide the traffic service required with minimal disrup- tion to the traffic on Sage Boulevard. Furthermore, the existing inter- section of Route 25 at Sage Boulevard can accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. 5 The multiple shared use of the site for the resort motel, the tennis courts, the swimming pool, and the marina will result in a lesser amount of traffic than presented in our "worst case" site generation traffic calculations. The development of the Southport Resort will add some traffic to the roadways during the day time hours of operation of the development; how- ever, the peak hours of the Southport Resort operation will not coincide with the peak weekday hours of the traffic volumes on the existing road- ways. There are sufficient available gaps on Route 25 to accommodate the safe ingress and egress of vehicles off of Sage Boulevard that will be generated by the proposed develoment. As a result, there is sufficient capacity on Route 25 to accommodate this additional site-generated traffic without creating a traffic operational problem. As a result, the -36- traffic operational levels of service of the intersection will not de- teriorate. The vehicular entrances/exits to the site as well as the access point on Sage Boulevard and Route 25 are clearly visible from adjacent roadways. Thus, the sight distances in the vicinity of these points are adequate. No nearby adjacent driveways exist on Route 25 or on Sage Boulevard that will interfere with the operation of the access driveway. The proposed resurfacing of Sage Boulevard within the existing 16 foot easement, the provision of a painted center line on Sage Boulevard, the installation of a speed limit sign, and the trimming of existing vegeta- tion on both sides of Sage Boulevard will enhance the traffic operation on Sage Boulevard as well as safely accommodate the traffic projections from the Southport development and existing uses. Thus, there will be a minimal traffic impact as a result of the construction of the Southport Resort. Therefore, it is recommended that the development of the proposed facility be approved. -37- I I -38- APPENDIX Traffic Volume Counts I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O0 O0 O0 o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accident Records I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ~ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I o ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I · O000000000000000000000000OO000 00000000000000 I I I I I '1 I ! · 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000~00 I I ooo00 ....... ~m 00000 C O000O 000 00000 0000 000000000000OO00000000OO000OO00000000000 ,0000 I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I Qualifications I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. EDUCATION: Graduate of Newark College of Engineering with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (1965) and a Graduate of Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn with a Master of Science in Transportation Planning and Engineering (1968). Has com- pleted all course work toward a Ph.D. degree in Transportation Planning and En- gineering at the Polytechnic Institute of New York with minors in Operations Re- search and Management. EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE: 1982 - Present President, Dunn Engineering, P.C. 1980 to 1982 Vice President, T.T. Wiley Associates, P.C. 1972 to 1980 IMIS Project Director Supervisor of Urban Systems Section, Traffic Control Section, and Traffic Operations Section, New York State Department of Transportation 1968 to 1972 Project Design Engineer, New York State Department of Transportation 1965 to 1968 New York City Design Squad Leader, New York State Depart- ment of Transportation MAJOR PROJECTS: Region 10, New York State Department of Transportation June 1972 to October 1980 Position: Supervisor, Urban Systems Section and Project Director, Integrated Motorist Information Sys- tem (IMIS) for the Northern Long Island Cor- ridor; in charge of traffic surveillance and control projects for transportation systems management. Supervision of State staff and consultants. Position: Acting Regional Traffic Engineer; in charge of all traffic engineering functions during the absence of the Regional Traffic Engineer. Position: Chairman, Feasibility Study of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in Nassau County, New York 1978- 79; in charge of the HOVL Technical Working Group's efforts to direct and coordinate the consultant for the Nassau County Planning Com- mission and the Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority under the Nassau County Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Program. m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I April 1968 to June 1972 September 1965 to April 1968 Position: Position: Position: Position: Supervisor, Motor Carrier Inspection Unit; in charge of State staff; responsible for safety inspections of vehicles carrying over twelve passengers for hire such as privately owned buses, school buses, and airport limousines; responsible for inspection and preparation of comprehensive reports of bus accidents. Supervisor, Traffic Control and Operations Sections; in charge of State staff; respon- sible for all investigations for traffic control devices, intersection control studies, traffic signal warrant studies, and studies for warning signs and pavement markings; re- sponsible for monitoring effects of private developments on traffic flow on State high- ways. Project Design Engineer; managed various pro- jects designed by consulting engineering firms for highway construction, reconstruction, bridge rehabilitation', and traffic engineering improvements: TOPICS, Nassau County Computer- ized Signal Systems; TOPICS, Franklin Avenue- Clinton Street; Nassau County Jones Beach Bridges Rehabilitation; Sunrise Highway Recon- struction; Route 110 Reconstruction. Assistant Civil Engineer, New York City Design Squad Leader; Rehabilitation and Reconstruc- tion of State and Interstate Highways. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers (3) National Society of Professional Engineers 4) Bergen County {New Jersey) Society of Professional Engineers 5) Transportation Research Board 1) Member, Freeway Operations Committee {6) Chi Epsilon (7) New York State Association of Transportation Engineers (8) Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners PRESENTATIONS: Author and coauthor of technical papers. Presented numerous addresses to technical and lay groups. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING LICENSES: Licensed Professional Engineer in New York and New Jersey. m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Walter M. Dunn, Jr., P.E., President Dunn Engineering, P.C. EXPERIENCE IN URBAN TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IMIS (Integrated Motorist Information System) Project Director for the New York State Department of Transportation - 1972-1980. 0 Responsible for the IMIS program in the Northern Long Island Cor- ridor for the N.Y.S.D.O.T. from its initiation to the final design including the daily involvement with the FHWA IMIS Project Direc- tor to oversee the operation of the FHWA's contractor. 0 In charge of massive data collection, including a comprehensive license plate origin and destination study that presented a large data source for several computer software algorithms including the FHWA's contract for the Traffic Logic Program. o Secretary of IMIS Steering Committee. 0 Presentation and participation in several FCP meetings and re- views. 0 Presentation of paper on IMIS at the International Traffic Control Symposium in Berkeley, California, 1979. 0 Co-author with Mr. Lawrence D. Powers of several technical papers on IMIS. 0 Member of evaluation panel for IMIS Feasibility and Design, IMIS Evaluation Plan, and the Traffic Logic Program. 0 Leader for presentation to Congressman Ambro and Senator Moynihan for the successful acquisition of $30 Million of special categori- cal funds for the IMIS design, construction, and systems integra- tion. o Presentation for one-half hour interview program on IMIS on TV channel 21. o Numerous presentations on IMIS to a variety of audiences. Freeway Operations Committee Member of the Transportation Research Board. Task leader of Administration and Systems Coordination Sub- committee for the preparation of the "Freeway Operations Notebook" that contains the results of completed survey questionnaires with detailed information on traffic surveillance and control projects throughout the United States. I I I i I I I I I i I I I I I o o o o In charge of the preparation of a summary document on the Freeway Operations Notebook entitled "Freeway Operations Projects", that was issued as Informational Report Number 15 in October 1982. Reviewer of numerous technical papers prior to their presentation at the annual TRB meetings. Advisor and reviewer for the "Freeway Management Handbook", Con- tract DOT-FH-11-9706, for the Implementation Division of the FHWA. Member of the FCP project 2-P Review Panel for "Improved Utiliza- tion of Available Freeway Lanes", 1980. 5 Institute of Transportation Engineers. o Member of Technical Committee 4M-11 for the preparation of a re- port on "Displays for Metered Entrance Ramps", 1982. o Technical Committee chairman of the New York MET Section. o District One Representative on Technical Committee. In charge of the New York MET Section, Technical Conference on Traffic Surveillance and Control, October 1982. o Co-author with Joseph McDermott of paper entitled "Status of Free- way Monitoring Systems in the United States", which was presented at the International Meeting of the ITE in London, England in August 1983. Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada, Canadian Govern- ment o Prepararer of "Freeway Management Systems for Energy Conservation: A Practical Planning Guide for Traffic Engineers", 1985. Prepararer of "Summary of North American and European Projects", 1985. o Prepararer of "Bibliography", 1985. o Co-author with Jouko Parviainen of paper entitled "Freeway Man- agement Systems for Energy Conservation", which was presented at the International Transport Congress meeting in Montreal, Canada, September 1984. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 22, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (.516) 765-1801 Henry C. Weismann 940 Tarpon Drive P. O. Box 1123 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southport Development DEIS Dear Mr. We[smann: This office is now in receipt of the Southold Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement. To obtain a photocopy the cost would be $27.75. Please contact this office if you wish to have it copied prior to your arrival. You may wish to explore the possibility of obtaining a copy from Southport Development, P. O. Box 616, Southold, New York. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk NOV 19 1985 HENRY C. WEISMANN P.O. Box 1123 November 16, 1985 Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold New York 11971 Re: Southport Developement Application for Change of Zoning from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" Gener- al Multiple Residence District on the Zehner property (Young's Marina) Case No. 269 Dear Mr. Supervisor and Members of the Board: Please forward to me a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the above referred to application for a change of zon- ing relating to the Zehner property (Young's Marina) located on the west side of Sage Boulevard as soon after you receive it as is reasonably possible. Very truly yours, NOV 1 9 November 19, 1985 Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Re: Southport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: We have completed the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment for Southport Development, and I am hereby trans- mitting 15 copies of said report. The report has been prepared by The Land Use Company, of Wading River, New York, and dated September 26, 1985. This document has been prepared in accordance with Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8-0109. In addition, we have addressed, within the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement, the comments offered by the Town Board at our scoping meeting of August 6, 1985. We would appreciate the prompt review of this document and await your communication concerning the action con- templated by the Town in this matter. As always, JF:med Encs. thank you for your coope~ SOUTHPOP~ DFVFLOPMFN~ P. ~. BOX 616 Southold, ~3ew York 11971 SF.P 1 1985 September 13, 1985 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Francis J. Murphy Supervisor Re: Application of Southport Development for Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General }{ultiple Residence District Dear Supervisor Murphy: We are in receipt of the Suffolk County Planning Commission's letter of August 8, 1985 concerning their review of the South- port Development application pursuant to Sections 1323 through 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter. We are pleased that, after the Suffolk County Planning Com- mission's review, they have approved the subject application. Concerning their conditions, we feel they are consistent with the subject application as well as the proposed zoning ordi- nance which is currently being considered by the Town Board. Regarding the specific conditions contained in the Suffolk County Planning Commission's letter, the following are comments: "Premises will be restricted for marine and related ~ses." This language is in general agreement with the marine and marine-related uses as established within the Marine Recreation District (M-Rec) and Marine Business District (M-B) within the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and with our subject appli- cation. The related uses would encompass motel, restaurant, and supporting marine facilities. It should be further noted that the application and the conditions of the Suffolk County Planning Commission would also be consistent with the present zoning ordinance in effect as it relates to the Southport Development application. "There will be no expansion of the existing marina facilities." The proposed marina facilities as outlined in the application would be confined within the physical boundaries of the existing marina. This, in fact, is the basis of the Southport Development application. "A sewage pump out station-holding tank should be available at dockside for vessel waste containment." The applicant has full intention of complying with all required regulations as they relate to vessel waste containment. As you will recall, the Town Board requested, at our meeting of August 6, 1985, that we review our application with Robert Tasker, the Town Attorney, to determine the application's consistency with the proposed modifications that the Town Board may enact as part of their adoption of the new Town Zoning Ordinance. From our discussions with Mr. Tasker, I can report that the changes being contemplated to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance within the Marine Recreation District and the Marine Business District are not in con- flict with the application's intent. On this matter, we await an opportunity to review in detail the changes to the proposed ordinance. We hope that the above comments will be helpful in the Town Board's consideration of the Southport Development application, but fully recognize that the ultimate zoning decision on this matter lies with the Town Bu~zd ~nd n~t the County of Suffolk. Thank you for your continued cooperation. ~Ter¥ truly yours, WK:med cc.: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Robert Tasker, Town Attorney Wilbur Klatsk¥ ' Consultant SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 AU$1 4 August 14, 1985 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Francis J. Murphy Supervisor Re: Southport Development; Application for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District Dear Supervisor Murphy: The intent of this letter is to make ourselves available at the Town Board's convenience to review the subject zoning application. Since the Southport Development application has been referred back to the Town Board from the Southold Town Planning Board with its recom- mendations on July 29, 1985, we have prepared a preliminary site plan, which we hope will aid the Board in its deliberations on this ~p~llc~tion. We wi~h to emphasize the preliminary nature of this site plan. A fully developed site plan would be required by the Planning Board at some later date, subject, of course, to the Town Board's approval of this application for a change of zone. We would also like to note that the subject application is fully consistent with the goals as established in the Master Plan and Proposed Zoning Regulations submitted to the Town Board for its consideration by the Planning Board recently. The subject property is located within the Southold Town Board August 14, 1984 Page 2 proposed Marine Business District and will be served by both public water and a central sewer system. In addition, we think that there will be a posi-~e and dramatic impact on both tourism and increased access for water recreation. In addition, the applicant wishes to thank the Board for spending their valuable time in conducting a scoping meeting concerning the Environmental Impact Statement for the Southport Development application. We are pro- ceeding diligently in the preparation of this statement for your review. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, wilbur Klatsky Consultant WK:med Enc. cc.: Councilman Joseph Townsend Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James Schondebare Councilman Raymond Edwards Councilwoman Jean Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Terry RECEIVED AUG 121985 T~vn C~ Souff~old DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN ~UFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE LEi[ E. KOPPELNIAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING August 8, 1985 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Clerk Town of Southold 53095 b~in Rd. - P.O. Box 728 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Application of "Southport Development" (#269) for a change of zoning from "C" light Industrial to "M-I" General ~ltiple Residence, Town of Southold (SD-85-9). Dear Ms. Terry, Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on August 7, 1985, reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to approve it subject to the following: 1. Premises will be restricted for marine and related uses; 2. There will be no expansion of the existing marina facilities; and 3. A sewage pump out station/holding tank area shall be available dockside for vessel waste containment. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:gcc Introduction The following checklist of topics is intended as a starting point for developing a detailed scope for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Typically, no one project will require a discussion of all the topic areas contained in this document. Through the scoping process, this list of topics should be refined to reflect issues unique to the proposed project. Topic areas may be deleted, added, or elaborated upon, to arrive at the final scoping document. The purpose of the checklist format is to identify the basic topic areas for the Draft ElS. This ~s accomplished by reviewing the list and placing a check in the box located to the left of those topics which should be discussed. The model scoping checklist can also be used as a worksheet, including comments, suggestions and identification of the )articular example(s) theft are relevant to a detailed discussion of the topic or issue that has been check- ed. Conversely, those topics which are not checked, are issues not associated with the project, and may be eliminated from discussion in the Draft ElS. Minimum requirements for any Draft ElS are already checked for convenience. The next step is to expand the list to include or elaborate on those topics unique to the proposed )roject. A blank sheet is included at the end of the checklist for such additional information. The scoping pro. cass involves several steps in ~ddition to compiling a list of topics. $coping also ncludes discussion's on the quantity and quality of nformation required and the methods for obtaining that data. NOTE: This checklist was designed to be used in conjunction with the section on scoping con- tained in the SEQR Guideline-Draft and Final EIS's. It is also important to emphasize that this checklist should serve only as a model to assist in the scoping of a Draft ElS. It should not be used as a substitute for actively scoping a Draft ElS for a specific pro- iect. I. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that indicates: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town, village or city) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further in- formation E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft G. [n the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be in- dicated Ii. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are re- quired for Draft and Final EIS's exceeding 10 pages in length. However, one should include these features in any size ElS to provide the review agency with easy reference to ElS topics. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse [mpacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternatives considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the draft ElS. [] A. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1. Background and history 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor - C-I [] B. LOCA'ROrt I. Establish geographic boundarie~ of the project (uae of regional ~d I~al ~le maps I~ ~mmend~) ~ D~ion of ~ to site 3. D~ptlon of ~i~ing zoning of ~ site ' 4. Othen [] C. DF. SIGH AHD LAYOUT !. Total site area a.)ptoposed Impervious surface area (roofs. parking lots, toads) b.) amount of land to be cleared c.) open space 2. Structures a.)gross lea~eable area (GLA), if ap- plicable b.) layout of buildings (attached, enclos- ed, separate) c.) site plans and profile views 3. Parking a.) pavement area b.) number of spaces and layout 4. Other:. [] O. COPISTRCJCTIOH AH[:) OPEJaJ~T~OH I. Construction a.) total construction period anticipated b.) schedule of construction c.) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties d.) other: 2. Operation a.) type of operation b.) schedule of operation c.) other:. E. CLOSCJRE AHD POST CLOSURE PLAHS (for projects of planned limited life such as landfills) F. APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zon- ing regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding re- quirements IV. Environmental Setting Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the Draft EIS. ~lat~raJ Resources [] A. C~EOLOGY [] l. Subsurface a.)composition and thickness of subsurface material examples: · --depth to, and nature of, bed- rock formations and imperme- able layers --occurrence of an extractive mineral resource --usefulness as construction ' material b.) earthquake potential [] 2. Surface a.) list of' soil types b.) discussion of soil characteristics examples: --physical properties (indication of soils hydrological (infiltra- tion) capabilities) ~eng:neering properties (soil bearing capacity) c.) distribution of soil types at pro- ject site d.) suitability for use examples: --agriculture --recreation --construction --mining e.) other: [] 3. Topography a.) description of topography at pro- ject site examples: --slopes --prominent or unique features b.) description of topography of sur- rounding area [] B. WATER RESOCIRCES [] I. Groundwater a.)location and description of aquifers and recharge areas examples: ~depth to water table --seasonal variation --quality --quantity --flow C-2 b.) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater examples: ~location of existing wells --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses [] 2. Surface water a.)location and description of sur- face waters located on project site or those that may be in- fluenced by the project examples: --seasonal variation --quality --classification according to Hew York State Department of Health b.) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters examples: --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses --recreation c.) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels cl.)discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of water sources [] C. AlE RESOURCES [] 1. Climate a.) discussion of seasonal variations and extremes examples: ~temperature --humidity --precipitation --wind [] 2. Air quality a.) description of existing air quality levels examples: --list the rtational and State Air Quality Standards for the pro- ject area and the compliance status for each standard b.) identification of existing sources or pollutants-fixed or mobile c.) identification of any sensitive receptors in project area examples: --hospitals, schools, nursing homes, parks cl.)description of existing monitor- ing program (if applicable) [] D. TERRESTRIAL AHD AQUATIC ECOLOGY [] 1. Vegetation a.) list vegetation types on the pro- ject site and within the surround- ing area b.)discussion of site vegetation characteristics examples: --species present and abundance --age --size --distribution --dominance --community types --unique, rare and endangered species ~value as habitat for wildlife --productivity [] 2, Fish and Wildlife a.) list of fish and wildlife species on the project site and within sur- rounding area, including migratory and resident species b.)discussion of fish and wildlife population characteristics examples: ~species present and abundance ~distribution --dominance ~unique, rare and endangered species --productiv.ity [] .3. Wetlands a.) list wetland areas within or con- tiguous to the project site b.) discuss wetland characteristics examples: --classification --benefits of ,~tland such as flood and erosion control, C-3 Human Resources [] A. TRAHSPORTATIOH [] I. Transportation services a.) description of the size, capacity and condition of services examples: --roads, canals, railroads, bridges --parking facilities --traffic control b.) description of current level of use of services examples: ~a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow --vehicle mix --sources of existing traffic volume [] 2. Public transportation a.)description of the current availability of service b.)description of present level of use [] 3. Pedestrian environment [] 4. Other: [] 13. L~ND USE AND ZONII~IG [] ]. Existing land use and zoning a.) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area examples: --commercial --residential ~ --agricultural' --business --retail --industrial --vacant b.) description of the existing zoning of site and surrounding area [] 2. Land use plans a.) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area b.) discussion of future development trends or pressures [] 3. Other: [] C. CO~/~UNITY SERVICES (for this section in- clude a list of existing facilities and a discus- sion of existing levels of usage and pro- jected future needs) [] ]. Educational facilities [] 2. Police protection [] 3. Fire protection [] 4. Health care facilities [] 5. Social services [] 6. Recreational facilities [] 7. Utilities [] 8. Other: DE/vtO(]RAPHY [] ]. Population characteristics a.) discussion of the existing popula- tion parameters examples: ~distribution --density --household size and composi- tion b.)discussion of projections for population growth [] 2, Other: [] E. CULTURAL RESOURCES [] 1. Visual resources a.)description of the physical character of the community example: --urban vs. rural b.)description of natural areas of significant scenic value c.)identification of structures of significant architectural design ~ 2. Historic and archaeological a.)location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community b.)Jdentification of sites having potential significant ar- chaeological value (::-4 [] 3.' Hoise a.) identification of existing level of noise in the community b. identification of major sources of noise examples: --airports --major highways -- industrial/commercial facili- ties [] 4. Other: V. Significant Environmental Impacts Identify those aspects of the environmental set- ting in Section IV that may be adversely Or beneficially affected by the proposed action and re- quire discussion. VI. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmen- tal Impact Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The follow. mg is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Hatural Resources [] A. GEOLOGY i. Subsurface a.) use excavated material for land reclamation b.)use facility wastes (ash, sludge) for land reclamation c.) other: 2. Surface a.)use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b.)minimize disturbance of non- construction sites c.) design and implement soil ero- sion control plan d.) other: 3. Topography a.) avoid construction on areas of steep slope b.)design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope c.) other: [] B. WATER RESOURCES [. Groundwater a.) design adequate s~,stem of treat- ment for stormwater runoff prior to recharge of groundwater b.) maintain permeable areas on the site c.) institute a program for monitor- ing water quality in adjacent wells d.) other: 2. Surface water a.) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation examples: --hay bales ~temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas --landscaping b.) design adequate stormwater con- trol system c.) restrict use of salt or sand for road and parking area snow removal d.) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources e.) other: [] C. AIR RESOURCES 1. Air quality a.) assure proper construction prac- tices examples: --fugitive dust control --proper operation and maintenance of construction equipment b,)design traffic improvements to reduce congestion and vehicle delay c.)install and ensure the proper operation of emission control devices d.) initiate a program for monitoring of air quality e.) other: -- [] D. TERRESTRIAL AHD AQUAT1C ECOLOGY I. Vegetation a.) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b,) preserve part of site as a natural area c,) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegeta- tion cl.)purchase open space at another location and dedicate to local government or conservation organization e.) other: 2. Fish and Wildlife a.) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species b.)schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish and wildlife life cycles c.) other: Human Resources [] A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation services a.) design adequate and safe access to project site to handle pro- jected traffic flow b.)install adequate traffic control devices c.) optimize use of parking areas d.) encourage car pooling and opera- tion of facility during non.peak traffic times e.)design special routing and restricted hours for delivery truck traffic f.) other: 2, Public transportation a.)adjust public transportation routes and scheduJes to service the facility b.) encourage use of public transpor- ration by using incentive pro- grams for employees or by sell- ing tickets in facility c.) other: [] B. LAHD USE AHD ZOHIHG 1. Existing land use and zoning a.) design project to comply with ex- isting land use plans b.) design functional and visually ap- pealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use c.) other: [] C. COMMUNITY SERVICES I. Police protection a.) minimize local police protection responsibilities by providing private security force b.) provide security systems, alarms for facility c.) provide equipment, funds or ser- vices directly to the community d.) other: 2. Fire protection a.) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b.)incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c.) provide equipment, funds or ser- vices directly to the community d.) other: 3. Utilities a.) install utility services undergroand b.) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design c.) incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design d.) other: [] D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a.) design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surroundings b.) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design of lighting and signs (consider: height, size. intensity, glare and hours of lighting operation) c.) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equip- ment and facilities d.) other: 06 2. Historic and archaeologic resources a.)allow historical and ar- chaeological officials access to the project site during excavation b.)devote space within project site to a display of historical and ar- chaeological artifacts of local in- terest c.)preserve architecturally signifi- cant structures and make a photographic and statistical record of those that must be destroyed d.) other: 3. Noise a.) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) b.) assure adherence to construction noise standards c.) design berms and landscaping to block and absorb noise d.) other: VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. Vlll. Alternatives This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a com- parative assessment of costs, benefits and en- vironmental risks for each alternative. It is not ac- ceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. Identify those categories of alternatives which should be included in the ElS by placing a check in the box located to the left of the topic. [] A. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ~.. Site layout DESIGH AND a.) density and location of structures b,)location of access routes, park- ing and utility routes 2. Orientation a.)compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b.)site size and setback re- quirements 3. Technology a.) pollution control equipment b.)innovative vs. proven technologies 4. Mix of activities a.)addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility ALTERNATIVE SITES 1. Limiting factors a.) availability of land b.) suitability of alternate site to ac- comodate design requirements c.) availability of utilities d.) suitable market area e.)compatibility with local zoning and master plan f.) compatibility with regional ob- jectives g.) accessibility of site to transporta- tion routes and the service population [] C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2. Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and com- munity needs [] D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERA-' TION SCHEDULING 1, Commence construction at a dif- ferent time 2. Phase construction/operation .3. Restrict construction/operation work schedule C-7 [] E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE I. Suitability of site for other uses a.) other types of commercial uses b.) other types of industry c.) different types of housing d.) other: 2. Public vs. private use [--J F. NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a.) effect on public need b.) effect on private developers' need c.)beneficial or adverse en- vironmental impacts [] G. OTHER: IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. X. Growth Inducing Aspects Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. Listed below are examples of topics that are typically af- fected by the growth induced by a project. [] A. POPULATION 1. Increases in business and resident population due to the creation or relocation of business 2. Increases in resident population due to the construction of housing [] B. SUPPORT FACILITIES I. Businesses created to serve the in- creased population 2. Service industries created to supply new facility C, DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL I. Introduction or improvement of in- frastructure (roads, waste disposal. sewers, water) to service proposed project 2. Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved in- frastructure [] D. OTHER: XI. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources Identify the energy sources to be used, an- ticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption. The examples listed below are typical issues to be considered when addressing this topic. [] A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES [] B. ANTICIPATED SHORT.TERM/LONG.TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION [] C. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY CON- SUMPTION ~. Increased dependence on automobile use 2. Increased levels of traffic due to pro- posed project [] D. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES 1. Design methods to reduce fuel use for heating, cooling, and lighting a.) conventional technology examples: --insulation --thermopane windows --use of iow wattage lights b.) innovative technology examptes: --heat pumps --solar panels --wind energy ~use of waste heat from an in- dustrial plant c.) efficient [ayout examples: --orientation of structures in relation to summer and winter sunlight ~clustering of structures to maximize common walls ~shortening of utility runs --shared insulation and heating 2. Indirect energy benefits a.) location and design of facility to accomodate mass transit b.) use of shuttle buses c.) location of facility to minimize travel distance [] E. OTHER: 08 XII. Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the ElS. A. List of underlying studies, reports and infor- mation considered and relied on in preparing state- ment B. List all federal, state, regional, or local agen- cies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the pro- 'jects may be included (required in the Final ElS) Additional Draft ElS Scoping Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft ElS. Attach additional sheets if necessary, £-9 JtrDITIt F. TERRY T()~N (L[.RK OFFICE OF I~HE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 1, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516} 765-1801 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD: Attached hereto is the complete file of the Southport Development petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General .Multiple Residence District, which I am supplying for your use at the SCOPING MEETING to be held at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 6, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 July 31, 1985 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant Southport Development P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southport Development Application for Change of Zone Dear Mr. Klatsky: The $outhold Town Board has scheduled 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 6, 1985, Southold Town Hall, for a Scoping Meeting relative to the abovecaptioned petition and requested DEIS. Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook, will also be in attendance at this meeting, as well as a member of the Southold Town Planning Board. In accordance with our telephone conversation of this date, the Board will be expecting to meet with you and your environmental consultant Chuck Bowman on that date. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Charles Hamilton, DEC Southold Town Planning Board JUDITH T. TERRY TO'~N CLERK REGISTRAR OI. VIT4, L 51 ~. [ [STICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Pursuant to Sections 1323 and 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Department of Planning: X New Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Zoning Codi~ Amendment of Zoning Map (Change of Zone) Location of affected land:westerly side of Sage Boulevard. off of southerly side Main (NYS Route 25) Road, Greenport. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: Within 500 feet of: 1000-57-01-38.3 The boundary of any village or town The boundary, of any existing or proposed county, state or federal park. The right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway. The existing or proposed right-of-way of any stream or drainage channel owned by the County or for which the County has established channel lines. The existing or proposed boundary of any other county, state or federall owned land. The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. Or within one mile of: Nuclear power plant. Airport COMMENTS: Recommenda!l;ion of the Southold Town Planning Board enclosed herewith. Petition of Southport Development for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District. Date: July 31, 1985 Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk T, LD Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 30, 1985 Judith Terry Town Clerk Town Hall $outhold, NY 11971 Re: $outhport Development Corp. presently known as Young's Marina Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 29, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board foward the their recommendations to the Town Board regarding the change of zone from C to M1 for $outhport Development Corp., presently known as Young's Marina. Please refer to the attached letter (7/22) for the recommendation. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate t~contact our office. Very truly yours, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. cc: Wilbur Klatsky JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: July 16, 1985 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does here- by determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of Southport Development for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25), ont he westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, and consisting of 12.451 acres. Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant, for Southport Development JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE ($16) 765-1801 July 19, 1985 Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant Southport Development P. O. Box 616 $outhold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Klatsky: Enclosed herewith is a "Notice of Significant Effect on the Environ- ment'' with respect to the petition of Southport Development for a Change of Zone, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution on July 16, 1985, a copy of which is also enclosed. In accordance with your letter of July 16, 1985, it is understood that Southport Development will prepare a draft environmental impact statement for submission to me upon completion. I will be in touch with you within the week concerning a mutual date for a Scoping meeting. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 16, 1985: WHEREAS, Southport Development has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25), on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, and consisting of 12.451 acres, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Southport Development, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement, in accordance with the scope and contents required by the Town Board, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. ~J~u~l~. Terry Southold Town Clerl~ JUL 1 81985 SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 616 Southold, New York 11971 July 16, 1985 COPt FOR YOgi IN[ORMATION Southold Town Clerk's Office Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Re: Southport Development; Application for Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General ~ultiple Residence District Dear Mrs. Terry: In accordance with our telephone conversation of this date, this letter will confirm that Southport Development will prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the municipality's review in connection with the application for the rezoning of the subject parcel from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District. Thank you again for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours,,/ wilbur Klatsky Consultant (516) 765-2954 WK:med New York State Department of Environmental Conservation JUL 1 2 be35 Re: p, o. LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE Dear This letter responds to your communication of G I I~ ~-' regarding lead agency coordination for the above-noted project, under Article 8' (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Department has the following interest in this project DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: [ ] Type I [~Unlisted DEC Position: Based on the information provided: / [ ~'/DEC has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC needs additional information in order to respond (see comments). [ ] DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action. Comments: [w{/see ~tt~chc~_ [ ] none If you do not concur with the DEC position indicated above, please contact this office to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under Part 617. Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. Sincerely, cc: (attach distribution list) SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT P. ©. Box 616 Southold, ~]ew York 1].971 JUL · r~,,. Omi, ~ July 10 , 1985 Southold Town Clerk's Office Town Hall Hain Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Southport Development Application for Change of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: At the time that we submitted our application for a change of zone to the Town Board, we listed our address as Hobart Road, Southold, New York. Since that time, we have been able to secure a post office box, #616, Southold, New York. We woul~ appreciate it if you would note your records accordingly and direct all future corres- pondence to said post office box. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. med CC.: Consultant Southold Town Planning Board SOUTHPOP~ DEVELOPME~ P. O. BOX 616 Southold, New York 11971 p, JUL 1 0 July 10, 1985 Southold Town Clerk's Office Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Southport Development; Application for Change of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: In accordance with your letter of July 8, 1985, please find enclosed a duly executed Notice to Adjacent Property Owners, a copy of which Notice was mailed on today's date, by certified mail, to Frank M. Flynn and wife, Tarpon Drive, Southold, New York. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. med Enc. cc.: Very truly yours, Wilbur Klatsky Consultant Southold Town Planning Board TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT to the Town Board of the Town of Southold. TO: FRANK M. FLYNN and wife Tarpon Drive Southold, New York 11971 NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to requesta chanqe of zone from "C" Liqht Industrial District to "34-1" General Multiple Residence District to permit development of a motel complex 2. ThatthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthePetitionislocatedadjacenttoyourproper~ andisdes- cribedasfollows: Bounded North by Bayview Realty Development Corp., ~ilian, Knizak~ Suda and Jacobs; West by Flynn, Beaugard, Weisman, Clinton, Pacifico and Southold Shores Association, Inc.; South by Southold Bay; East by Bayview Realty Development Corp. 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict: "C" Liqht Industrial District 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above-described property be placed in the following zone district classification: "N-i" General .~_ultiple Residence District 5. 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. - 6. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Town Board; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least ten 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 ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: Jt~].y 10, 1985 P. O. Box 616 Southold, NY 11971 NAME PROOF OF ?,1AILING OF NOTICF ADDRESS~ FRANK M. FLY~N and wife Tarpon Drive, Southold, New York 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS.: WILBUR KLATSKY , residing at Taqliabue Road, Shoreham, New York, 11786 , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 10th day of July ,19 85 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the cur- rent assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Southold, New York (Ye~: mail. ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by~c~tified) WILBUP IZLATS KY Sworn to me this 10th dayof July ,19_85 . . ~/ Notary Public APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRrNGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of'Appeals MAIN RnAD-BTATE: RnAD 2.5 'JUL ~ 01985 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 1"1~'7'1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TO: Town Clerk Judith T. FROM: Office of the Board DATE: July 8, 1985 SUBJECT: Your Case Terry and Members of the of Appeals #269 - Southport Development Corp. Town Board For your information, we are enclosing a copy 6f an excerpt of minutes of the Z.B.A. Hearing and De~ision of July 22, 1976 concerning a Special Exception for a Membership Club, which we understand has not expired or terminated for these premises. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- July 22, 1976 RESOLVED, Janet Buschman, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building in front yard area, Lot #77, Map of Nassau Point Properties, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The paddle tennis court shall be no closer than 60' from Nassau Point Road, no closer than 20' from the southerly side yard, and no closer than 15' from the northerly side yard. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2161 - 8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of ~war~, Young's Boatyard & Marina, Sage Boulevard, Greenp0~'N~w-~-~rk for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning-Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 B (6) & Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to organize a Membership Club. Location of property: Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, bounded on north by Sage Boulevard; east by Land of Sage; south by Peconic Bay; west by Boat Basin & Killian. Fee paid - $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. The Chairman also read letter from the Town Clerk stating that notification by certified mail has been made to: William F. Kilian; Vera Y. Sage. The application was amended by Mr. Zehner to read "25' x 300' parking area" instead of "25' x 250'" as was originally written. ROBERT BERGEN: How many members do you plan to have? HOWARD ZEHNER: We're not sure yet. (Mr. Zehner then discussed with the Board the facilities of a membership club on Shelter Island.) The Board of Health specifies the number of toilets necessary based upon the number of male and female bathers; they also specify the shower requirements based on these numbers. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- July 22, 1976 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a letter in the file dated June 26, 1976, to the Southold Town Planning Board from Mr. Zehner. (The Chairman read the letter.) Has the Planning Board considered this? HOWARD ZEHNER: Yes, it's been approved. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your position that you wouldn't have needed a special exception from the Board of Appeals? HOWARD ZEHNER: No, in the original meeting that you quoted there, with Muriel Brush and Ed Hindermann, we had a lot of trouble determining what was required, if anything, for me to open a membership club. We went through the Zoning book, and spent a lot of time trying to determine how I should apply for it, and what a special exception is for. (The Chairman explained the purpose of special exceptions.) Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask one question - when you read the application, you mentioned some objection to the height of the fence around the tennis court. The fence is 12' high. ROBERT BERGEN: That's the disapproval from the Building Inspector. THE CHAIRMAN: They had to give you something to appeal from. Membership organizations have to be approved by a special exception. (Mr. Zehner and the Board then discussed the Zoning Ordinance.) THE CHAIRMAN: The basic rule on parking is that you need one space for every two members, or lockers, whichever is greater. Are you going to have lockers? HOWARD ZEHNER: No, we don't plan to. There will be two changing rooms within the main building. THE CHAIRM3~N: as you can get? How many members do you envision? As many HOWARD ZEHNER: No, not really. I would guess that I might have 100 members. This would be about 25 families. might be more. It Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- July 22, 1976 ROBERT BERGEN: How many boat slips do you have? HOWARD ZEHNER: 93, but there's no crossover between the boaters and the club. The boaters will not be allowed to use the facilities. There will be a seperate entrance for the members. The boaters may join the club if they wish, but otherwise there's no relationship between the two. I have to set it up this way financially. For instance, I'm not renting the tennis courts by the hour. It is going to be a selected membership club. (The Board and Mr. Zehner then discussed the con- structural aspects of the tennis courts as well as "Artificial Ice", a covering which can be put over tennis courts to make them suitable for skating, dancing, etc.) THE CHAIRMAN: What are you going to charge for this? HOWARD SEHNER: I've been having a little trouble with that. It's going to be a combined club (both pool and tennis courts). Sterling Harbor charges $160.00 for a family of four to use their pool, plus $25.00 for each additional member of the family. That's just for the pool. The membership tennis clubs are charging $175.00 for one member for the season, $300.00 if the wife joins. THE CHAIRMAN: How many months will you be open? HOWARD ZEHNER: May 1st through October 31st. I might add lights at a later time so that people could use the facilities until, say, 11:00 P.M. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think the Board is so much interested in what other clubs charge as we are in what you are going to charge. Have you determined that yet? HOWARD ZEHNER: $250.00 as of this month for the season for an individual; for two individuals in the family, $350.00; for each other individual in the family over 12 years old, $50.00; for each other individual in the family under 12 years old who does not play tennis, $25.00; for each individual under 12 who does play tennis, it's $50.00. THE CHAIRMAN: And how high is the backstop on the tennis courts? HOWARD ZEHNER: 12' high. (Mr. Zehner again discussed the structure of the courts.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- July 22, 1976 THE CHAIRMAN: And what is your original goal, about 100 members? HOWARD ZEHNER: Yes, which is perhaps 25 families. I'm really not sure of that yet. THE CHAIR~LAN: I'm trying to relate what you're saying to what the Ordinance says. (The Chairman read the Ordinance on membership clubs.) The parking requirements, as I said before, are one space for every two members, or lockers, whichever is greater. I think-What we should be concerned with here is the parking. The parking area is 25' x 300'. HOWARD ZEHNER: I have additional parking shown on the drawing. We have all kinds of room for parking. THE CHAIrmAN: Yes, I see that. It's just a question of how much of that can be improved to be made dust-free. I know there's a tremendous amount of dust in that area now. HOWARD ZEHNER: Well, I have sand and gravel going into my property now, which is as much as I can afford. THE CHAIRMAN: The sketch indicates that these two courts which you're presently building are toward to southerly end of the lot which you have set off in red (on map). There is a heavily wooded barrier on the northern side, and the 25' x 300! parking area is on the easterly side of the tennis courts. Where will the people enter? HOWARD ZEHNER: There will be a seperate drive off Sage Boulevard here (indicating on map.) THE CHAIrmAN: Getting back to the rights you mentioned - what rights do the marina membership members have? HOWARD ZEHNER: They have membership rights just in the marina. THE CHAI~4AN: Then they would have to join the club seperately. HOWARD ZEHNER: Yes, there would be a seperate application. They would have to sign it, pay the money, and follow the rules. THE CHAIRMAN: When do you expect to get into operation? Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- July 22, 1976 HOWARD ZEHNER: We will be operating, with your help, on August 1st, next Sunday, the Sunday after this. THE CHAIP~N: Our chief concern here is the parking. It's zoned "light industrial" and you certainly have plenty of area here to operate the facilities. Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? HOWARD ZEHNER: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would just like to bring you up to date on what's been happening. I have the Board of Health approval on the plumbing. Bob Jewell, who's the top man in Suffolk County in the Health Department, came yesterday and gave approval on everything they saw up to that point. I have approval from the electrical inspector on the grounding of all metal devices around the pool. I really only have one more check from the Board of Health before I can go into operation. Also, the Planning Board made three suggestions which I certainly go along with. First, we're going to make a turn-around at the end of the parking lot so people don't have to back out of this right angle parking area. Next, they suggested two security lights. Thirdly, they suggested clearing the area near Sage Boulevard so you can see 75' on either side when you're approximately 30' from Sage Boulevard. THE CHAIR~N: The site plan has been approved, right? HOWARD ZEHNER: Yes. There's a building involved which I have a drawing of here. Ed Hindermann checked the plumbing for it already. I call it a pro shop and bath house, which is located near the shallow end of ~he pool. People must walk through this building to enter the pool. There's also a building going up for which I'm applying for a building permit. THE CHAIP~N: 2.1 acre tract. Is fencing? You've got a horse corral here now, on this the whole area going to be enclosed Qith HOWARD ZEHNER: I hope I don't have to enclosed the whole thing. THE CHAIPJ-tAN: Are there any other questions? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- July 22, 1976 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to organize a membership club, Young's Boatyard and Marina, Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use dis- tricts will not be permanently or substantially inured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Howard H. Zehner, Young's Boatyard and Marina, Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York be GRANTED permission to organize a membership club as applied for, subject to the following condition: The Board will August 1, 1977, are adequate. review the to insure applicant's operation by that the parking facilities Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2160/- 8:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon application of ~v. Brian S. Ko~ke for the Board of Trustees, First Univer~alist Church~ Main Road, Southold, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,~ection lb0-30 C (7) for permission to hold a Flea Market. Location/of property: First Univer- salist Church, Main Road,'South~ld, New York, bounded on north by Main Road; east by Charnews,~' south by W. Quirk, west by Main Road. The Chairman opened the"~earing by reading the application for a special exception, lega~ notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication i~the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. ,'The C~irman also read ~etter from the Town Clerk attesting/to notification by certified mail to: William Quirk; John Char/news; Southold Schools. THE CHAIRPiAN: Is'there anyone"~resent who wishes to speak for this application? CHARLES i4EYER: I am a trustee of'~he First Universalist Church of Southold. The reason for tha~..disapprcval states Z : -~ o $.67°41'40'' JUDITH T. TERRY TO'~,'N CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 IELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 July 8, 1985 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant Southport Development Hobart Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Klatsky: The enclosed copy of a letter from Planning Board Secretary Diane M. Schultze to myself is self-explanatory. I enclosing a Notice to Adjacent Property Owners form which you may utilize' in notifying the proper owners. Please submit a copy of the Notice and Receipt for Certified Mail to me following mailing of same. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures . D T( LD S~ ¥ Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 8, 1985 Mrs. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Re: Change of Zone proposal Southport Development Corp. Dear Mrs. Terry: It has been brought to my attention that a Notice regarding the above mentioned change of zone was incorrectly mailed to Thomas P. and Doris Boyl~ as owners of Lot No. 51, Southold Shores. According to the current assessment roll, the owners are Frank M. Flynn and wife, Tarpon Drive, Southold. ery truly yours, ~'.~u~t z e , Secretary Southold Town Planning Board INIrORMATIOII 'JUL 81 5 Mr. F. M. Flynn P.O. Box 144 Southold, NY 11971 July 2, 1985 Nr. Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Regional Permit Administrator N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40, SUNY- Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the Southold Town Clerk conveying the petition of $outhport Development for a change of zone for a waterfront property located westerly of Sage Boulevard and southerly of Main Road in the Town of Southold. Our analysis of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted by SouthDort, indicates that it is incomplete and, in our opinion, erroneous and misleading as to the full impact of the proposed change of zone. The petitioner modestly plans an 80~ unit motel, a restaurant, a 138 ~lip commercial marina and related improvements on a plot of .8.6~ acres of upland and 3i acres of underwater land not zoned for C-Light Industrial use. The impact on the tidal wetlands, and the shellfish beds, waterfowl and wildlife they shelter, can scarcely be exaggerated. It is our opinion that a careful reading of the petitioner's Enwironmental Assessment Form, as well as other applications pending for the property, will reveal substantial areas of "regulated activities" mandating intensive analysis by your department of the effects on tidal wetlands, adjacent areas, and neighboring properties. We therefore request that within the time limit proscribed by the Town of Southold as leah agency (July 8, 1985), you provide the Town with the writt'en objections which must emanate from the proper application of the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations and Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law. We further request that we be given notice of any public hearing, or meeting,held in relation to this petition so that we may address the issues involved in detail. Very Truly Yours, cc~ Commissioner Henry G. Williams, N.Y.S.- D.E.C. Town Board, Town of Southold JUDITH T. TERRY TOV~N CLFRK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 June 18, 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Southport Development requesting a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located south of the Main (NYS Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, consisting of 12. 451 acres. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommenda- tion and transmit 'the same to me. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachment JUDITH T. TERRY TO',V~ CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 June 18, 1985 Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Regional Permit Administrator N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Enclosed is petition of Southport Development for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25), on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, and consisting of 12.451 acres. This project is unlisted and we wish to coordinate this action in our role as lead agency. May we have your view on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until July 8, 1985. We shall interpret your lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Commissioner Williams Building Department, Town of Southold R~-CBVED 1985 SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT Hobart Road Southold, New York 11971 June 14, 1985 Southold Town Clerk's Office Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Southport Development (Young's Marina) Dear Mrs. Terry: We are in receipt of your letter of June 11, 1985. Please find enclosed a complete metes and bounds des- cription, which corresponds exactly to the map entitled "Southport Development," dated May 24, 1985, prepared by Young and Young. Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Wilbur Klatsky Consultant (516) 765-2954 Description of land shown on "Map to accompany application for change in Zoning Use District prepared for Southport DeveIopment" as App]icant, at Greenport, Town of Southold. PARCEL 1 June 14, 1985 BEGINNINING at a point formed by the intersection of the easterly line of the land of William KiIian with the southerly line of the land of Bayview Realty Development Corp. and running thence from said point of beginning easterly and southerly along the land of Bayview ReaIty Development Corp. the following courses and distances: (1) S. 80° 27' 08" E. 453.84 feet; (2) S. 4° Il' 12" W. 771.06 feet to Southold Bay; thence westerly along the high water mark of Southold Bay, a tie line along the high water mark having the following courses and distances: (1) N. 74° 37' 48" W. 483.98 feet; (2) S. 69° 21' 09" W. 162.79 feet; (3) N. 65° 31' 48" W. 51.94 feet to an inlet of Southold Bay; thence aIong and through the inlet of Southold Bay the following courses and distances: (Il N. 67° 02' 09" E. 73.08 feet; (2) N. 47° 09' 38" W. 295.00 feet; (3) N. 7° 43' 02" E. 400.00 feet; (4) S. 82° 16' 58" E. 300.00 feet; (5) N. 52° 43' 02" E. 70.71 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of William Kilian; thence N. 7° 43' 02" E. along the land of William Kilian 125.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. PARCEL Il BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the easterly line of land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. with the high water mark of Southold Bay and running thence from said point of beginning N. 19° 12' 48" W. along the easterly line of the land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. 94.73 feet · thence southeasterly, southerly, northwesterly and south- westerly along an inlet of Southold Bay and along the high water mark of Southold Bay, the lines and tie line along aforesaid having the following courses and distances: (1) S. 56° 26' 57" E. 163.43 feet; (2) S. 16° 12' 49" W. 27.90 feet; (3) N. 62° 46' 33" W. 81.82 feet; (4) S. 68° 14' 44" W. 26.37 feet to the point or place of beginning. Description of land shown on "Map to accompany application for change in Zoning Use District prepared for Southport Development" as Applicant, at Greenport, Town of Southold. June 14, 1985 PARCEL I BEGINNINING at a point formed by the intersection of the easterly line of the land of William Kilian with the southerly line of the land of Bayview Realty Development Corp. and running thence from said point of beginning easterly and southerly along the land of Bayview Realty Development Corp. the following courses and distances: (l) S. 80° 27' 08" E. 453.84 feet; ~2) S. 4° Il' 12" W. 771.06 fee% to Southold Bay~ thence westerly along the high water mark of Southold Bay, a tie line along the high water mark having the following courses and distances: (~) N. 74° 37' 48" W. 483.98 feet; (2) S. 69° 21' 09" W. 162.79 feet; (3) N. 65° 31' 48" W. 51.94 feet to an inlet of Southold Bay; thence along and through the inlet of Southold Bay the fol~owing courses and distances: (1~ N. 67° 02' 09" E. 73.08 feet; (2) N. 47° 09' 38" W. 295.00 feet; (3) N. 7° 43' 02" E. 400.00 feet; (4) S. 82° 16~ 58" E. 300.00 feet; (5} N. 52° 43' 02" E. 70.71 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of William Kilian; thence N. 7° 43' 02" E. along the land of William Kilian 125.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. PARCEL 11 BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the easterly line of land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. with the high water mark of Southold Bay and running thence from said point of beginning N. 19° 12~ 48" W. along the easterly l~ne of the land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. 94.73 feet · thence southeasterly, southerly, northwesterly and south- westerly along an inlet of Southold Bay and along the high water mark of Southold Bay, the lines and tie line along aforesaid having the fol~ow~ng courses and distances: (~) S. 56° 26' 57" E. 163.43 feet; (2) S. 16° 12' 49" W. 27.90 feet; (31N. 62~ 46' 33" W. 81.82 feet; (4) S. 68° 14' 44" W. 26.37 feet to the po~n~ or place of beginning. Description of land shown on "Map to accompany application for change in Zoning Use District prepared for Southport Development" as Applicant, at Greenport, Town of Southold. June 14, 1985 PARCEL 1 BEGINNINING at a point formed by the intersection of the easterly line of the land of William Kiiian with the southerly line of the land of Bayview Realty Development Corp. and running thence from said point of beginning easterly and southerly along the land of Bayview Realty Development Corp. the following courses and distances: (1) S. 80° 27' 08" E. 453.84 feet; (2) S. 4° ]1' 12" W. 77].06 feet to Southo]d Bay; thence westerly along the high water mark of Southo]d Bay, a tie line along the high water mark having the following courses and distances: (i) N. 74° 37' 48" W. 483.98 feet; (2) S. 69° 21' 09" W. 162.79 feet; (3) N. 65° 31' 48" W. 51.94 feet to an inlet of Southold Bay; thence along and through the inlet of Southo]d Bay the following courses and distances: (]~ N. 67° 02' 09" E. 73.08 feet; (2) N. 47° 09' 38" W. 295.00 feet; (3) N. 7° 43' 02" E. 400.00 feet; (4) S. 82° 16' 58" E. 300.00 feet; (5) N. 52° 43' 02" E. 70.7] feet to a point in the easterly line of the ]and of William Kilian; thence N. 7° 43' 02" E. along the ]and of William Kilian 125.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. PARCEL 11 BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the easterly line of land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. with the high water mark of Southold Bay and running thence from said point of beginning N. 19° 12' 48" W. along the easterly line of the land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. 94.73 feet · thence southeasterly, southerly, northwesterly and south- westerly along an inlet of Southold Bay and along the high water mark of Southold Bay, the lines and tie line along aforesaid having the following courses and distances: (1) S. 56° 26' 57" E. 163.43 feet; (2) S. 16° 12' 49" W. 27.90 feet; (3) N. 62° 46' 33" W. 81.82 feet; (4) S. 68° 14' 44" W. 26.37 feet to the point or place of beginning. JUDITH T. TERRY T o ',~N CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 June 11, 1985 Mr. Joseph Fischetti, Jr. Southport Development Hobart Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Fischetti: With respect to your petition for a change of zone on certain property at Sage Boulevard, Greenport, please submit to me a complete metes and bounds description that will correspond exactly with the map accompanying said application, dated May 24, 1985, prepareed by Young & Young. Thank you. Judith T. Terry Southolcl Town Clerk JLDITH T TERRx, TO~N CLERK REGISTRAROI VITA[ S1 \115¥1CS To Whom It May Concern: OFFICE OF THE .TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 6, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Attached hereto is Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted by Southport Development in respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, on property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25), on the w~sterly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, and consisting of 12.461 acres. Juditl5 T. Terry,~ Southolct Town Cl~rk Posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board on 6/6/85. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD EAF ENVIRO:IMENTAL ASSESSMENT :'PART ! Project Information NOT[CE: This document ~ des~ned tO assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the e;~vlrco,,~nt. Please comclete the entire Data Sheet· Answers to these questions will be considered as Dart of the a~olication for approval and may be subject to further verification and~ublic review. Provide any additional )n;orma:lon you believe will be needed to comolete PARTS 2 and 3, It is exoectea that ccmoletion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or tnvestinatton. If information requirina such additional work is unavai~ble, so indicate and specify each instance. ' :lANE OF PROJECT: SOUTHPORT MOTEL & MARINA NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) (Name) ADDRESS ANO NOltE OF APPLICANT: (Street) SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT (P.D.) (ha~e) Hobart Road . BUS~N[SS PHONE: (Street) Southold, New York 11971 (P.O.) [Scale) (Zip) (State) (Zip) DESCRIPTIOqOFPaOJECT' (BrieflydescribetypeofproJectoraction) Change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District to permit development of motel-restaurant and reconstruction of existing mari~PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTIDN - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both deveIoned and undevelobed areas) X 1. Genera) character of the land: ~,enerally uniform slope Generally uneven and rollinq or irregular Present land use: UrOan , Industrial , Co~nercial , Suburban , Rural , Forest .. , Agriculture ~ , Other Mar~ and suPPort recreational facilities. T0tal acreage of nr0ject area:12.3~res. 3.72 ac. bo%tom area 8.63 ac. Meadow or Brushland Forested 0 Aoricultural 0 Presently After Completion O* O**acres 0'0'* acres 0 ..acres acres Unimproved landscaped pa~-i~g upland area Presently After Completion . 0'* **0 tidier Surface Area 3 .33 /acres *3_.47_ac-e~ Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) 0 OacresO 0 acres Roads, buildinns and other paved surfaces 0 0.7 acresO 1.75ac~es Other (indicate tyneD 7.93acr~(~ ~.88 acres 10~ ?as .*:~ (~r L'iC.L- ) 0 . 39 _O~acreO 0 . 25 acres m 4. '~rat ~s ~'edom~nant soil tyPe(s) on nro!ect site? ................. ('n ~eet) ~"~;:~ *Marina Reconstruction **Motel-Restaurant 6. Approxir~te percentage of proposed project site with slopes: O-)O~ 10~..,. lq-)~T l:; 15~ or greater %. ?. Is project contiguouS?to, or contain a building or site listed on the hational Register of Historic Places? Yes ~ No 8. What is the depth to the water table? O-i) feet g. DO hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered o .Yes X ;Io, according to - Identify each species ll. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes X No. (Describe 12. Is the project sited)resently used by the coranunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes z~ NO. 13. Does the pre, sent site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the comunity? Yes z, No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary None 15. 16. Lakes, Ponds, ~etland areas within or contiguous to project area: Peconic Bay a. l(ame Private Cove off / : b. Size (in acres) What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential. R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project ifil] in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 12.35 acres. b. Project acreage developed: 8°6~cres initia)lyl 8,G3acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 3. T~ d. Length of project, in miles: N~A Jif appropriate) e. If projeRt is an expansion of existir~g,.y~ndicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age N/A ; developed acreage ~/~ . 50-unimproved f. Fluter of off-strut parking spaces existino1 / ; proposed 150 combined for entire g. Maximum vehicu)ar trips generated per hour 85 upon cc)npletion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housinq units: ~ne Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial Ultimate If: Orientation "e~ghOornood-City-Regional Estimated Emo)oyment 15 JnOustrial 35 Total height of tallest nronosed structure ...... feet. facility -3- 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 tons __0__cubic yards. 3. How many acres of veqetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) ~ill be removed from site - X acres. buffer & w---~land areas 4. Will any mature forest (over ]90 years old) or Other locally-important vegetation be removed by th~s project? Yes NO to be created 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes ho 6. If slngle phase project: Anticipated period of construction 24 months, (inc]uding demolition). 7. ! f multi-nhased project: a. Total nut, bet pf phases anticipated N/ANo. b. AQti¢toated date of co~encement Phase I month year (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase month, year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subseouent chases? Yes No 8. Will blasting ocour during construction? Yes X NO g. N~nber of jobs generated: during construction 35; after projett is complete 15. 10. Nun~ber of jobs eliminated by this project O. ll. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? X Yes NO. If yes, explain: 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. lg. 20. 21. 22. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Sewage/storm water c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged N/A Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or Oecreased by proposal? Yes X No. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? X Yes No a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes ___~o c. If yes, give name: Southold Landfil% location County Road 27/Southold d. t/ill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X NO Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ampience noise levels? Yes X NO Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes Heatlng, coollncj and electric If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity ~/A Total anticinated water usage per day~._3_~830 aais/day. Zoning: a. Y/hat is dominant zoning classification of site? d. ._. No. If yes, indicate tyPe(s) __ gals/minute. Ind. C-Light Ind. No M-1 General Mult. Residence NO -3- 26. Approve)s: a. Is any Federal permit required? X Yes NO b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) {Date) {Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies Yes Rezoning ~ ~[t_e_~l an YPs SRwer-wa~er vas_ ~qjc~T r u ~--~-~ ~ YES_ ~lannlnq b0mm. Y~s · C. 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 the proposal, P~ase discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid/.t.~en~y~/ /~ ~ PREPARER S SIGNATURE: REPRESENTING: S/and Desi~h Associates G The Land Use Company DATE: (June 7/1985 -4- STATE QF NEW YORK PETITION TO%VN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE. MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT FOR A CILiNGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TO%VN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NE%V YORK. TO TI-IE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. ~, SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT Hobart Road, $outhold .................................................................... , residing at ......................................................... (~rlsert name of petitioner) Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at W/S Sage Boulevard .S..o...u...t..h...o._l.~_,.....N_e...w.....Y..o...r..k.. ................ and more particularly bounded and described as follows: DESCRIPTION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: Request a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-i" General Multiple Residence District. Such request is made for the following reasons: TO permit the development of a motel complex pursuant to Article V, "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Subsection B(4), Special Exception by Board of Appeals and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. This application is consistent with the Proposed Zoning Regulations and Master Plan prepared by the Planning Board and submitted to the Town Board for their consideration. The subject property of this application has been designated within the Marine Business District (M-B) of the Proposed Zoning Regulations. The appli- cant hereby requests that, if the Proposed Zoning Regulations are adopted during the processing of the subject application, then the applicant be permitted to continue with this existing application subject to the regulations provided within the proposed Marine Business District (M-B) as may be amended. By: (L. S.) -f J¢ STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) JOSEPH FISCHETTI, JR. ..... f. 9.r...S.o..u.t..hp.o..r.t...D..exe..1.o.p.m.e..n.t. ....... BEING DULY S%VORN, dcp0ses and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true, (L. S.) . ~! PH FI.c SwOrn to before me this .6..th. day of ...O'.u. i2-~. ............... 19...8.5 ~LL THAT CERTAI~ PLOT, PIECE OR PARCEL OF I~D, situate, Il/Lng and being S - at Arskamomaque, Town of Southold, County of .uIfol.k, State of New York, being bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point where the division line bet~een land of William Kilian and Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of way which said point is also the Northeast corner of land of William Kilian; Running thence along said division line of said lm~ds in a sc~utherly direction 125.0 feet to the point of beginnin4; ~ 30" West 50 feet; Running thence along land of Zdmer South ?~1'~ '"" Pcmnhng thence North 69° 31' 30" Wes~ 50.0 fee! t,~ ,,thor land nov: or for~nrly of Sage; Rmming thence North 65° 28' 30" East 70.71 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING. TOGETHER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands now or formerly of Sage in the basin adjoining the subject premises for ingress and egress to the subject premises in cnnnon ~th ot'her'~. PARCEL 2: ALL THAT CERTAIN PIDT, PIECE OR PARCel_ OF 12~[D, sittmte, lying m~d being at Arshamomaqua, Town of Southold, Cotm~:y of Suffolk and Staue of New York, being bounded and described as foll~s: BEGINNING at a point where the divisi~n line between land of Uilliam Kilian and the land of Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of way which said point is alsc~ the Northeast corner ~,f land of William F. ilian; Running thence aloag said division line in a S,~,~rherlv ¢ii~.~t ion vHth its prolongation of said dJvi~;ion lin~. ~ ~' f,, ~,. ~[~e ~.~mhea~4t com~er of l~d now or l:o~rl,,, ~,[- ~., ..,'. , ~1~. '~',. p,~i{~ ,~ b~lh~n[ng; Running thence South 20~ 28' 30" We~t Running thence Southwe~4t alon~, the ~;l~.w~, lin,. ~.! I i!:t.:; (.,,"e, 1 .... 0 feet; Running thence North 34° 24' 10" W~,y;I ~?~5.u 1~.~' r,. [,a,d ,.F ?.diner; Running thence South ~q' 3]' '}0" BEGI~NIJ,G. TOGEql~R ~ith a perp~:t~ml navJ?tion I ri~..l~ ~.t '.-;av. ,,v,'r ,~ t.<~ l,,n,b ~.,..' or fom,erly of [;age in the basLn adjoi~in~ t'hc ;~[~],.c~ p~,.m:.,:, f,'.r ~ess and egress to ~hc: sub,eeC p~','mi~:~:~ i~ .~,~.~ w~r!, ,,/,,~ Deed dated Decenber Office on l.'m~m~ v 'I. AIL THAT CEtLTAJ2~ PLOT, PIECE OR PARC.ETL OF LAND, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County., New York, bounded and described as follows: PARCEL I. BEGIN~UI_NG at a concrete nDntrnent set on the southerly side of a 16 feet ~ride Right of Way where it is intersected by the easterly line of the lands now or formerly of Killion and approxinmtely 1740 feet easterly along the said Right of Way from State Road; Thence South 67° 41' 40" East along the southerlv line of said Right of Way 428.73 feet to a concrete monument and the westerly ]ine of thc lands now or formerly of Sage; %hence South 16° 56' 40" West along said lands 760 feet to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; Thence westerly along said high water mark on a tie line course and distance North 60° 16' 20" West 481.58 feet to the easterly side c,f ~he former entrance to the basin; Thence North 20° 28' 30" East' alon~ IJ:e former inlet to the basin, continuing along the basin and further continuing along lands now or formerly of Killion 694.83 feet to the concrete monument set on the southerly line of said Right of Way at dm poin~ or place of beginning, together with all right title and interest in and to two arms of land abutting on the west the course North 20° 28' 30" East aforerm~ntioned and jutting into the basin; TOGETHER with non exclusive easenmnt of Right of Way to pass and repass for all purposes over the 16 feet wide roadway hereinbefore mentioned rtmming from wherever said roadway contacts the premises hereinbefore described in a general westerly direction to State Road (the main higN~ay). PARCEL II. BEGIi~NING at a point on the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay at the southeasterly corner of IDt 52, ~kTp of Southold Shores, Suffolk County Map //3853; frc~n said point of beginning running along the easterly line of said Lot 52 and passing through a concrete re~numenr North 20° 08' 40" West 40 feet more or less to the shore of the basin; thence in a general northeasterly direction through the waters of the inlet and along the shore of said basin on a line generally parallel with a course North 75° 15' 00" East 325 feet more or less to Parcel I; thence along Parcel I to the ordirk~, high wai c.r n~rk of Peconic Bay and through the waters of the inlet on a linc genc-r,'ll]!/ parallel with the course South 75° 15' 00" We~ 325 fe~t note nr hms re the point' or place of beginning. TOGEXi[E]I with all the right, title ~w,d interest of Zehner t*~ the lands under the waters of Peconic Bay m~d the basin and betxceen thnse bodies of water. TOGEI~ 'ff~T~ ~..dth all thc easemcnt:~ ~d~c] appum:en:,l~c,,:; i~. :'~id &.eds pr,~vid~:d and subject to thc covenants the~:ein. BEING AND INT~]IDED ql) BE the same prc~ai:;e~' ccnv:~,vcd lc tl,- Sellers by ~ed &ted Octob~-r 5th, 1970 and recorded in Office on October ?_l~ , 1970 in I,iber 61~2t, cp ,'~ :. ALL THAT CERTAIN PL(Tr, PIECE OR PARCEL OF 1AND, with the buildings and improvenmnts thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Arshamomoque, near Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a ra~nunent set at the northeasterly corner of land now or formerly of Zehner adjoining land n~ or formerly of Sage; RUNNING thence along said land now or formerly of Sage, two courses; (1) South 67° 41' 40" East 25.11 feet; thence (2) South 16° 56' 40" West 777 feet, more or less, to ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; THENCE northwesterly along said high watermark, 28 feet more or less, to a point 25.0 feet westerly from the last described line measured at right angles thereto, to said land of Zehner; ~NCE along said land of Zehner, North 16° 56' 40" East 760 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. SAID parcel of land being 25 feet wide throughout. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE the sane premises conveyed to the Sellers by Deed dated September 1st, 1981 and recorded in Suffolk County. Clerk's Office on September 11, 1981 in Liber 9067 cp 557. ALL THAT CERTAIN PLOT, PIECE OR pAP,CI~ OF [~x~, with the buildi~ngs and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying ~n~d being a~ ,~:cshar~maque, in the Town of ~Couthold, suffolk c~u~ty, New York, bounde~l and described as follows: BEGINNING at a po,inn on the westerly boundax2~ l~ne of the pre~nises n~ .... -,~lrl' ~llo '~' ~(]" ~,~',~=r 175 SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMFNT Hobart Road Southold, New York 11971 JUN 6 1985 June 6, 1985 Southold Town Clerk's Office Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Application for Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District Dear Mrs. Terry: After meeting with the Southold Town Planning Board to discuss the subject application (Young's Marina), the preliminary recommendation was that the program met with the proposed goals of the Master Plan. Accordingly, they suggested that we make application to the Town Board for the above change of zone to permit the development of a motel-restaurant program along with the reconstruction and expansion of the existing marina. This application deals primarily with the motel-restaurant aspect and, at some future date, if the change of zone is granted, will permit the applicant to make application to the Planning Board as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals for the development of the above program. Accordingly, we are formally submitting the attached application for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-i" General Multiple Residence District. Please find attached the following documents: Judith T. Terry June 6, 1985 Page 2 Three copies of the application and explanation for the requested change of zone, which application has been duly signed and notarized; Six copies of a map to scale of the subject property, drawn to the requirements of the Suffolk County Planning Commission; Accurate boundary description, which is annexed to the application as Exhibit "A"; Six copies of a completed Town of Southold Environmental Assessment Statement, Part I; Original Notice to adjacent property owners, to which are attached the receipts for certified mail showing service of same upon all adjacent property owners; 6. Application fee of $500.00. If there are any additional questions or materials required, please call us at your convenience. Very truly yours, Wilbur Klatsky Consultant (516) 765-2954 WK:med Encs. cc.: Southold Town Planning Board TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~F ENVIRO;IMENTAL ASSESSMENT 'PART Project In for~n~tton NOTICE: This Oocument ~ desk,ned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the er,v)rCq,'ne~nt. Please co~4~lete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions wiI) be considered as gatt of the aoolication for apbroval and may be subject to Further verification and~ub)tc review. Provide any additional ~n~erma~ion you believe will be needed to comolet, FARTS 2 and 3. It is exDecteo that come)etlon of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new Studies, research OK investigation. If information requiring SUC~ additional wor~ is unavai~b)e, so indicate and soecify each instance. · ;(ANE OF PROJECT: SOUTHPORT MOTEL & MARINA NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If ~ifferent) (]aame) ADDRESS ANO NAME OF APPLICANT: (Street~ SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT Hobart Road (Stye't) Southold, New York 11971 (P.0.)' (State) (Zip) (P'JO.) (State) BUSiNCSS PHONE: (Zip} BESCRIPTIO9 OF P~OJECT: (Briefly describe type of breJect or action) Change of zone from "C" L.ight I~dust:ial District to "M-l" General Ivl~ltiple Residence District to permit development of motel-restaurant and reconstruction of e×isting marin~p[EASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTI(1N -Indtcate M.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undevelooed areas) I. Genera) character of the land: r, enerally uniform slope__ Generally uneven and rolling or irregular 2. Present land use: Urman , Industria) , Commercial , Suburban ,Rura) , Forest . , A~ricu)ture ,~ , Other Markka'and support recreati'bn~l facl£ities . Total acreage of project area:12.3a~;res. Aoproximate acreage: Meadow or 8rushland Forested 0 ~oricu)tural 0 '~t)and {Freshwater or Tidal ~s nar Antic)es ~4, 2~ ar ¢.C.~.) 0.39 0 3.72 ac. 8.63 ac. Presently After Completion O* O**acres 0'0'* acres .0.. acres O_ _Q_O_acres Q .acres acres acreO 0.25 acres bo%tor~ area upland area Presently After Completion 0'* **~ t.later Surface Area 3 ,33* /acres *3_._47acro~ Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) 0 OacresO 0 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 0.7 acresO I .?Sac.es Other (indicate tyne)D 7.93acr~ 6.88 acres Unimproved landscaped parking lot ~. una: is de~tn to bedrock? Unknown ('n ~eet) *Marina Reconstruction **Motel-Restaurant 6. Approxinate percentape of proposed project site with s)ooes: O-lO~ lOF~: lq-l~ __~; 15~ or greater %. 7. Places?Is project contigUOUyes ~tO,NoOr contain a building, or site listed on the National Register of Historic 8. What is the depth to the water table? 0-8 feet g. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes NO lO. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered - ,Yes X )iD, according to - Identify each species ll. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes X No. (Describe 12. Is the project site~presently used by the con~nunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: 15. 16. B. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous .to project area: Peconlc Bay a. Ilame Private Cove off / : b. Size (in acres) What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project {e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 12.35 acres. 8.63 8.63 b. Project acreage developed: acres initia)lyl __ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 3.72 d. Length of project, in miles: N/~ (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existi , 'ndicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age N/A ; developed acreage ~7~[ . 50 unimproved f. )lumber of off-str~et parking spaces existin~]- / · proposed 150 co~ined for entire · --- facility g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour 85 (upon Completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housinq units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial Ultimate i. If: Orientation "eignbornooa-City-Regional -2- 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 tons 0 cubic yards. 3. HOW many acres of veqetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) ~ill be removed from site - X acres. buffer & wetland areas 4. Will any mature forest (over lO0 years old) Or other locally-important vegetation be removed by tn~s project? Yes __No tO be created 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes ',o 6. If s~ngle phase project: Anticipated period o? construction 24 months, (including demolition). 7. l? multi-nhased project: a. Total number of phases anticipatedN/ANo. b. Anticipated date of co~encement phase ! month year (incluO~ng demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase month . year. d. Is phase I financially dependent on subseauent phases? __Yes __NO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No g. Number of jobs generated: during construction 35; after project is complete 15. 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0. ll. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? X Yes NO. If yes, explain: X 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? __Yes __No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste {sewage, industrial, etc.) S ewage/$torra water c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. 14. Is project or any portion of 0roject located in the 100 year flood plain? X Yes No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disQosal facility be used? __Yes NO c. If yes, give name: Southold Landfil% location Count~ Road 27/Southold d. dill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary lanofill? __Yes Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X NO Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local amoience noise levels? __Yes X No 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. No. If yes, indicate type(s) -- gals/m)nute. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes __ Heatin$, coolin~ and electric If water Supply is from wells indicate ourao~ng capacity N/A Total anticipated water usage per Oay1_3~_830 gals/day. Zoning: a. I.;hat is dominant zoning classification of site? Ind. __ b. Current specific zoning classification of site C-Light Ind. M-1 General Mult. Residence ho 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federa) permit required? X Yes No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No C. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Heal th Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies Yes Rezoninq Yes ~[t~P lan Y~s ~n~ ~1 Rxcept~ ~n Yes S~wer-water Ve~_ O_Q~rus. e~s -- ~e~_ ~annlnq comm. y~ . Yes ~ C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional infor~nation as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, p/~ase discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid, t~em~ / /.., l'/ PREPA,E. S ,I=A,D.E: TITLE: REPRESENTING: ,~/and Desi~qn Associates & The Land Use Compan% DATE: (June 7~/1985 -4- RECEIVED AUG 1 2 Town Clerk Southold DE:PARTME:NT OF' PLANNING ' COIJNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE LEE E~. KOPP£LMAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING August 8, 1985 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. - P.O. Box 728 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Southport Development" (#269) for a change of zoning from "C" light Industrial to "M-i" General Multiple Residence, Town of Southold (SD-85-9). Dear Ms. Terry, Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on August 7, 1985, reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to approve it subject to the following: 1. Premises will be restricted for marine and related uses; 2. There will be no expansion of the existing marina facilities; and 3. A sewage pump out station/holding tank area shall be available dockside for vessel waste containment. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:gcc JUL 3 01985 T LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 30, 1985 Judith Terry Town Clerk Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Southport Development Corp. presently known as Young's Marina Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 29, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board foward the their recommendations to the Town Board regarding the change of zone from C to M1 for Southport Development Corp., presently known as Young's Marina. Please refer to the attached letter (7/22) for the recommendation. If you have any questions, our office. enc. cc: Wilbur Klatsky please don't hesitate t~contact Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary RECEIVED JUL 2.3 1985 T LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 22, 1985 Southold Town Board Town of $outhold Southold, NY 11971 Re: $outhport Development Corp. Presently Young's Marina Application for change of zone from C to M-1 Gentlemen: The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed zone change for Southport Development from "C" Light Industrial to "M~i" General Multiple Residence District. This request for zone change is for the property known as Young's Marina. The applicant's request for the M-1 District is to allow for motel and restaurant use in conjunction with the marina operation. The proposed Master Plan zone recommendation by Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner for the site is Marine Recreation. The Planning Board, therefore, recommends, for your consideration, the zone change to the M-1 District subject to the applicable covenants and restrictions to restrict the M-1 use for the u~es that would parallel the proposed marine recreation zone which would allow for restaurant and motel use. We are available to meet with the Board to discuss this project at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. t r u~/yo~/ ~./ ~~-~ 3/' Bennett Orlowski, Jr., ~/nairman Southold Town Planning Board Description of land shown on "Map to accompany application for change in Zoning Use District prepared for Southport Development' as Applicant, at Greenport, Town of Southold. PARCEL ] June 14, i985 BEGiNNiNiNG dC d point foFmed by ~"~.,,= ~nte,~,v,,+~- of +~,,~ easterly line of the ]and of WilIiam Kilian with the southerly Iine of the ~and of Bayvlew Realty Development Corp. and running thence from said point of beginning easterly and southerly along the land of Bayview Realty Development Corp. the following courses and distances: (]) S. 80° 27' 08" E. 453.84 feet; (2) S. 4° II' 12" W. 771.06 feet to Southold Bay; thence westerly along the high water mark of Southold Bay, a tie l~ne along the high water mark having the following courses and distances: (1.) N. 74° 37' 48" W. 483.98 feet; (2) S. 69° 2I' 09" W. 162.79 feet; (3) N. 65° 31' 48" N. 51.94 feet to an inlet of Southold Bay; thence along and through the inlet of Southold Bay the following courses and distances: (1) N. 67° 02' 09" E. 73.08 feet; (2) N. 47° 09' 38" W. 295.00 Feet; (3) N. 7° 43' 02" E. 400.00 feet; (4) S. 82° 16' 58" E. 300.00 feet; (5) N. 52° 43' 02" E. 70.71 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of WJlIiam Kj]Jan; thence N. 7° 43' 02" E. aJong the land of WiII~am K~Jian ]25.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. PARCEL ll BEGINNING at a point Formed by the intersection of the easterly line of land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. with the high water mark of Southo]d Bay and running thence from said point of beginning N, 19° 12' 48" W. along the easterly line of the land of Southo]d Shores Assoc. Inc. 94.73 feet · $ thence southeasterly, southerly, northwesterly and south- westerly along an inlet of Southold Bay and along the high water mark of Southo]d Bay, the lines and tie line along aforesaid having the following courses and distances: (1) S. 56° 26' 57" E, I63.43 feet; (2) S. 16° 12' 49" W. 27.90 feet; (3) N. 62° 46' 33" W. 81.82 feet; (4) S. 68° 14' 44" W. 26.37 feet to the point or place of beginning. STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, York, being duly sworn, years; that on the 28th Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New says that she is over the age of twenty-one day of February 1986 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Notice of Receipt of Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development, providing for 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986, and re¢onvening public hearing with respect to the Draft ElS to 8:00 P.M., April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall. Judith T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 28th .day of February 19 8_~6 · Notar~Public' / EL, ZABETH ~N NEVI~ NOTARY PUBLIC. ~ate ~ ~w Y~ No. 52-812~850, ~ff~k ~ Term ~pir~ March ~, ~9 ~ ~ LEGAL NOTICE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ElS - SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold is in receipt of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development with respect to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986. The public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board, and will reconvene at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York~ at which time all persons will be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to same. DATED: February 25, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 6, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVll OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees Southport Development Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State JUDITlt 1' TERRY EGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OF =:ICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1197l TELEPHONE (5161 765-1801 March 26, 1986 Attached hereto is the Dredge Spoil Analysis and Water Samples for Southport Development for inclusion in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement transmitted to you under date of February 25, 1986. CC: Southold Town Planninc~: Board David Emilita, Planner Board of Town Trustee,~ Southport Development Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State N. GOUNT~Y ~D. · ~OX WADING RIVER. N,Y. tI79~ ~5~6) 9~9 3575 Town of Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attn: Ms. Judith Terry Re: Southport Development, DEIS Sediment Analysis Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find a map showing where the sediment samp- ling stations are located at the proposed project site, which was inadvertently left out with the original submission. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very Truly Yours, Glenn E. Just GEJ/te Enc. March 25, 1986 Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Southport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: We are in receipt of your letter of March 24, 1986 in regard to the dredge spoil analysis. The dredge spoil analysis samples were taken at the same time and at the same locations as the core samples. A map showing the locations of the core samples was included in the Addendum to Draft En- vironmental Impact Statement as Exhibit "G". This fact should have been noted in our letter transmitting the dredge spoil analysis. We are attaching a copy of said map for your use in identifying the locations of the dredge spoil analysis samples. Very truly yours, JF:mdh Enc. J UDITII 1'. TERRY TO~VN £'LERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 24, 1986 Joseph Fischetti,'Jr., P.E. Hobart Road ~outhold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Fischetti: Reference is made to the dredge spoil analysis and water samples report submitted to this office on behalf of Southport Development. A brief review of this report by David Emilita revealed that there is a map missing with respect to locations A, B, C and D of the Sediment Analysis. Once this map is received I will circulate it to those persons who previous- ly received the Addendum to the Draft ElS. Please note that, contrary to your cover letter which indicated this analysis is for inclusion in the Final ElS, it is actually for inclusion in the Addendum to the Draft ElS. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry-- Southold Town Clerk cc: D. Emilita March 20, 1986 Southold Town Clerk's Office Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Re: Southport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: David Emilita had requested a dredge spoil analysis and water samples for Southport Development, to be included in the final Environmental Impact Statement. We are hereby transmitting said analysis from The Land Use Company for inclusion in the final Fnvironmental Impact Statement. Very truly yours, ~oseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. JF:mdh Enc. cc.: Szepatowski Associates, 23 Narragansett Avenue Jamestown, RI 02835 N. COUNTRY RD. · BOX 36, WADING RIVER. N.Y. (5,b) DREDGE SPOIL ANALYSIS SOUTHPORT DEVELOPHENT Sediment AnalySis On collected core samples from four different locations subject area (see map) the samples were delivered to 'Test laboratories, Inc. of North Babylon on February and the results are as follows~ February 1, 1986, the staff of the Land Use Company in the Eco 4, 1986 SANPLEI Bottom Sediment, Sample A, 11525 AX L£ndane us/KS 42.0 Cadmium as Cd ms/Kg. 0.060 Heptachlor us/Kg (2.0 Chromium as Cr mS/KS 2.5 Aldrin us/Kg ~2.0 Copper as Cu mg/KS 9.~ Heptachlor Epoxide us/Kg ( 2.0 Lead as Pb ms/Kg 2.5 o,p-DDE us/Kg (2.0 Horcury as Hg ms/Ks 0.03 p,p-DDE uS/MS <2.0 Nickel as Ni mS/KS 5.2 Dieldrin us/KS 42.0 Selenium as Sa mS/Kg O.15 o,p-DDT uS/KS 42.0 Silver as AS ms/Kg 0.20 p,p-DDD us/Kg (2.0 Thallium as T1 ms/Kg O.0~ p,p-DDT us/Ks ~2.O Tin as Sn mS/KS 2.7 ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS Mirex uS/KS (2.0 Mathoxychlor uS/KS (4.0 Chlordane uS/KS (8°0 Toxaphene us/Kg (40 Arochlor 1016 uS/KS 440 A~ochlor 1221 uS/KS ~ 40 Arochlor 1232 uS/KS ~40 Arochlor 1242 us/Kg 440 Arochlor 1248 us/Kg ~40 Arochlor 1254 uS/Kg 440 Arochlor 1260 uS/KS 440 Arsenic as As ms/KS 1.8 Beryllium as Be ms/Kg 0.23 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Zinc as Zn ms/Kg -2- SANPLEI Bottom Sediment, Sample Bp 12sO5 PN Llndane us/Kg ~ 2.0 Cadmium as Cd Haptachloc us/Ks < 2.0 &ldcin us/KS ~ 2.0 Heptachlo~ £poxide us/Ks ~ 2.0 o,p-DDE us/KS ~2.O p~p-DDE us/Ks ~ 2.0 D~eld~in uS/Kg ~ 2.0 o,p-DDD us/Ks ~ 2.0 Endrin us/Ks ~ 2.0 o,p-DDD us/Ks ~ 2.0 p,p-DDT us/Ks ~ 2.0 Hlrax us/Ks ( 2.0 Nethoxyohlo~ us/Ks ~ 4.0 Chlordane us/Ks ~8.0 Toxaphena us/Ks ~0 &roehlor 1221 us/Ks ~ 40 A~ochlor 1232 us/Ks ~ 40 Arochlo~ 1242 us/Ks ~ 40 Arochlor 12~8 us/Ks ~0 Arochlor 1254 us/Kg ~40 Arochlor 1260 uS/KS ~ 40 Arsenic as As mS/KS 1.7 · eryllium as Be ms/Ks 0,50 Chromium as Cr Copper as Cu Lead as Pb Nickel as Ni Selenium Silver aa Ag Thalliua aa T1 Tin es Sn Zinc as Zn ms/Ks ms/Ks ms/Ks ms/Kg ag/Kg ms/Ks ms/Kg mS/KS mS/KS ms/Kg ms/Ks 0.065 13 16 10 0.03 11 0.16 0.25- 0.18 2.8 120 -3- SAHPLEs ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS Bottom Sediment, Sample Cj 12125 PH ANALYTICAL PARAH£TERS Lindene ue/~$ (2.0 Hepcachlo~ ug/~8 42.0 Aldrin us/K8 ~2.0 Heptachlor Epoxide ug/KS (2.0 ojp-DDE uS/ES ~2.0 p,p-DD£ u8/~8 ~2.0 Dieldrin us/£8 ( 2.0 o,p-DDD us/£S ~2.0 End,in uS/KS ~ 2.0 o,p-DDT uS/£S ~2.O p~p-DDD us/KS ~ 2.0 p~p-DDT uS/KS a 2.0 Hlrex uS/KS ~2.0 HathoxychXor uS/KS ~ ~.0 Chlordane uS/KS ~ 8.0 Toxaphene u8/K8 4 ~0 Arochlor 1016 uS/KS ~ 40 Arochlor 1221 uS/KS ~ 40 Arochlor 1232 Arochlor 1242 uS/KS ~0 Arochlor 1248 Arochlor 1254 us/£8 ~ ~0 Arochlo~ 1260 uS/KS 440 Arsenic aa As mS/KS ~.2 Beryllium as Be m8/K8 0.24 Cadmium aa Cd ms/K8 0.080 Chromium am C~ ms/KS 12 Copper as Cu mS/KS 12 Lead am Pb ms/KS 10 He~cury aS Hg ms/~S 0.0~ Nickel aa Ni ms/Ks 8.5 Selenium aa Se m8/£8 0.18 Silver aa AS ms/£8 0,20 Thallium as T1 me/lS 0,18 Tin as Sn mg/K8 3.6 Zlno aa Zn mS/K8 43 -4- SANPL£~ ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS Bottom Sediment, Lindane us/Kg Heptachlor us/Ks Aldrin us/Kg Heptachlor £poxide us/Ks o~p-DDE us/Ks p.p-DDE us/Ks Dieldrin us/Ks o,p-DDD us/Kg Endrin us/Kg o,p-DDT uS/KS p,p-DDD us/Kg p,p-PDT us/Ks Mirax us/Ks Methoxychlor us/Ks Chlordane us/Kg Toxaphene us/Ks Arochlor 1016 uS/KS Arochlor 1221 us/Ks Arochlor 1232 us/Ks Arochlor 1262 us/Ks Arochlor 1248 us/Ks Arochlor 1254 us/Ks Arochlor 1260 us/Ks A~sanic as As ms/Kg Beryllium as Be ms/Kg ~2.0 /~2 0 /,,20 ~.2o /,.20 ~.2 o ~.2o (20 ~./2 o 0 <~2o0 ~2.0 <.2.0 ~4.0 ~8.0 ~0 ~o ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~o 3,3 Sample D, 1100 PN ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS Cadmium ms/Ks 6.8 Chromium es Cr ms/Kg 0,25 Copper as Cu ms/Ks 12 Lead as Pb ms/Ks 9.5 Nercury aa Hg ms/Kg Selenium aa Se ms/Kg 0.18 Silver as As ms/Kg O.10 Thallium as TI ms/Ks 0.08 Nickel &a Hi ms/Ks Tin as Sn ms/Ks 3.2 Zinc aa Zn ms/Kg 33 0.23 -5- The sample*8 c~ite~io tested was for Bulk Sediment Anolysis as per reque8~ of the lead agency, Southold Town Board, It was noted that the numerous regulotory agencies involved in this DEIS have in foot no' 8tondards for the acceptability of potential contaminants that ore to be found in dredge spoil. Contacted weret Hr. Alex Lechich, Area Hanager of the UoS.D.O.Ao, Hr. Larry Enoch of ~he N.Y.S.D~O.S., Coastal Hanagement Program~ Hr° Dennis ColeS-of the Bureau of Regulatory Affairs at the N.Y.S.D.E.C. end various staff members of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Maste8 at N.Y.S.D.E.C. Particularly during conversation with Hr. Enoch, who is a dredging specialist with N.Y.S.D.O.S.. Coastal Hanesement Program it was noted that even though standards have been examined for disposal in the LoX. Sound, no standards have been set for upland disposal. ~tth this the staff of the Land Use Company then contacted Hr. Steven Congdon of · the New England Division of the U.S.D.O.Ao in Waltham, Hassachusatts, who supplied us with the following information. With the absence of definitive knowledge of pollution effects or the effects of specific pollutont8 found in dredge ~poil at disposal site8 the following chemical and physical parameters are called for in the review of a disposal action or what conditions, will be placed on the disposal of ~he dredged material. Dredged material sediment ~t~ classified -6- es follows~ A CLASS Percent oil and srease (hexane extract) 0,2 Percent volatile (NED mehtod) 5 Percent water 40 Percent silt-clay 60 CLASS CLASS III 0,2-,75 ,75 5-10 10 40-60 60 60-90 90 Class ! sediments are often relatively coarse-grained with high solids content, volatile solids, oil and grease, heavy metals, and potential pollutant concentrations ara low. Class I sediment based on a case-by-case subjective evaluation of the dredse site and/or metal8 concentration. Class I materials include non-recent and recent sediment8 which are suitable for capping materials at open water dump sites, for habitat creation projects, or rehandling for productive uses includin8 beach nourishment and land fill cover based on the evaluationo Class I! sediments are often relatively fine-graded with moderate solids content. Class II materials may contain a moderate amount of potential pollutants, volatile solids, oil and grease, and metals, at levels often ouffiotant to be a cause for concern. A subjective evaluation of the dredge site and metals is needed to dasisnate this material as either "non-degrading" o: "potentially degrading". ?otentially -7- degrading Class I! material ulll be treated as Class III material, On the other hind) this evaluation m&y 8hoM that some Class II material is suitable for habitat creation projects, capping Class II1 material, and landfill cover. Class III sediment8 are usually fine°graded with low solids ~ontents. These materials often contain high levels of potential pollutants, volatile solids, oil and grease, and metals. Class III sediments may be judged "potentially degrading" or "potentially hazardous" based on the relative concen- trations of pollutant constituents. The probability for Class II! sediments being "toxic" -to marine bottom fauna may be high. Subjective evaluation of metals end other pollutants~ and objective review of bioasaay and/or bio-accumulation test results, may be required to determine the suitability of Class III material for open water disposal at Long Island Sound regional disposal areas. suitable Class I conditions under may include both As a general policy, Class III material will not be dumped at regional disposal sites unless it is capped with or Cla88 II material. Therefore, tho which Class III material may be dumped temporal and seasonal restrictions relatin~ ~.o the availability of suitable material for capping or alternative management techniques directed towaEd8 the goal off maximum environmental protection. In additionj there may be certain circumstances under which open water disposal may be -8- prohib£tad. Statistical analysis of metals data on sediment8 developed by the Corps of Engineers from numerous New E~Rleud ports and harbors, aa well as non-spoil sediment8 from the vicinity of open wate~ d£sposal areas, suggest the folloeing operational limits are appropriate to enable confirmation of the sediment class designation8 d~snrtbad above. Average and range values for metals in Central'Long Island Sound sediments are included for comparative purposes. In general, the Corps of £nsineers date shows that high concentration of metals appear in the sediments of highly industrialized ports and harbors. Central Sound ~evel of 'Contanination Sediment AveraSe (ppm dr[ basis)... Range Low Hoderate High Hg .05 .05 0.5 0.5-1.5 1.5 ?b 27.8 6-63 100 100-200 200 Zn 87.8 2~3-21~ 200 200-~00 ~00 As .... 10 10-20 20 Cd 1.3 1-2.9 3 3-7 7 Cc 28.8 2-108 100 100-300 300 Cu 69.6 2-269 200 200-400 400 Ni 11.2 2-40.6 50 50-100 100 V .... 75 75-125 125 -9- All concentrations are give in mg/litre, Concentrations of PCB's of 1.0 parts per million (PPJM) will be considered as confirmation of high contamination~ DDT 0.5 PPM and Dieldrin 0.1 PPM (dry basis). With the aforementioned data~ it can be assumed that the levels of contaminants found in the proposed dredge spoil can be classified as Class I material. "Class I spoil is considered clean material acceptable for beach nourishment or open water disposal at regional disposal sites or at a site of similar lithologic background." Interim Plan for the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound, New England River Basins Commission, August 1980. It should be noted that sample D revealed moderate levels of cadmium. However, this area of the project contains deep water and will not be subject to the 6' maintenence dredging program. Additionally, it should be noted that said cadmium level may be the result of limited past dredging in this area. As stated previously, this section of the basin area contains deep water and has not been the subject of sediment removal operations. As a result, a higher concentration of particles and/or similar source material may have resulted in the parameter found within this sample. It should be also noted that said parameter would still place the spoil material within a "non-degrading" classification suitable for use in habitat creation projects such as intertidal marsh construction activities. -10- The following table indicates data collected to date on the bacteriological water quality in the subject area by the N.¥.S.D.£.C. Seen enclosed map for station locations. Total Coliform HPN/IOOml Da~e Sta~ion,~ Station 2 Station 3 Tide 1-27-86 240 4 240 high ebb 2-3-86 3 3 3 low 2-13-85 3 7 3 mid- flood *Rainfall recorded at the Southold Police Station, Rainfall* 1-27 - 1-26 - 0.41 2-2 - 0.38" no Fecal Coliform MPN/100ml Date Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Tide 1-27-86 93 3 4 high ebb 2-3-86 3 3 3 low 2-13-86 3 7 3 mid- flood Using a three quality at a station is form MPN/100ml is 70 or samples exceed at total tube NPN teat, bacteriological water acceptable if the median total coil- less and no more than 10Z of the coliform NPN/100ml of 330j or if the median fecal coliform MPN/100al is 14 or less and no more that 10Z of the samples exceed a fecal coliform of MPN/100ml ~f 49. Rainfall* 1-27 - 1.46# 1-26 - 0,41" 2-2 0.38# no rain that Review of the aforementioned data ~ould the higher coliform counts ~ere attributable -11- indicate to overland (storm water) runoff entering the basin area in the vicinity of station numbers 1 and 3 (Area adjacent to Sase Blvd. and Tarpon Road Canal vicinity. Sea map for specific 8ampXe locations). It should also be noted that significant rainfall occurred during this period and that the said stations 1 and 3 were located adjacent to single family dwellings and/or road improvements not incorporating storm water management systems. During the test period covered by data analysisw an average of 3 vessels were moored in the subject vicinity. Conversations with various staff members of the N.Y.- S.D.E.C. indicated that the Inter-State Shellfish Program has recommended that all marinas be closed to shellfishing during the summer months. -12- DEPARTM£NTOFPLANNING tI~JNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F'. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE LEE E. KOPPELN~AN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING March 17, 1986 Mr. F. M, Flynn P.O. Box 144 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Southport Development" (#269) for a change of zone from "C" light industrial to "M-i" General Multiple Residence, Town of Southold (SD-85-9). Dear Mr. Flynn: In response to your letter of 3/12/86 please be advised that in accordance with established policy and procedure of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, the above referenced can only be reconsidered upon submission of an amended application. The Planning Commission only approved the zoning change subject to use/developmental restrictions. If the zoning change is approved, and the existing zoning remains in effect, petitioner will have to file special permit applications with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the motel and marine use(s) necessitating further Planning Commission consideration of such development proposals. If the proposed zoning is enacted, the motel/restaurant use(s) will require submission of applications for a special permit, once again necessitating Planning Commission consideration of such development proposals. While the marina is a permitted use under the proposed "MB" zoning requirements, the ComMission determination clearly sets forth a limitation on any expansion of such facility. Any further interpretation of terminology set forth in the letter of determination can only be offered by the Planning Commission. Very truly yours, Lee E.Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:jk cc: Southold Town Board F.M. Flynn P. o. B. l~ Southold, NY 11971 March 12, 1986 Mr. Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner County of Suffolk Department of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, L. I., NY 11788 Application of "Southport De.v~!opment" (~269) for a change of zoning from '~" Light Industry to 'M - i General Multiple Residence, Town of Southold ( SD- 85- 9 ) Dear Mr. Newman: I refer to the letter of August 8, 1985 regarding the subject application and signed by you on behalf of Dr. Koppelman and the Planning Co-w, ission. You realize, of course, that your letter is being used by Southport as an endorsement of its entire project sad apparently accepted as such by the Town of Southold. This virtually blanket approval of the project is so widely at variance with the opinions you expressed on the occasion of our visit to your office, and with the recommendations of other highly regarded and qualified planners such as Frederick H. Reuter, AICP, that I question whether the Commission was fully aware of the facts involved and of the intensity of the planned uses. It would also appear to me that your approval gives scant attention to the safety and welfare of the community; to the project's effects on the character of ~he neighborhood; to the impact on surrounding property values and, perhaps even more important, to the deleterious effects on the area's sensitive ecology. It ~ppemrs that the subject property has been singled out for a variety and density of uses which benefit the applicant at the expen~ of surrounding owners and the neighborhood at . large. The facts of the matter are that the subject property consists of approx- imately 8 upland acres and 3.?~ acres of und.erwater land. The preposterous nature of the application is demonstrated by the applicants stated intention: to expand the dockage by approximately 50~; operate a marina up to industry standards; build an 82 unit motel; build a 125 seat restaurant and continue the operation of a pool and tennis club. In its applications, Southport represents the entire property as being zoned -2- for "C" Light Industry use. Our investigations indicate that the under- water land was never zoned for this use and inquiries of the town produced no record of a required special exception for marina use in "C" zoning. Thus, it is our position that, unless the applicant proves otherwise, the use of the underwater land for marina use is illegal and should be terminated rather than expanded. If our analysis proves correct, the entire basis for the Southport Development application is false. The exorbitant intensity of the proposed upland use is indicated by the applicant's OEIS in which it is stated that the existing marina/boatyard "encompasses the ma~orit[ of the site ". Since the applicant states its intention to "expand the m~rina" substantially, it is only logical that the entire upland area would be required for marina use. This is all the more the case since the property has a special exception for pool and tennis club use on 2.1 acres of the 8Tacre upland area. You may recall that at the time of o.,r discussion, you were in general agreement that the operation of a modern marina required an upland area at least equal to the water surface area used for dockage. It appears obviuos there is simply not enough upland area to accomodate the proposed uses. This is particularly so when it is realized that the property's configuration precludes the development of 2+ acres included in the required wetlands setback areas. Of the remaining 6~cres of upland, 2.1~ acres is allocated to the pool and tennis club. If the marina is to meet modern requirements for winter storage, repairs and maintenance, ~ acres of upland would be a reasonable requirement. These calculations indicate there is no available acreage for the construction of a mere 8~ unit motel and a 125 seat restaurant. Despite your recommendation to the contrary, the applicant states that he intends to expand the marina. His plans call for an increase from 91'[ slips to 138 ~ slips, o~5.0~. Further he intends to more than double the linear footage of docks. As a matter of fact, the zoning places no limits on the ~ber of ~!lp~ ~,~ther the use of the ramp a~d of "high ~nd dry" ~torage could create "wall to wall" boats on the small emba~mento. Perhaps the Commission does not realize that the marina is accessible by a channel ' only 20 ft. in width. Further, the beams of the proposed slips range from 21 ft. to 12.5 ft. None of the boats for which the slips are planned can pass each other in a 20 ft. channel. Sketches submitted by the owner do not depict the overall impact of the project on the surrounding properties nor do they reveal that the proposed marina is situated in an embayment the entire area of which is classified by the DEC as tidal wetlands. The embayment is an ecologically sensitive area with productive shellfish beds and nesting areas for water fowl. Further, the surrounding upland is an important wildlife habitat area. The smbayment's configuration is actually that of five separate basins all depending on the previously mentioned 20 ft. channel for the necessary flushing -3- action. The construction of an enlarged marina and the more than doubling of the footage of floating docks actually creates a series of weirs or dams which will confine pollutants and serve to make sewers or sumps of previously virtually pristine areas. Should you believe I exaggerate the effects of pollution emanating from a marina, I suggest you read the recent studies on the effects of marine bottom paints on shellfish and aquatic life and check with the DEC on the recent oilspill at the subject property. T~e applicant's plans also call for the dredging of 17,OO0 cu. yds. of spoil which, in large part, he intends to deposit on existing wetlands. The effect on other areas of the embayment and its resourses is not even considered. Further, such dredging is represented as . maintenance'. If, as we believe, the present marina operation is illegal, it can hardly be maintained. One of the most important considerations affecting the proposed uses of the site has apparently been overlooked by the Commission arriving at its conclusion. The property is located on Sage Boulevard some 17~O ft. easterly from Rte. 25. Despite its grandiose name, Sage Boulevard is a private, poorly paved R.O.W. with an overall width of 16 ft. The applicant has only an easement over the R.O.W. and the land on both sides is owned by others over the aforementioned 1700 ft. ~hzrhter, the R.O.W. is in such close proximity to both fresh and saltwater wetland on both sides that it is not probable to assume it could be widened. Nevertheless, the applicant blithely presumes that Sage Boulevard will accomodate 2204 trips per day with 183 trips during the peak hour. Over one-half of this count will be marina traffic consisting of trucks, tractor-trailers and passenger vehicles all passing on a 16 ft. Right of Way without shoulders. The traffic will average one vehicle every 20 seconds during peak hours and one every 30 seconds nitht and d~. Such a situation is obviously unsafe and the Town of Southold's consultant states that the existin~ access is unsatisfactory. Finally, the others interested in this matter, (and in the proposed Master Plan for the Town of Southold) and I would appreciate an explanation of your interpretation of marine related uses. Certainly motel~ and restau.~nt~ ~re more n~g~way uses than marine related. They are more frequently found at desert and mountain resorts or serving transient travelers than at marinas. As ~ matter of fact, as I'm sure you know, the recent trend has been tn restrict motels and restaurants from waterfront sites for a variety of reasons not the least of which is their potential for the polltion of wetland areas. In summary, substantial arguments have been mustered against this application by experienced planners and by the community at large. I have recited only some of the factors influencing these opinions. Under the circumstances, the Department and Com~aission should certainly reopen this matter, investigate my statements and negate the approval. Co~ies Henr~ C. Weismann, Esq. P. O. B. 1123, Southol~, NY 11971 Christopher Kelly, Esq. ~omey, Latham, Shea & Kelley 33 West Second St. P. O. B. 39~ Riverhea¢l, NY 11901 Town Board, Town of Southol~ Town Hall Main Rd., $outhola, NY 11971 Board of Town Trustees, Town of $oughol~ Town Hall, Main Rd.~ Southol~, NY 11971 Mr. Charles T. Hamilton Dtabe of NY D.E.C. Regulator~ Affairs Unit. Suny- Building ~O Rm. 219 Stonybrook~ NY 1179~ Henry G. Williams, Commissioner S~a~e of N.Y. D.E.C. 50 Wolp Rd. Albany, NY 12223 Mr. William F. Barton N.Y.State Department of State, Albany, NY 12231 Assemblyman Joseph Sawicki, 206 Griffing Ave., P.O.B. 1060, Riverhea~l~ NY 11~O1 Dr Martin Garrel,Chairman of Town Conservation A~lvisory Counsel Mrs Ruth Oliva,Presi~ent of North Fork Enviromental Counsel JUDITlt T TERRY TOV~N CLI RK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516~ 765-1801 March 14, 1986 Southport Development P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Reference is made to my letter of December 5, 1985 to Town Planner David Emilita, copy of which was sent to you, with respect to his review of the DEIS for Southport Development. This letter stated that the expense for his review shall be reimbursed to the Town. Enclosed herewith is a copy of the voucher of Szepatowski Associates, Inc. itemizing the cost for this DEIS review. Please remit a check in the amount of $1,600.00 to this office at your convenience. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Planning Board David Emilita TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. :~ ' ' ' To · Szepatowski Associates, Inc. Claimnnt · : :~x.. ~ I ~ .... .:~3 Add .... 23 Narragansett Avenue, Jamestown, RI 02835 .._-F~b~ ................................................................................. .......................... Fed. I. D. No ................................. STH 86.1 S Janaury 1986 orSoc. SecurityNo ..................... Progress Billing: as per Town Board Resolution. Principal Planner 10 hours @ $50 00 $ 500 00 Rnvirnnmmnfal Dm~i~nmr 97.5 bm!]tm S 40 00 1100 O0 $1600 00 Tile undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing.~.. ,. , , . Dated Februarv 3 .... 19 86 {'"N~fI,JIq("'[hll- ~', ~" e ...,) ~,.~ v~..b~,w'.,.iL,.''' ...:~......~. ........... ..} ............................... I..:.~..AL... :._,/ Signature JUDITH T TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STAT[$TIC$ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 blain Roa P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 December 5, 1985 David Emilita, Town Planner Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Dave: The Soutbold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on December 3, 1985, adopted a resolution directing you to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the change of zone petition of Southport Development, as requested by the Southold Town Planning Board. Actual expense to the Town of Southold for reviewing this DEIS shall be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Councilman Stoutenburgh would like you to notify him when you conduct this review so he may be present. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk CC: Planning Board Councilman Stoutenburgh Southport Development IFLEPHONF SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL March 5, 1986 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Subject: CAC comments on Addendum to DEIS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 for Southport Development Dear Board Members: Our comments remain much the same for this project although the addendum clarifies several items. In what follows, we sum- marize our criticism o£ the DEIS and then list specific items, page by page. We still find the maps misleading. One glance at Exhibit B shows that the area £or the complex contains excessive blacktop which, i£ allowed, would be ruinous £or the surrounding areas. It's hard to believe that the requested zoning would eat up virtually all the usable land without providing for any open space, but that is exactly what is indicated. Where are the contracts here for Greenport water, and what are the plans for REAL LIFE sewage disposal? This development clearly needs more than a simple denitrification system when marina users come onto land and use the facilities. The calculated e£fluent is plainly a "fudge" to get in under the amounts that would legally require sewage treatment under County Department of Health regulations. Why not be honest and admit that the 20000 or 25000 gpd level will require a hookup to Greenport sewage and request that with the zoning change? Are the applicants worried about zoning approval if they are honest about this? Now a few page-by-page comments: 1) p. 11 What are true costs to the town here for roads, maintenance? 2) p. 14 What specific changes are required for Sage Blvd.? 3) p. 18 Just where will these dredge spoils be deposited for eventual removal to upland? 4) p. 19 Exactly what is meant by "wetlands creating"? Has this group of developers never done this before? We seriously doubt that! Page 2 5) p. 20 If the typical cost of a 32 foot craft, some $100.000. to $500,000.,doesn't make them "luxury" or "elite", what do you call them? Even "yuppies" don't qualify as boat owners for such things. 6) p. 41 Of course there were no scallops this year! The conclusion for recent times is not justified in the report. 7) p. 50 A multiply-sampled one year survey of fish species is called for, especially for juveniles. 8) p. 58 How much fertilizer use is "improper"? Are you going to fertilize the blacktop, or what? 9) p. 26 Estimated water use by accessory lavatories is ridiculously low. Some 60 flushes @10 gallons or even 120 flushes @ 5 gallons per flush is much too low when you think about all the "elite" marina users coming ashore to use the heads all day every day. An honest figure would best be obtained from Carl Darenberg or Henry Colombi at Montauk. 10), p. 59 Just how are your going to reduce illegal dumping? Patrols? How will you enforce, or will this just another burden on the town? 1~) p. 65-66 There is not "other income" to the marina included in the figures presented. Surely the sales of gear and equipment should be figured? Also aren't the operating expenses a bit on the low side? One is always suspicious of figures that are so beautifully rounded off, like $200,000. It really makes the final figure of $143,000. net look far too low. We can only hope this criticism will be addressed frankly in the final EIS so that the Town can finally act on the proposal and evaluate it for true merit. Thus far, the EIS hardly presents the proposal in a favorable light. In fact it makes a rather poor case for a zoning change. / Dr. Martin H. Garrell, Chairman Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK _ I.~GAL NOTICE RF~E~IST O~ ADDENDUM q'O "I)RAFT ElS -- SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOT~CE IS HEREBY GIV- EN. that the Town Board of the Town of £onthold is in receipt of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment of Southport Develop- ment with respect to their peti- tion for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-'I" General Multiple Residence Dist/'ict, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the wester- ly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, con- sisting of 12.461 a~:res. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Com- ment and Cmltact Person: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986. The public 'hearing with respect to the 'IDraft En- vironm'ental Impact ~;tatement of ffouthport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board, and will reconvene at 8:00 P;M., Taes- day', April 8, 1986, Sou~hold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,' New York, at which time all persons will be given an opportunity' to be heard with respect to same, DATED: February 25, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 1T-3/6/86(7) Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she i:~ the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Sou/hold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman ortce each week for. ................. ./. ........ weeks successively, commencing on the .......... °./. . 7' ........ day ., ...... ~..~ ....... 19 ..... .... . . .--"~-7. :-7'.'z: :-~. {,, ,, ...,: '7' .... Sworn to before me this ......... ' ............ day of ? Notary Public Legal Notices LEGAL NOTICE RECEIPT OF ADDEMDUM T{ ) I)RAFT C[S - SOUTHg'ORT DEVELOP- MENT EXTENSION FOIl P UBLI(', COMMENT NOTI(E IS HERk BY GIVEN that the lown Board o(the To~n ofSouthold ~s m rece.0~ of an Ad- dendum ~o the Draft Environ- &om 'C" Light Industrial Dis- ,dd Town Board, a[;d will recon- ~ ene at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April ~, 1986, Southold ~[own Halh Main Road. Southold. New York. DATED: February 25. 1986 STATE OFNEW YORK ) I SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Mary K, Degnan _ofGreenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold. County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed a printed copy, has been regularly published In said Newspaper once each week for cqne weeks successively, commencing on the _ 6 dayof March 19 S~ ./" Prin~al Clerk Sworn to before ~e this ~ ~0~b2, S.a~ ' /'d ~ ~ /~E,~rc~ rd:rd, 30 19~ / 77. LEGAL NOTICE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ElS - SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold is in receipt of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development with respect to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986. The public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board, and will reconvene at 8:00 PoM., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at which time all persons will be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to same. DATED: February 25, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 6, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees Southport Development Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State LEGAL NOTICE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ElS - SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold is in receipt of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development with respect to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986. The public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board, and will reconvene at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, New York, at which time all persons will be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to same. DATED: February 25, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 6, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees Southport Development Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 25, 1986 3:30 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO "M-l" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: At this time I would like to reconvene a public hearing which was originally held on February 4th, 1986, 8:00 P.M., Southold Town Hall, concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. We are going to recess this hearing again to allow comment on the Addendum that was turned in. We are not going to disallow any comments. Anybody could make any comment they want, but there will be a reconvening of this public hearing after there is time to evaluate the new addendum. At this time I'd llke to ask anybody if they would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LYNNE M. GORDON, Attorney: Gentlemen and ladies, I am Lynne Gordon of the firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn. Your resolution No. A I think is fairly clear. I just want, in my own mind, clarify it. The public will have until March 26th to make further comment. That will then be the end of the public comment period? And then there will be a hearing, which we have some expectation of being the final hearing, on April 8th, or should it be adjourned for another week or something like that. But is that where matters stand as of now? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It appears so. Yes. Is that correct, Bob? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: I don't know. Judy's got the resolution. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Yes, 8:00 P.M., April 8th. MS. GORDON: The time is somewhat longer than we had expected, but we certainly will no object and will be pleased to do what we can to assist the Board. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on behalf of the applicant? (No response.) Anyone like to speak opposed to this draft? (No response.) Anyone like to make any comments to the Town Board at all? (No response.) Okay, if not, I would like to recess this to April 8th at 8:00 P.M., Southold Town Hall. Page 2 - Reconvened Public Southport Draft ElS Moved by Councilman Schondebare, seconded by Councilman Penny, it was RESOLVED that this reconvened public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of' Southport Development be and hereby is recessed until 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council- man Schondebare, Councilman Stoutenburgh, Justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy. This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T TERRY [o~,~. N ( LFRk OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765~1801 February 24, 1986 To: From: Re: Southold Town Board Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Southport Development Addendum Per letter of Joseph Fischetti, Jr., please attach this Topographic Map Showing Existing Site to second page following yellow sheet marked "Exhibits" in your Addendum. February 24, 1986 Town of $outhold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Southport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: In regard to the Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement, please be advised that Exhibit A, the Topographic Map Showing Existing Site, was inadvertently copied upside down. Attached are corrected copies, which should be inserted and stapled over the originals. Very truly yours, ~oseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. JF:mdh Encs. FEB 2 41966 THOMAS A TWOMEY. JR. STEPHEN B LATHAM JOHN F. SHEA. III CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY AMY B TURNER LAWRENCE M STORM' MAUREEN t. LICCIONE 'ALSO ADMITTED IJ~ CONNECTICUT AND FLORIDA TV~'O~,IEY, LATHA~,[, SHEA & KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P O. BOX 398 February 21, 1986 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. N Y. 11937 51S-3Z4-I200 The Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Southport Development -- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board: I write this letter on behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn in response to certain statements made by the attorney for Joseph Fishetti, Jr., in his letter to you of February 4, 1986. At page 2, counsel states that Southport has made application to the Board "merely for a change of zone that anticipates the change in use proposed for this site by the recently completed town master plan". He concludes that given the contents of the proposed master plan the need for the applicant to develop extensive data in the EIS process is eliminated. This conclusion is wrong for several reasons. First, the master plan proposal to date and as presented at the Hamlet Meeting would have the proposed Southport site designated for marine business use. This use does not include motels or hotels as either a permitted use or a special exception use. This was pointed out by the Town's planning consultant in his comments on the DEIS. The request for a change to the zone of general multiple residence in the current zoning code would permit boats, hotels and motels with special exception, but would not permit restaurants. Thus, the proposal neither conforms to the requirements of a zone The Town Board Town of Southold February 21, 1986 Page Two existing in the current zoning code nor the proposed zoning for the site under the new master plan. Therefore, contrary to counsel's opinion, it cannot be said that the master plan data supports this proposal eliminating the need for the applicant to provide such extensive data in the DEIS. Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the $outhport proposal was permitted by the existing or proposed zoning, the applicant would not be relieved from justifying the proposal from an environmental and economic point of view in the DEIS. Our consultants, Frederick Reuter and Larry Penny, have concluded that there are serious flaws with the DEIS, in fact so serious, that to allow the DEIS to proceed through public comments to the FEIS without being rewritten and substantially revised, would substantially undermine the SEQRA process. The same conclusion is reached by the Town's Conservation Advisory Counsel, which in its February 4, 1986 memo to the Town Board states "the serious flaws and ommissions in the DEIS render it inadequate and possibly illegal". Third, counsel's argument that a generic EIS is appropriate for this project is totally without merit. As the SEQRA handbook states at page B46, with regards to "Rezoning and SEQRA": There are many situations where a specific project and rezoning issue are so tightly interwoven that is is impractical to treat the generic land use oriented concerns separately. Then it is useful to consider the rezoning as though it is one of the approvals necessary for the project. It is clear in this instance that the developer is not proposing a change of zone to allow any number of a variety of different projects. The developer has ~ specific project in mind which would involve numerous The Town Board Town of Southold February 21, 1986 Page Three intesive uses on a single site. He knows specifically how many motel units, how large a restaurant and how many boat slips he wishes for his new facility. Under SEQRA, a generic impact statement is simply not appropriate. At page 3 of his letter, counsel quotes page B45 of the SEQRA handbook in support of his argument that a generic statement would be appropriate. However, counsel fails to quote the circumstances favoring such treatment. The number one circumstance listed which would favor such treatment is when "the applicant has no specific project planned" (SEQRA Handbook page B45). Here, that is simply not the case and a generic statement is insufficient. At page 3 of his letter, counsel states, referring to intervenors' consultant, Frederick Reuter, "if the North Carolina planning consultant who critisized the DEIS had been sent the master plan update background studies, most of the questions he has raised would have been answered." In the first instance, Mr. Reuter had before him the background studies, the proposed master plan, and the proposed zoning code. All his comments were made in the context of those documents. Further, as can be seen from a review of Mr. Reuter's comments on the master plan and proposed zoning for the site that were submitted to the Board at the Hamlet meeting on February 14, 1986, the background studies and master plan do not support the subject proposal being located in a low density residential area on such a small embayment with significant environmental constraints. Perhaps counsel should review those background studies again himself. Second, to the extent that counsel implies that Mr. Reuter is not familiar with Long Island and in particular east end zoning, planning and environmental issues, he might review Mr. Reuter's professional resume attached to both his comments on the DEIS and his comments on the proposed master plan. If he did he would find that Mr. Reuter has been involved in planning issues on Long Island for thirty-six years and February 19, 1986 Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Southport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: We are transmitting herewith the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, requested by the Town Board at the public hearing on February 4, 1986. 15 copies of said document are enclosed. This Addendum contains answers to questions developed by Szepatowski Associates, Inc., consultants to the %'own Board, in their memorandum dated January 20, 1986. We hope this additional information will be helpful to the Town Board in making an affirmative decision on this matter at our meeting of February 25, 1986. If there are any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. JF:mdh Encs. ¼ 'J~seph ~schett~, !Jr., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FEB 2 01986 ADDF~DUM TO DF~.FT ENVIRONME~TTAL IMPACT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMF~[T STATEMENT PREPARED BY: LAND USE COMPANY WADING RIVER, NEW YORK DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1986 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDE~DU~ TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK This addendum document has been prepared for submission to the lead agency, the Town of Southold. Said agency has re- quested additional information, data analysis and clarification of sections contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted on November 19, 1985. This document seeks to answer the comments received from the Town Board through Szepatowski Associates, Inc. by way of a memorandum dated January 20, 1986. It should be noted that Szepatowski Associates, Inc. has been retained by the Town of Southold to review the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This submission is being provided for the Town Board's review at its meeting of February 25, 1986, which is a continuation of the public hearing held on February 4, 1986. Land Use Company North Country Road - Box Wading River, N.Y. 11792 (516) 929-3575 361 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF EXHIBITS A - Topographic Map Showing Existing Site. B - Site Plan of Proposed Motel and Marina. C Site Plan' Locating Sewage Treatment System D - Suffolk County Department of Health Services Specifications and Details for Denitrification Sewage Treatment System. E Resolution by village of Greenport Showing Allocation of Water for Young's Marina Project. F - 1) Corps of Engineers - Maintenance Permit for YOung's Marina 2) Corps of Engineers - Maintenance Permit for Southold Shores/Tarpon Drive. G - Core Sample Map. H - Shellfish Survey Map. I - soil Type Map. J - Test Boring Map and Analysis. K - Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Design Disposal Systems/Water Usage. L - Letter from Arthur Foster on Pump-out disposal. M - Letter from Southold Police Department. N - Letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr. to Southold Town Board. 0 - Letter from Szepatowski Associates, Inc. to Southold Town Board. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 1: RESPONSE: SECTION - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT "The change of zone requested (General Multiple Residence) allows for docking facilities fo-r non-commercial boats and hotels, and motels both with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning (Marine Business) on town zoning maps allows for marinas, fuel sale, swimming pools, tennis courts, and boat yard (storage) all under permitted uses. are permitted by special exception. not listed under this zone. Restaurants Motels are As just pointed out, the proposed development conflicts with both the change of zone requested and the proposed zone on the Town Zoning Map. The Planning Board has recommended Marine- Recreation for this site and the applicant has agreed to comply with that District. The proposed Zoning Map needs to be amended." The applicant fully understands the permitted uses and those by special exception within the existing General Multiple Residence District. -1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Further, the applicant recognizes that in order to secure a restaurant use as part of the program, it must apply for a use variance to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Concerning Southport Development's requested zoning change being consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, it should be noted that the applicant was, at the time the application was made, June 6, 1985, consistent with the Southold Town Planning Board's Proposed Zoning Ordinance, dated April, 1985. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts permitted marinas, transient motels, restaurants and supporting facilities. Further, the Planning Board, in response to the Town Board's request, reviewed the Southport Development application and recommended its approval by resolution dated July 29, 1985. During the Town Board's scoping session with the applicant, the Board requested the appli- cant to consult with the Town Attorney con- cerning proposed modifications within the marine districts to determine consistency between the -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southport Development application and a modified Proposed Zoning Ordinance. We were accordingly advised by the Town Attorney that transient motels would be permitted only within the Marine Recreation district. It was our understanding that the Town Board intends to transfer certain properties, now within the Marine Business district, including the Southport Development property, to the Marine Recreation district in order to permit the introduction of motels and restaurants in support of the Master Plan. The applicant wishes to note, from the Master Plan Update Summary, Town of Southold, dated April, 1985: "Marine related water dependent uses are encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or along creeks and bays ... Marine commercial areas could also include some water enhanced uses such as restaurants, resort hotels or motels and marine oriented retail stores or museums. This catagory is generally used for properties that front on the bays where there is extensive tidal flushing." Southport Development, it should be noted, is, in fact, on Southold Bay and, further, this particular area has -3- I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I extensive tidal flushing, as noted within other sections of this Addendum. Further, the Master Plan Update Summary states, "Proposed sites for marine commercial uses primarily reflect sites that are currently utilized for boat mooring and marine commercial properties. In addition, marine-related areas in the vacinity of Bud's Pond and Sage Boulevard have been proposed for expansion to help in meeting future water-related needs." (Emphasis added.) As noted from the above information, it is clear that Southport Development is fully consistent with the Master Plan marine district goals. Please refer to the letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr., to the Southold Town Board, dated February 14, 1986, contained in the supplemental exhibits. -4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 3: RESPONSE: SECTION - SUMMARY "No regard for fresh water use impact on Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify if it can provide peak flow." The project sponsor has contacted the Greenport Water Authority in order to ascertain the avail- ability of public water supply. Said Authority, by resolution dated April 13, 1985, allocated sufficient reserves to serve the subject de- velopment and authorized same to begin negotia- tions with the applicant. resolution is included in exhibits. A copy of said the supplemental -5- I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I i ! CO~/~ENT NO. 4: RESPONSE: "Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. However, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, "Marine Business", does not allow motels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has recommended "Marine-Recreation" (M-Rec) as appropriate for this site, but this zone does not permit boat yards. A resolution of these conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not moored at the marina." The proposed marina facility will incorporate only provisions for emergency repair situations. No boatyard operations are anticipated. An existing travel-lift will be utilized for potential winter storage and the occurances requiring emergency haulage.. -6- I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I ! COM~ENT NO. 5: RESPONSE: "Sanitary effluent will be subject to denitrification system. This eliminates only 30% of nitrogen from effluent. Where will effluent be discharged? It is not clear from the report, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs to show the system." The anticipated commercial sanitary effluent will be recharged to the groundwater via a Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved subsurface denitrification system located at the northern section of the subject property. This installation will eliminate the present standard leaching pools which currently handle approximately 3,500 gallons per day without denitrification treatment. A complete set of Suffolk County Department of Health Services criteria are contained in the supple- mental addenda. These specifications are to be utilizied when the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article V-B, Section 2(c), is exceeded and the total project design flow is 15,000 gallons per day or less. Actual construction -7- I I i ! i i i i I I ! I i I I I I ! I designs must be submitted to said agency prior to project initiation. These approvals will be obtained during the site plan review process and are not a function of a rezoning application. However, proposed effluent generated is calculated as follows: Motel - 56 units x 100 gpd/unit 26 efficiency units x 150 gpd/unit 5,600 gpd. 3,900 gpd. Restaurant, including lavatories: 125 seats x 30 gpd/seat Bar - 10 seats x 15 gpd/seat Pool - 5 gpd per capita x 100 Service Building 2 x 150 gpd Laundry facilities ~ machines x 400 gpd. lavatories 2 washing 3,750 gpd. 150 gpd. 500 gpd. 300 gpd. 800 g~d. TOTAL L©AD: 15,000 gpd. NOTE: Said minimum design flow criteria are provided by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (copy included in supplemental addenda). Said design will provide for total effluent nitrogen concentrations to fall well below the existing New York State standard of 10 MG/L. -8- I I i ! I I ! I I i ! I ! i I I I ! I COMMENT NO. 6: RESPONSE: SECTION - PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT "A public need for the project is referred to, but surveys or other evidence is not offered. An intention to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translated into fact as the proposal is developed. The state- ment is made that there will be no increased demand for public services, yet public water is needed. Police and fire protection are also needed. A statement from the Village is needed on water supply and from the Police and Fire Departments as well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful." The growing demand for recreational facilities within the Town of $outhold has been acknowledged by the Town of Southold Planning Consultants, Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner, Inc.. They state in the Master Plan Update Background Studies that, "There is a recognized future need for additional slips, but at this time consensus appears to be in favor of supplying this resource through the private sector, i.e. through expansion of existing commercial marinas (emphasis added) or creation of new commercial marinas." Addi- tional economic stimulus off site is also -9- I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I supported in the same document: "A recent University of Rhode Island study determined that for every $1.00 in boat and marine sales, another $1.20 is generated elsewhere." The project sponsors' analysis of the marine market demand also is supported by said con- sultants: "In spite of the there are current shortages docking spaces and moorings, for number of marinas, of boat slips, particularly ~r~e boats." (~mphasis added.) Increased demand for public services will be limited to an augmentation of the peak water supply quantities provided by the Greenport Water District. Said increase is estimated at 13,500 gallons per day over the existing draw of 3,500 gallons per day. As mentioned previously, reserves have already geen allocated by the Water District for this as well as many other proposed projects. (See resolution of Greenport Water Authority.) the supplemental confirms that no A letter contained within addenda of this document additional police protection is required and a recent conversation with the Greenport Fire Chief indicated that no -10- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I additional equipment or manpower would be needed as a result of the project development. It should also be noted that the Town of Southold Assessors' Office has estimated that the project, as proposed, will generate approximately $60,000.00 additional tax dollars over those provided by the current use. It is evident to the most casual observer that during the spring, summer and fall seasons within the general area of Southold, there is a major influx of tourists. To further confirm this, the applicant interviewed Mr. William Behr, a director of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce, to discuss this matter more fully. Mr. Behr confirmed that the Chamber of Commerce has monitored tourism in general and, more specifically, the need for a greater number of motel accommodations. It was noted, for instance, that there has not been a transient motel built in this area within the last 20 years. Further, and more importantly, during the summer season, not only are most units 100 percent occupied, but large numbers of tourists are turned away by lack of accommodations. -11- I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I It is clear that, from a public need point of view, the Southold area would be greatly enhanced by having more transient motel accommodations since the tourist who is staying overnight statistically spends considerably more of his discretionary income on items such as restaurants, tourist attractions, gasoline and automobile service. Further evidence of this is outlined in more detail in the last response section of this report, entitled "Section - No Action." It should be noted that the economic impact described later in this report amounts to something in excess of $8,000,000. -12- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 7: RESPONSE: SECTION - LOCATION "Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with its abuttors having some control over access and 'improvements' thereon. Since improvements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the appli- cants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This is essential for project approval since existing access is not satisfactOry for the proposed project to be approved. The question of maintaining Sage Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be improved jointly. An agreement on same will be neces- sary for site plan approval." The applicant has closely studied the existing 16' right-of-way and, further, has retained the services of Dunn Engineering, PC, a pro- fessional trafic engineering firm, to evaluate current conditions at Sage Boulevard. To summarize Dunn Engineering's findings: With the proposed improvements currently within the jurisdiction of Southport Development, namely repaving, establishing road center lines, clearing of side vegetation and posting of speed limits, the existing right-of-way will -13- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I adequately and safely serve Southport Development as well as the adjacent owners using this right-of-way. In addition, the applicant agrees to fully cooperate with the municipality in the planning and further improvements of Sage Boulevard in conjunction with the owners of the property that control Sage Boulevard. It should be noted that these owners currently have an application before the Planning Board. To summarize the Southport Development position, the current Sage Boulevard will adequately serve Southport Development with minor improvements, and, in addition, Southport Development pledges to the municipality to take part in additional improvements of Sage Boulevard as required by the municipality of the current owners of Sage Boulevard. -14- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 8: RESPONSE: "A supposition is made as to potential negative impacts from spills of industrial compounds which might be used by industries under the current zoning. It appears that an impression is trying to be created that somehow this would not be possible under the proposed use. However, it is a known fact that even the existing use has such compounds on site and that there already exists a threat to the environment. This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned." It should be noted that the proposed marine facilities will not include boat repair operations. Therefore, the statement in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is supported that said proposal will eliminate the potential hazards currently existing for industrial/commercial pollution caused by compounds utilized in the current as well as the permitted uses of the site. As the present operations include repair and maintenance uses, site inspection reveals potentially hazardous materials common to a boatyard facility. These compounds include, -15- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I among others, solvents paints, varnish, resins, and degreasing agents. -16- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 9 RESPONSE: SECTION - MARINA CONSTRUCTION "Dredge spoil analysis must be done to determine suitability of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands creation). If contaminants are found, what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland grading as stated in DEIS would not be possible. Dredging method, time, upland dewatering, and runoff control must all be addressed." Project revisions have resulted in a request to maintenance dredge the boat basin area in order to provide a depth of low water. This depth will existing USDOA permit depth channel entrance as well as 6 feet at mean conform to the covering the the permits issued for the private canal located at Tarpon Drive. A copy of said permits are included in the supplemental addenda. This reduction in proposed depth will result in approximately 9,000 cubic yards of material being removed during the dredging operation. Said operation will be scheduled to occur between November 1st and April 1st in order -17- I I I I ! ! I i I I I I I I I I I I I to reduce impacts to the surrounding waterways. Core samples were taken within the proposed dredge area and sent to ECO-Test Labs, Inc. for analysis to determine if said material contains any hazardous or toxic materials. The results of said analysis will be for- warded to the'lead agency upon their receipt. A map indicating the sample locations is included in the supplemental addenda. The said cores revealed that the majority of the basin bottom is comprised of grey clay with a 6 inch to 1 foot silt/sand covering. Construction debris (bricks) were found throughout the area and were also docu- mented during the shellfish survey conducted in the basin vacinity. If contaminants are found within the spoil material, the dredging proposal will be eliminated from the project development, although none is expected. Dredging will be accomplished utilizing a ' hydraulic dredge or crane with dragline, depending on contractor cost estimates. Spoil will be placed behind upland earthen berms for de-watering and runoff controlled utilizing AMXCO or NETLON erosion control -18- I ! I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I blankets. Once dry, material will be utilized in site grading operations, trucked to an off-site disposal area, or used in the wetlands creating program. -19- i ! i I ! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 10: RESPONSE: "Concern with regards to boat slip length. Ail are over 32' in length. This does not allow for "less than luxury boats." What is the public need in the area for "elite boating?" Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method." This berthing schedule is based on the project sponsor's survey of area marinas and is supported by the Master Plan Back- ground Study previously mentioned. It should be noted that 32' vessels are not considered to be "elite" or "luxury" boats. In fact, demand for larger slips is directly related to the buying trends of recreational boaters. This trend of "trading up" has resulted in an increase in larger vessels within the small boat market. As the present project incorporates the use of float docks, their configuration can easily be changed if market conditions warrant an increase or decrease in boat size. As proposed, the fuel dock facility will be located at one of the outboard docks and serviced via the existing -20- I I i I I I i ! I I I I I I I I I I I 2,000 gallon underground tank. Said facility will conform to all applicable state and county regulations relating to marine fueling. Tank construction, line placement and auto- matic shutoff systems will all be detailed in the site plan approval phase. Additionally, a pump-out facility will also be added to the expanded marina infra-structure. This installa- tion will utilize a holding tank with collected effluent to be transported to the Greenport Sewage Treatment plant for processing. Said pump-out facility will be the fuel dock in order to Construction details will in the site plan approval located away from limit conjestion. also be outlined phase. A letter from A. P. Foster, President of Custom Cesspools, Inc., indicates sufficient capacity to service said station during its peak use. -21- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 11: R~SPONSE: SECTION - UPLAND DEVELOPMENT "what is pervious material used for 288 space parking lot? Inconsistency on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be 'pervious' or 'impervious', or 'semi-pervious' A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. must be shown along with drainage calculations. A "O" runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. It is intended that the parking facilities incorporated in the development plan be con- structed of a pervious material such as crushed stone in order to reduce storm water runoff. As stated previously, all runoff will be con- trolled via a common storm water management system designed to eliminate any possible impacts to ground or surface waters. Details of said system will be provided during the site plan approval phase. However, it should be noted that "0" runoff will be maintained as to prevent property damage and impact to sur- rounding surface waters. This adherence to a "O" runoff installation also conforms -22- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the policies suggested by the New York Statement Department of Environmental Conservation under their administration of Article 25 and Article 15 of the Environ- mental Conservation Law. -23- I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 12: RESPONSE: "Since no site plan has been included in the DEIS, it cannot be commented upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity and no mention is made of employee parking. Un- substantiated statements are made regarding 'satisfying zoning requirements', runoff generated from impervious to semi-pervious surfaces. This section needs to be supplemented." A conceptual site plan is included in the supplemental addenda as well as a topographic survey showing existing site conditions. Motel yield was calculated as follows: Total upland acreage = Parking requirements for marina - 1 space per slip x 121 slips x 350 sq. ft. per parking space (per Town Code): Total acreage available for motel: Permitted Density 4,000 sq. ft. per unit (with approved sewage disposal system and public water); 338,364 sq. ft. divided by 4,000 sq. ft. = 380,713 sq. ft. 42,350 sq. ft. 338,364 sq. ft. 84.59 units -24- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Parking requirements were calculated according to current Southold Town Code to include employee parking as well as marina and restaurant use. Said computa- tions are as follows: Motel - 82 units x 1 space/unit: Employees - 20 x 1 space/employee: Marina 121 slips x 1 space/slip: Restaurant - 125 seats x 1 space/5 seats: Bar - 10 seats x 1 space/5 seats: TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 82 spaces 20 spaces 121 spaces 25 spaces 2 spaces 250 spaces -25- ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 13: RESPONSE: "No calculations of peak water use and sewage flows are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation without going saline during peak season? If not, Greenport must be made aware and utility acknowledgement is needed." Computations of peak water usage are as follows: Motel - 56 units x 100 gpd 5,600 gpd. 26 efficiency units x 150 gpd. 3,900 gpd. Restaurant, including lavatories 125 seats x 30 gpd/seat 3,750 gpd. Bar - 10 seats x 15 gpd/seat 150 gpd. Accessory lavatories - 4 x 150 gpd. 600 gpd. Laundry facilities - 2 x 400 gpd. 800 gpd. Boat washing - 121 slips x 25% use factor x 100 gallons/hour x 1 hour usage: 3,025 PEAK DAILY DEMAND: (Computations based on Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards as shown in the supplemental addenda.) 17,825 gpd. gpd. -26- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As stated previously, allocations for this project have been approved by the Greenport Water Authority. Boat washing requirements may be served by an on-site shallow well in order to lessen Water District demands. Said use will be dependent on test well results and, therefore, at this point in the development process, we will assume that water demands will be satisfied solely through the Greenport Water Authority. -27- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 14: RESPONSE: SECTION - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION "What is meant by testing will be conducted and "If such material ... criteria ...' and 'proper the statement, 'Subsoil to determine' etc. ' and 'proper design erosion contract ... This is a draft environmental impact statement and this information is needed to properly evaluate the impacts and to clarify the vague statements made. Supplemental information is necessary." At the time the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared, results from upland test borings had not yet been received from Slacke Test Boring, Inc.. Said results are now included in the supplemental addenda as well as locations of the boring samples. A complete analysis of the soil conditions are found within the Natural Resource "soils" section. Lastly, proper erosion control techniques to be utilized during the con- struction phase will include the use of haybales and/or AMXCO Blankets. These measures will ensure that no siltation of the wetlands will occur during the project installation. -28- I I ! SECTION - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, NATURAL RESOURCES, SOILS I I I ! I I I I I i I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 15: RESPONSE: "Soil borings, since they will be necessary any- way, should be included in the DEIS. Unknown subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts." Actual soil data as well as information ex- tracted from the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" would indicate that the majority of the property falls under the "Ma" (Made Land) and "Cu" (Cut and Fill) soil classifications. A complete review of said findings are as follows: CUT AND FILL LAND This is made up of areas that have altered in grading operations for most non-farm uses such as housing developments, shopping centers, or as in this case an old brick factory. The initial grading generally consisted of cutting and filling for streets or parking lots. Usually during this phase topsoil is put aside, stockpiled, for later use in topdressing and final grading. Areas such as this usually -29- I I I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I contain deep cuts in or near the sandy sub- stream of the soil or sandy fills of 28" or more. With this the cuts are usually so deep or fills so thick that identification of soils by series is not possible. The following is a breakdown of the soil material that is found in the upper 40" of this unit: Twelve inches of sandy loam, loam or silt loam, with the remaining 28" of loamy fine sand or coarser textured material. Cut and fill land is generally associated with Carver and Plymouth soils. The surplus soil remaining after the final grading is of lower moisture capacity, is droughty and is low to very low in natural fertility, as can be seen on the enclosed map. This type of soil is found along the boat launching ramp, entrance road, Sage Boulevard, and the existing parking lot located between the existing building and boat basin. In the same areas mentioned above, also found is Cut and Fill land gently sloping. This unit is made up of level to gentle -30- I I I I i I I I I I I I I i i ! I I I sloping areas that have been cut and filled for non-farm uses. The slopes in this type of area range from 1 percent to 8 percent, and because of final grading are usually complex, approximately 75 percent of cut and fill soils. The texture is dominantly loamy fine sand or coarser textured material. The remaining 25 percent consists of soils of Carver, Haven, Plymouth, or Riverhead series. Included in this type of land in mapping are small areas of Riverhead and Haven soils, graded, 0-8 percent slopes, and small areas that have more than 12 inches of sandy loam, or silt loam in the upper 40 inches. This land has few, if any, limitations to use as a building site. Capability unit and woodland suitability unit are not assigned. MADE LAND (Ma) This type consists of areas that are mostly covered with debris such as pieces of concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal and -31- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I other non-soil materials. Some areas are found on the surface of the original soil, others in large holes dug for disposal purposes, and still others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. Upon examination of the upland and the bottom of the boat basin, it can clearly be seen that bricks from the old brick factory plus amounts of concrete were disposed of for quite some time on various sections of the proposed project site. Included with this unit during mapping are sanitary landfills that have been excavated and subsequently filled with trash and garbage. After these areas are then filled, they are usually covered with several feet of soil material. This does not appear to be the case at the proposed site. Capability unit and woodland suitability group not assigned. As stated previously, soil boring results, locations and soils map are contained in the supplemental addenda. Said results indicate medium brown soil and medium to fine gravel to a depth of 16 feet. Grey clay is encountered at 16 feet to 53 feet -32- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I with coarse to fine light brown sand and gravel below the clay layer. -33- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 16: RESPONSE: SECTION - GROUNDWATER "The last sentence is missing at least two words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded." Groundwater analysis as stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would indicate that groundwater beneath the subject parcel generally flows southward and eastward towards the basin area and Southold Bay. -34- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 17: RESPONSE: SECTION - SURFACE WATERS "Undocumented 'Agency observations' are held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to the subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence." Statements made in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were based on New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) observations of water quality in the Southold Bay area. Samples have recently been taken by said agency from the subject "basin area" and the results will be provided as soon as they are received from the NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries. However, it should be noted that conversations with Mr. James Redman, Marine Resources Specialist III with the NYSDEC, would indicate that it is highly unlikely that water quality within this area would ever be found "unsatisfactory" for shellfishing purposes. This statement is based on the "high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within the project vicinity." Said velocities are produced by the constriction encountered by tidal waters between Conklings Point (Southold) and Jennings -35- I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Point (Shelter Island). This constriction augments the ebb and flood of tidal waters into and out of the subject basin, thus preventing the concentration of pollutants such as coliform and nitrates. As no alteration of the existing channel entrance is anticipated, this high rate of tidal exchange will continue after project com- pletion and will assure satisfactory water quality within the basin. -36- I I I I I I I I I I I I ~" I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 18: RESPONSE: SECTION - VEGETATION - WILDLIFE "Does the 'representational species list' represent actual observation? If so, why call it 'representation'? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this area so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation measures." A vegetation inventory of the site was con- ducted and those species observed were listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As stated, most are herbacious roadside weed species able to withstand poor site conditions. It should be noted that vegetational cover presently exists on only 10 percent of the subject property. At the request of the lead agency, a shellfish survey was undertaken in order to determine the composition and extent of the shellfish populations within the project boundaries. Said survey was conducted on February 1, 1986 by Land Use Company staff. The location of sample points are shown on a map included in -37- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the supplemental exhibits. Survey results are as follows by species: SHELLFISH SURVEY On February 1, 1986, Land Use Company staff conducted a shellfish survey within the project boundaries. During said survey, it was noted that in areas "A", "B" and "D" (see map in supplemental exhibits) that the bottom appeared to be made up of black silt, clay and small stones (1-1/2 to 2 inches in diameter). In the remaining area "C", the bottom consisted of clay and sand with numerous rocks, bricks and pieces of brick. While raking in this area, the rake continually filled up with this debris even after covering only a foot or two of bottom. It was also noted that there appears to be an almost complete lack of vegetation on the bottom in all four areas. Minute quantities of Sea Lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and Codium (Codium Fragile) were found during the shellfish survey. Greater amounts were found growing on all the existing float docks. -38- I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The following equipment was employed during the shellfish survey: Clam rake, 28-inch opening, tooth length 2-1/2 inches; Tongs, 18-inch opening, tooth length 2 inches; Scallop dredge; 14-foot workboat, 25 horsepower motor. Hermit Crab - Pagurus Pollicaris An extremely common species which prefers shallower water. They use shells of Periwinkles, Mudsnails, Whelks and Moons as their "homes." None found during either survey or inspection. Blue Clawed Crab - Callinectes Sapidus - Inhabits muddy shores and is common in bays and mouths of estuaries. Move into deeper water in winter. Although no living or dead specimens were found, this species is surely an inhabitant of the area. Calico Crab Ovalipes Ocellatus - Prefers sandy bottoms. None found during inspection or survey. Fiddler Crab - Uca Pugnax - Prefers the dryer parts of sandy beaches and salt marshes. Feeds -39- I i I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I on organic material in the sand. None found during inspection. Absence is probably due to the topographic characteristics of the site. Spider Crabs - Libinia Dubia - Prefer kelp beds and tidal pools. No dead or living members of the species found at site. Blood Ark - Anadara Ovalis - A species native to the region, commonly found on shallow sandy bottoms. They are regularly caught by baymen as an incidental catch. None found in project area. Blue Mussel - Mytilu$ Edulis - A very common local species, found attached to rocks and pilings. It is highly valued as tablefare. During the shellfish survey, a small population was found existing on pilings in the dock area. Atlantic Ribbed Mussel - Modiolus Demissus Another species common to the region, it is not edible but sometimes utilized as bait or chum. Found in the marsh banks within the intertidal zone. Topographic characteristics of the site limit the population of this species. -40- I i I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I Atlantic Bay Scallop - Aequipecten Irradians - Probably one of the region's most important shellfish species. They prefer shallow bay bottoms, creeks, etc. They are often found among beds of Codium (Codium Fragile) or Eelgrass (Zostera Marina). No living specimens were encountered during the survey and only less than 45 shells were found during both the survey and inspection. Therefore, no standing crop of adult-sized scallops is present, nor have there been any in recent times. Razor Clam - Ensis Directus This species is found in sand bars and shallow sand banks within the intertidal zone. Not believed to be a locally important commercial species, they are prized by some as tab lefare. None were found during the but during residents, in an area located on the opposite side of the basin. shellfish survey or site inspection, the course of conversation with local a small population was recognized (westerly) Soft-shell Clam - Mya Arenaria - They prefer shallow, muddy, intertidal zones. No evidence of any standing adult stock was found. -41- I I i I I I t I I I ! I I I I I i i I Topographic characteristics of the site attribute to their absence. Channeled welk - Busycon Canaliculatum - This is a much sought-after species by both commercial baymen and people gathering them for their own consumption. This species is usually found on harder sandy bottoms. They are carnivores and scavengers, usually feeding on bivalves. None were found during the inspection or survey. Eastern Oyster - Crassostiea Virginica - This species is found attached to rocks, roots and shells. They are highly valued as tab lefare. During the shellfish survey, one adult oyster was found. Upon a site inspection along the existing rock "dock" area, a small adult population was observed. During both the shellfish survey and the site inspection, the absence of any appreciable amounts of oyster shells would indicate that in recent times there has been no sizable standing crop of adult oysters. -42- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hard-shell Clam - Mercenaria Mercenaria - This species is found in different habitats: One is in shallow muddy areas near the low tide mark in estuaries, etc.; another is in the sandy stations found in open, deeper bays or ocean bottom. They are highly valued as tab lefare. On first thought, when inspecting the site, it sppeared that this species would be abundent; however, on actual inspection of the flats by boat, wading and walking, it was evident that the minute amount of dead shells indicates that in recent times there has been no standing crop of adult-sized members of this species. This conclusion is supported by the results of the shellfish survey, which showed only three hard clams caught within the survey area. -43- I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 19: RESPONSE: SECTION - VEGETATION - WILDLIFE "Why aren't the bird and fish species actually cited named? On what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory." The following represents a list of waterfowl actually observed on February 1, 1986. This list is submitted in addition to the representational species list contained within the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement. Common Mallard -Anas Plat~rhynchos Platyrhynchos - By population, this is the foremost duck in the United States. 15 to 20 were observed in the area of the boat launching ramp and were not wary of humans. It is believed that they are used to being fed at the site. Mallards are catholic in their selection of nest sites. They prefer upland to marsh, but the distance from the water varies greatly with the habitat. Sites on levees, small islands, or where potholes are numerous often limit maximum distances from water to a few feet or a few yards. Most studies indicate that nests are located within 100 yards of water (Bellrose, 1980). -44- I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Black Duck -Anas Rubri~es - Regarded by sportsmen as one of the most prized members of their bag due to this species' wariness. Black ducks nest in a variety of habitats, depending upon the cover available. On the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, 65 percent nested in upland areas, 17 percent in marshes and 19 percent in old duck blinds. Most of the nests in the upland areas were in wooded tracts (Bellrose, 1980). Three members of this species were noted. Mute Swan - Cygnus Olor - Four members of this species were found. Thby are thought to be permanent residents of the site. Olds~uaw - Clangula Hyemalis - This species prefers open, deep waters. They do not nest locally. One member of this species was observed. FINFISH A more detailed representational list of finfish resources in the area is as follows: -45- I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Winter Flounder - Pseudopleurnoectes Americanus Probably found in some of the deeper, muddier areas. ~one were found during the shellfish survey even though they are commonly caught while shellfishing. They prefer a soft, muddy bottom (commonly where there are patches of eel grass) to a moderately hard one. Note: during shellfish survey, no eel grass was found. Hogchocker - Trinectes Maculatus - This species is probably found in the area, even though none were found during shellfish survey. From past experience, they are commonly caught in clam rakes and scallop dredges, prefer immediate vicinity of the coast, and are most common in bays and estuaries, where water is more or less brackish. They sometimes run into wholly fresh waters. They are of no commercial value due to their small size, but are said to be a delicious-tasting fish. Windowpane Flounder or sundail Scophthalmus Aquosus - None were found during the shellfish survey. Again, this is a species often caught -46- I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I accidently while shellfishing. Prefers a shallow water area or a sandy bottom. Fluke or Summer Flounder Paralichthys Dentatus - Mentioned as a probable inhabitant of the area. In reality, they are usually caught at 10 to 18 fathoms by commercial draggers. This species comes into shallower water on sandy or muddy bottoms in summer and tends to actively feed in moving waters where they will actually chase bait. They might stray into the boat basin on occasion but not in an area where an angler would seek them. Winter Skate - Raja Ocellata - Commonly found while angling for winter founder. It is thought to confine itself to sandy or gravelly bottoms in shoal water. None are actually believed to inhabit subject area. Ame~.ican Eel - Anguilla Rostiata - Definitely thought to inhabit the subject area, since this species is found over muddy bottoms and wherever food can be found. -47- I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I American Shad - Alosa Sapidissima - This species might enter the subject area on rare occasions. Andromous, they enter fresh water only to spawn. Menhaden or Bunker - Brevoortia Tyrannus - Frequently found at or near surface, they are plankton feeders. They may be driven into the subject area by feeding bluefish, weakfish or striped bass. Oyster Toadfish Opsanus Tau - This species could possibly be found in the subject area. They prefer shoal water, usually over sandy or muddy bottom where they hide among eel grass or stones waiting for prey. Mummichog - Fundulus Heteroclitus - Found chiefly in shallow brackish water and fresh- water, they prefer muddy bottoms. This species can probably be found in the subject area. Spotfin Killifish - Fundulus Luciae - This species is probably found in the subject area, as they prefer coastal areas, living in brackish waters. -48- I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Shiner or Tidewater Silverside - Menidia Beryllina - They are surely found in the subject area, and are most common in brackish water. Northern Pipefish - Syngnathus Fuscus - This species is probably found in the subject area'. They are over smooth hard grounds rocks. found more often than over mud or Striped Searobin - Prionotus Evolans - They are probably found in the subject area. Longhorn Sculpin - Myoxocephalus Octodecemspinosus This species is found in the subject area. They inhabit coastal waters, moving into deeper water in colder weather then returning in spring. White Perch ~orone Americana - They are found most frequently in brackish waters and are generally close to shore in saltwater, rarely in deep water. If found in the subject area, they are surely only a rare visitor. -49 - I ! I ! ! I ! I I I I I I I I I i I I Striped bass - Monroe Saxatilus - They are not thought to be normally found in subject area, but may stray into it while chasing bait fish. Bluefish - Pomatomus Saltatrix - The young bluefish, commonly known as snappers, are definitely t~ be found in the subject area during the late summer. Scu~ or Porsy - Stenotomus Chrysops - Probably none would ever be found in the subject area. They prefer, in summer, fairly shallow waters over smooth bottoms. Weakfish - Cynoscian Regalis - They might on occasion be found in subject area while chasing baitfish. They prefer warm water and are sensitive to sudden cooling. Bl~ckfish or Tautog - Tauto~a Onitis They are probably not found in subject area even though they inhabit Peconic and Southold Bays. This species is normally found very close to the shoreline, usually among rocky shores, breakwaters, piers and docks. -50- i I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I American Sandlaunce or Sandeel - Ammoydytes Americanus This species might occasionally be found in subject area after being chased by predators. They prefer sandy bottoms. Northern Puffer, Balloon Fish or Blowfish - S~aeroides Maculatus - They might on occasion be found in subject area, and they are almost always found close to shore in relatively shallow water. -51- I i I I i I I I I I I ! I I I I I i I SECTION - HUMAN RESOURCES - TRANSPORTATION COMJ~ENT NO. 20: "Reference is made to a USACE maintenance dredging permit. Is it in force or pending? A copy should be included in the DFIS. A low water depth of 6' is mentioned, while on Page 9 a depth of 7' to 8' is mentioned. Can this be done within the scope of the USACE permit? Who holds the permit and who will do the channel maintenance dredging (aside from basin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrated in the DEIS. If this depth of dredging the entrance channel, the reason dredging is missing. Where will spoil and the maintenance dredging spoil be deposited? A modification to the dredging is needed as well as more detail and a soundings plan." is deeper than for doing any the initial RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the channel entrance to the basin is currently subject to a 10-year maintenance dredging permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Said permit is in effect and a copy is included in the supplemental exhibits. -52- I I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I Additionally, the project sponsor has indicated that the basin depth will be maintained at the same mean low water depth of 6 feet as is allowed under the aforementioned permit. -53- I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION - COMMENT' NO. 23: RESPONSE: SIGNIFICANT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACTS "The significant environmental impacts discussion on soils, topography, groundwater, surface waters, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands cannot be commented upon without a more detailed environmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan to demonstrate before and after conditions. The impacts listed are conjectural and not conclusory based on evidence contained in the DFIS. This section needs to be rewritten." A detailed environmental inventory has been submitted as a part of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. Therefore, the adverse and beneficial impacts caused by the proposed action can be expanded upon as follows: Adverse Impact Soils None Topography None Beneficial Impact Improvement of existing soil conditions through placement of top soil and dune enhancement program. Creation of aesthetically pleasing land forms and construction of a "0" run-off storm water management system. -54- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ground- water Surface Waters Vegeta- tion wil~iife Wetlands Adverse Impact Discharge of sewage effluent subsequent to treatment by denitrifi- cation system. Said system will not include treatment for chemical wastes. Increased potential for fuel line and holding tank failures due to expanded marina facilities. Sanitary effluent will cause nutrient loading of surface waters to increase. However, tidal flushing will ensure satisfactory water quality. Natural upland vegetation will be removed during site development. There will be a temporary loss of 7,000 square feet of HM and IM areas. Disruption of existing populations. Temporary loss of 7,000 square feet of HM and IM areas. -55- Beneficial Impact Upgrading of existing sanitary system. Removal of future potential for industrial discharge. Establishment of buffer areas and wetlands will control suspended solids from present uplands and will create a bio- logical filtration system. Establishment of pump- out facility will reduce illegal dumping activities. Installation of buffer areas, dune enhancement and wetlands creation will result in a diversity of vegetation. Said vegetation will be utilized for beach stabilization and non- structural erosion control. Increased diversity by improving habitat through buffer plantings and wetlands creation. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Trans- portation Zoning & Land Use Community Services Adverse Impact None Loss of future industrial development potential Loss of industrial tax base Increased demand on Greenport Water District -56- Beneficial Impact None Adherence to Town of Southold Master Plan, Proposed Zoning Ordinance and N.Y.S. Coastal Zone Policies. Increase in tax revenues ($60,000) Development will fill growing demand for marine and tourist facilities. Development will be accomplished by private sector. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 24: RESPONSE: SECTION - MITIGATION MEASURES "A statement is made that mitigation measures could be made a part of a proposed project. Specific mitigation measures, even though general at the change of zone level, should be identified as being an integral part of the project. For example, regrading and modifi- cation of existing drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned as mitigation measures but since the extent of the impact being mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of the mitigating measure cannot be defined." The mitigation measures detailed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be employed as a part of the project design. Said mitigation measures are reviewed as follows: 1. Top soil installation will improve existing soil conditions. 2. A "0" run-off storm water management system will prevent overland flow, siltation of -57- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I wetlands, erosion and ground/surface water contamination. A denitrification sewage treatment system will be constructed to Suffolk County Department of Health Services specifications, and will reduce nutrient loading of the ground and surface waters. o A turf management program will ensure that no ground or surface water impacts occur due to improper use of fertilizers. 5. Maintenance dredging will only occur between November 1st and April 1st. Buffer areas and tidal wetlands will be created in order to stabilize shoreline areas utilizing non-structural controls. Buffer areas will be installed utilizing plant species beneficial to local wildlife population. -58- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A pump-out station will reduce illegal dumping by vessels now using the basin facilities. -59- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! i COMMENT NO. 25: RESPONSE: SECTION - MITIGATION "What is the design of catch basins, as described, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is toward water. A site grading plan is needed." A specific site grading plan with construction details is not required as a part of a rezoning application. However, it has been stated that a "0" runoff storm water management system will be maintained within the project boundaries. I I -60- I i I I I I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 26: RESPONSE: SECTION - MITIGATION "Why will the phragmites be removed and why is it really a nuisance species? This needs to be detailed." The Common Reed (Phragmites Communis) is considered a nuisance species because of its limited value for wildlife food sources and cover. It has aggressive growing habits that allow it to out-compete more desirable species and will be the first to colonize disturbed sites, such as the subject property. Within the project proposal, it is intended to remove areas of Phragmites and replace them with desirable seashore species. Within these areas, the Phragmites does serve to control soil erosion; however, this attribute can be duplicated utilizing more beneficial species. Once removed, IM, HM and transition zone plantings will be installed and monitored to ensure that Phragmites does not re- colonize the site. Said maintenance program will continue until full coverage is accomplished. -61- I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I COMMENT NO. 27: RESPONSE: "The creation of a natural Wetland along the entire basin shoreline is proposed. The DEIS does not show this. A better rendition is needed." The Draft Environmental Impact Statement states "S. Alternifloria, S. Patens and Baccheris Halimifolia will be utilized to establish a natural wetland community along the entire basin shoreline." This wetlands creation will provide shoreline erosion control, flood control, wildlife benefits, siltation protection, etc., without the use of structural measures. -62- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 28: RESPONSE: "'Little demand' ignores freshwater use for the entire expansion proposed." As stated in previous sections of this Addendum, the Greenport Water Authority has already allocated sufficient reserves to serve this pro- ject. No other public service demands are anti- cipated to increase. -63- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 29: RESPONSE: SECTION - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED "The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be completed without an analysis of the existing bottom to be dredged." As stated previously, bottom sediment analysis is currently being accomplished by ECO-Test Labs, Inc.. Said analysis will be submitted to the lead agency upon its receipt. Although no concentrations of contaminates are expected, if found, dredging at the basin area will be eliminated from the project proposal. -64- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. RESPONSE: SECTION - NO ACTION "Document economic infeasibility. What does this mean?" An inspection of the subject property by the applicant and its consultants clearly established that the existing marina requires a sizeable capital contribution in order to upgrade the facility to acceptable current standards. Unfortunately, marinas tend to "generate low return on investment''1 and have, accordingly, experienced great difficulty in securing financing. The applicant has gone through a preliminary marina upgrade and design, and based on this upgrade, has secured cost estimates outlined below for approximately $830,000.00. In order to more specifically understand why no action and simple upgrading of the marina in not a feasible economic solution, a simple pro-forma statement is outlined below: PROJECTED RENTAL INCOME FROM UPGRADING OF MARINA: Average boat slip - 37' by $60 per lineal foot = $2,200 x 121 slips: (Ail figures rounded.) $ 268,000.00 -65- I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I Dry storage income for 75 boats x $1,000 per boat: Gross income: $ 75,000.00 $343,000.00 2 Operating expenses: ~200,000.00) Net available for debt service: $143,000.00 DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LOAN COSTS FOR MARINA UPGRADING Dock construction and installation: Dredging: Dock Utilities: Upgrade site develop- ment costs: Miscellaneous - engineering, architectural, permits $450,000.00 70,000.00 60,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 Development loan cost: $830,000.00 Amortization of loan at 12-1/2%: ($103,000.00) NET after operating cost and debt service: $ 40,000.00 It is clear that no responsible investor would consider incurring $830,000.00 in debt with a return of only 5 percent. Further, to exacerbate this situation, we placed no value -66- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I on the upland area noted for the marina. Whatever reasonable value is established for the upland area will clearly make this a negative investment. It is clear from the above analysis that only through a diversified development program, including a motel, restaurant and supporting facilities can the marina stay in existence. Most simply put, marinas need related uses in order to subsidize their existence.3 While all economic studies are always subject to interpretation, a general economic impact of Southport Development can be drawn. A recent study entitled, "Napa Valley Tourism Project", prepared by Planning and Enviromental Services, dated November, 1984, estimates that for every $1.00 spent on lodging within an area that attracts tourism, namely the Napa Valley, $4.03 will be spent on other items within the community, as follows: -67- I I I I I I ! I I I i I I I I I I ! I Restaurants: Tourist attractions and entertainment: Retail purchases: Gas and automobile service: $ 1.85 .45 1.52 .21 TOTAL: $ 4.03 Estimated income projections developed for a completed Southport Development motel indicate that approximately $2,000,000 will be spent on lodging per year within this development. Accordingly, and based upon the above study, the economic impact generated by Southport Development within the Town of Southold would be over $8,000,000, i.e. $4.03 x $2,000,000 equals $8,060,000. In conclusion, it is only through the motel and supporting facilities within Southport Development that the applicant will be able to subsidize the marina so that it can stay in existence and offer the public marine recreation opportunities. -68- I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 1. C.J. Chamberlain, "Marinas, Recommendations for Design Construction and Management" (National Marine Manufacturing Association, 1983). 2. D.G. Norvell, Phd., "Financial Profiles for Five Marinas" (National Marine Manufacturing Association, 1984). 3(a) . Nodin and Brown, "New York Commercial Marine and Boat Industry" (New York Sea Grant Institute, 1974). 3(b) Brown, "The Stability of the Commercial Marina Industry, New York and Long Island" (Cornell University, 6/85). -69 - I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBITS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING EXISTING SITE I ~Z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN OF PROPOSED MOTEL AND MARINA I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ! I ! ! I I ! I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I SITE PLAN EXHIBIT C LOCATING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM I I I I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT D SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS FOR DENITRIFICATION SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I DENITRIFICATION General Denitrification of the sewage is required whenever the population density, in accordance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article VB, Section 2(c), is exceeded and the total daily design flow is 15,000 gallons per day or less. These guidelines serve as an aid in design of a minimum system. Plans are to be prepared and submitted to the Department by a licensed Professional Engineer. The construction of the under-drain and/or denitrification system must be certified by a Professional Engineer as being installed as per the approved plans. Septic Tanks In all cases, the system shall be common for the site. The septic tank shall be of approved precast concrete construction sized to receive two days' flow. For further details, see "Standards for Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences." Leaching Field and the Nitrification Process The excavation shall be carried to a depth 4'4" below the proposed invert elevation of the leaching field. The entire area shall be excavated 3 feet beyond the perimeter of the leaching field. The leaching field area is determined by one square foot per gallon of sewage per day. Next, a 20 mil continuous vinyl liner shall be laid to cover the entire excavation and lap up the sides by one foot. A one inch layer of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel is then installed over the vinyl liner. A manifold of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 drainpipe with 1/2 inch holes, 2 every 6 inches, is installed with the holes downward to serve as the collection system. Collection pipes shall be spaced 6 feet apart and extend the full length and width of the leaching area. A suitable solid 4 inch PVC SDR 35 pipe shall connect the perforated pipe to allow the effluent to flow to either the denitrification system or a pump station which is determined by depth to groundwater. An additional 5 inch layer of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel is then placed in the manifold bed. The gravel bed is then covered with a filter material. Three feet six inches (3'6") of clean sand and gravel is then placed over the filter material extending to the edges of the vinyl liner. This sand layer shall be completely compacted. Four inches (4") of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel is placed on top of the sand in a uniform layer. A continuous manifold is then erected over the gravel bed. This manifold shall be con- structed of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 sewer pipe with 1/2 inch holes, 2 every 6 feet, 30° apart, facing downward. This leaching system shall be located 3 feet inside the perimeter of the vin'yl liner. The leaching pipes shall be spaced every four to five feet. An additional 6 inches of gravel is placed within the leaching field up to at least the top of the leaching field pipe. The entire leaching field is then covered with filter material. The top of the leaching system shall be at least 2 feet below grade. The leaching system for nitrification shall not be placed under driveways or parking lots. - 1 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leaching Pool and Nitrification Process Wh ~he depth to groundwater is not critical, leaching pools may be effect nitrification. The number and depth of pools are determined 5 gallons/foot2 of sidewall area of the pools for eve~ gallon of sewa¢ ,er day. The excavation shall be carried to a de feet below the elevation of the leaching pools. The are to be excavated 3 ~ond the perimeter of the outermost lea pools. A 20 mil continuous liner shall be laid to cover th. excava- tion and lap up the one foot. A 1 inch layer of to 1% inch washed gravel is then ins led over the vinyl line manifold of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 drainpipe 1/2 inch holes, 6 inches, spaced 30°, is constructed with cing downwar serve as the collection manifold. Collection pipes full length and width of the out~ A solid 4 inch PVC SDR 35 pipe shall manifold to the denitrification vinyl liner shall be made ware 1% inch washed gravel is the .aced gravel bed is then covere~ filter sand and gravel is pla( and width of the vin The leaching pool equal dosing az and gravel. spac~ apart and extend the of the leaching pools. the perforated collection Where the pipe penetrates the .ional 5 inches of 3/4 to drain pipes. Th~ entire Next 3'6" of clean coarse over the filter extending the full length .iner. This sand layer be completely compacted. now installed, piped in a able manner to assure up to the inlet line(s) clean coarse sand ThE g pool tops, whether domes or slabs, are brought to withi least 2 feet of the final grade. Chimneys with iron covers br~ to the final grade placed over the manhole shall be .led over leaching pools (see the approved plans). Lift Station If the depth to groundwater is insufficient for the effluent to com- pletely flow by gravity, then a dual sewage ejection pump system will be used to suitably lift the effluent. Pumps shall be sized according to the head required. The pumps shall be placed within a monolithic precast concrete manhole, which is waterproof, with a cast iron cover brought to grade. The cover shall be placed so as to provide access to the pumps for repair.. Refer to GLUMRB "Recommended Standards for Sewer Works", 1978 edition, for complete pump station design requirements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Denitrification System Whether the collected waste from the leaching system flows by gravity or is pumped, the following criteria applies. The sulfur and limestone media shall be placed within an approved precast concrete chamber. The chamber shall be lined with a 20 mil vinyl liner so as to render the cham- ber watertight below the inlet. The inlet to the chamber shall be 4 inch solid schedule 40 PVC pipe. The inlet shall be provided with a three-way 'T' The bottom of the 'T' shall have a 4 inch solid pipe extending to within 2 inches of the bottom of the chamber connected to a 4 inch manifold system with two holes (1/2 inches), spaced every 6 inches, facing downward. The bottom of the chamber is to be filled with 6 inches of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel completely encasing the manifold. The chamber is then filled with media which consists of 4% pounds of elemental sulfur per gallon per day of design flow and 4% pounds of limestone per gallon per day of design flow. The sulfur and limestone are to be mixed to provide a uniform media bed. A 4 inch outlet should be placed one foot below the manifold point of entry into the chamber. Both inlet and outlet are to be securely ce- mented to the chamber. Solid rings will be placed on top of the chamber cemented to be watertight, if needed. A slab or dome shall be placed on top of the chamber one foot below grade. A cast iron cover to grade shall be located over the inlet manifold pipe. Final Recharge The effluent from the denitrification chamber shall be piped to approved precast concrete leaching pool(s). For design purposes, an application rate of 10 gallons per day per square foot sidewall leaching area is per- mitted. The 4 inch effluent pipe should be brought to the edge of the manhole for sampling purposes. Either solid rings or domes and chimneys shall be utilized with a cast iron cover brought to grade over the manhole opening. Chimneys shall not exceed 2 feet in height. ~: ' DENITRIFICATION CHAMBER DETAIL I ~ GROUT~ ~ "" ~ , DETAIL A CAST IRON COVER I , ~~'~ ' - '1 II ~,~**o.~~1 ', DETAIL B WITH DOME CO¥ NO SCALE I I I I I I I I I I I I - 6 - 0 Z SEPTIC TANK I ~ iI i :11 I ,,:':~T ' I I , i TOP VIEW . 6-PEA GRAVEL AROUND MIL VINYL LINER i~ II S, I II I II II II II II -..! il _--_-.,:'_----_': =_--~:=='~!---: ~--~~ i.=---JJ ~ECTION PITCHED 1116' PER FOOT TOWARD OENITRIFICATION I GAL. PER SQ. F~ APPLICATION RATE TO SURFACE AREA I ! COVER ~'-H,N. J . DETAIL I FIGURE 4 FILTER BED - DETAIL I - 7 - NO SCALE I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION BY VILLAGE OF GREENPORT SHOWING ALLOCATION OF WATER FOR YOUNG'S MARINA PROJECT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VILLAGE OF GREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESOLUTION ADOPTED 4/18/85 WHEREAS, the Utility Committee of the Village of Greenport has evaluated the installed capacity of the Greenport Municipal W~ter Sy3tem and making allowances rot Peak Demand, Fire Protection, Conttngenc/ Re3erve, Projects Under Construction, Approved Projects, and Future Projectu withLn the Village, has found that the approximate available is ]50,000 [er day, and WHEREAS, the Utility CommIttee of the Village of ~Jr'eenport evaluated the anticipated demand of the active proposals before the Committee and found that this demand will be approximately 115,000 gallons per day, and WHEREAS, this demand repre:~-~,ts 30% of th~ available capacity Of the Greenport Municipal Water System, THEREFOEE, th(. ,~tlli~y Committee requests that the Village Board of Trustees commence cor~tra~_t r.e~%[iations fop water service with the followin~ applicators: 1) The Breakers at Brecknock Hall/" 2) August Acres. Section 1. 3) San Simeon ~{etir'ement Community. 4) Long Pond Estates, Section I. 5) Russell Mann 6) Leon Marcus 7) Nicholas Ai[ano Tide Hark 9) Peddler"b 10) Youn['s f~oa[yard ,/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 2 - Board o£ Trustees Resolution Adopted q/18/85 AND ~HEREAS, the Village Board o£ Trustees requested & review of the peak water loadir~ and subsequent review found a demand o£ approximately 19q,O00 Eallone per day, and WHEREAS, the demand represents 55% of the available capacity of the production of the Greenport Municipal Water System. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trueteea enter into oeEotlatlona as recommended by the Village Utility Committee. The question of the ~ore~oing resolution was duly put to & vote which resulted as follows: Trustee Jeanne Cooper Trustee Gall Norton Trustee David Kapell Trustee William tieblein Mayor OeorEe Hubbard Aye Nays Na~e Aye Aye This resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOL~ ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I, Nancy W. Cook, Clerk of the Village o~ Greenport of the County of' Suf'~olk, have compared the £oregoing copy of the resolution with the oriEinal now on f'lle in this 6££ice, and which was adopted by the Board of Trustees o£ said Cuunty on April 18, 1'>85; and that the same is a true and correct transcript of said resolution af,d the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, [ t,.~ve hereu~,~,~ ~t m~ h:,nd and the official o£ t~e VlllaEe of Greenport ,>f the C~,t~nt.y ~Jf .~uFIolK. m I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT F(1) CORPS OF ENGINEERS - MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR YOUNG'S MARINA Name of Aophcant m EffM:tive [:)ate 77-533 28 March 1978 m Expiration Date (If applicable) __ 28 ~a. rch 1981 m m DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT No. 10484 R~..~g,o ~,,,m r~.,,~eo___ 29__ _September 1977 .... lo, dp~r ,3'! ',, to ~'t~ 10 ol the Rw~'$ and Harbors Am of MMCb 3, 1899 {33 U.S.~. 4u3}, ! ! I I I I I I I '1 m t972 (8~ Stat. t052; P.L. 92-532); ~ ~, ~ ~a (Hero~n~ertthefullrmmeandaddressol[heperm~tlee) youncj's ~ ~ ~ ~. O. ~2~ ~~ ~, ~ Y~A 1~44 ~ ~nt~ ~ a 180 ft. x 20 ft. rate.ed u. In tbe em oC ~ .9pU~Uo. for . ~ ~. 180 ~. ~. of ~e~ri~ ~ ~ or ~. ,,~,~,...uo. ~0, ~.~. ~ ~.~ ..~. of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~hly re+~i~ ~ prat i~ ~ ~ ~ ~r- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ga~ ~ ~ ~li~t's ~s~ ~ faci~. Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound Stirlir~j, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Ne~ York 1522-15 (Shelter IsLu~ Sound - Zehner, Howard H. - Bulkhead, fill and maintenanoe dredge) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DI~C~IARGE OF ORE0~ED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATER~: That the 13~tm;Hel stl'dl pl~ce · cody O~ thai perm,i[ in · E~ECTION OF STRUCTURE IN OR OVEIq NAVIGABLE WATERS: That t~e pe~m~ltee, upon. rice,pt of I rtOl~Cll of re~oclt<m I I I I I I I ,_ ___28_Ma.E_ch_ ].97.___8. .......... I I i ! I I I I I I I I ! i I I I I I EXHIBIT F(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS - MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR SOUTHOLD SHOP. ES/TARPON DRIVE I I I I I' AM~k~tlofl No. Name of Ap~k~nt · Eff~tl~ Dlte Exph~tlon Date DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (113508 ( ) Diocharp dcedfod or flu material into waters of the United States upon the lseuenco of e permit from the Secrote~ o! the Army actin~ through tho Chief of gu~noe~ pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ~ U.S.C. 13~); I Wilhelm Franken Donald Bayles Michael Levinson 75 Carroll Street 86 Mt. Sinai 256 West Lane m 11231 O~ram, NY 11727 Bridgefield, CT Brooklyn, NY 516-477-1043 516-924-8866 516-477-1675 ( )Treneport d~dl~od material for ~e p~se of dumpM it h~ ~ wt~ u~n ~e iseuuco of I ~it ~m the k~ of ~e Amy t~nw ~qh ~e Chief of En~nM~ p~u~t ~ ~on 1~ of ~e Mt~ne P~ion. Research sad S~u~se A~ of 1972 (~ 5~t 1~2; P.L. ~-~); 06887 Iis he' eby authorized by the S~tm7 of the Amy: maintenance dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of material by crane from a 320-foot by 25-foot area to a depth of 6 feet below the plane of mean low water with a 3-on-1 slope and dispose of the dredged material on the adjacent upland. I I I I I I in an unnamed canal off Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound; ot Southold, Suffolk County, New York; in accordance with the plans end d~lwinp attached hor~o which L'~ incoTpor~od in end mede a pm of this perml~ tm ~f, ~o~ ~d~ .umb~ or other definite Id~. ~lfi~o. marke.) 1522-15 (Shelter Island Sound - Franken, Bayles, Levinson- maintenance dredging with upland disposal) I I iubjort to the IoIinwing cooditiOnl: I. Genial Condltinn-: That &~l activities identified and authorised herein shall be consistent with the t~rms end contUSions of this permit; and activities not eporiflc~lly identified and authorized heroin eh~ll constitute 8 violation of the t~rms and conditions of nit which may result in the modification, suspension or revocation o! this permit, in whole or in part, as set forth moro in General Conditions j or k hereto, and in tho institution of such bpi procsedinp ss the United States GerarD- whether or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in Sop 82 EOfllON OF 1 JUL T718 OBSOLETE 1 /~ ~ondiLlana ~ b applicnbJe when appr~priat~ ~ ~s ~t d~ not au~o~ ~o h~ ~ uy ~s~ ~ ~ F~ p~ nd ~at ~o ~ ~ en~O~ ~ com~ana~on for d~ or ~J~ ~ ~0 s~ ~ work an~o~d ~ w~eh may ~ ~u~ by b. That no a~pt s~ ~ ma~ by ~e ~ m pMv~t ~o hH nd buM by ~ public of ~ ~v~nblo wa~ra at or ~ TAla if ~ ~sp~y of ~hM ~d 8~Me on ~y e~ct~ or w~k an~o~ h~ ~ u~ o~1~ provided for by ~m of ~e · That ~e ~m~, u~n ~Jpt of ~ no~ of ~v~on of ~s ~l~ or u~n J~ ~pba~an bfo~ eompb~on of nu~ori~d s~u~m or work, sh~, ~f~out ex~n~ ~ ~o U~ SMMs ~d h su~ ~o ~d m~ as ~e ~cre~ of ~y or ~s n~or~d ~prooonM~ve may ~, ~ow~ ~o wa~ ~ J~ fom~ ~n~on~. If ~e ~i~ fo~s ~ ~m- ply wJ~ ~e direc~on of ~e ~ of ~o Amy or ~s au~o~ mp~MnM~ve, ~o ~ or his ~s~ my e. S~ctu~s for Sm~ B~: ~t ~ h~by ~s ~e ~sa]b~ty ~at ~ o~m ~mi~d be~in may oub~ ~ d~e by wave w~h ~ ~oo~ v~seb. Tbe losu~ of ~s ~mlt ba not m~ovo ~ ~ml~ from ~i~ p~r oMps W ~s~ ~o ~M~ty of ~e o~m p~ hom~ ~d ~o ~foty of ~ m~d ~e~W ~m d~ap by wave w~h ~d ~e ~i~ o~ not hold ~ U~ S~m ~abb for ~ an~ I I I I I I a. That wbe~ *he work autho~d herein includes IM~ind~c maintananM di~d&~n& it may be lmrformod under this I~rmit for ~ {_~0) yea~sfromtbed~t~ofbsuanceofthleperm~tt~n~-f~abeeorb~i~hdicdt~d); b. ~it ~e ~mt~ w~ idyl. ~e Db~l~ En~n~r ~ ~fl~ at bast ~o w~l bfo~ ho ~mndl M ~do~e ~y D~S4:HAR~[S OF DftfOGJO OR FILL MaYSmAt INTO WA~M OP T~ UW~ ~A~; L ~ic ~e ~Khup w~ ~ ~ out ~ ~nfo~ty wi~ ~e ~ ~d ob~v~ of ~o ~PA O~doJ~es oeMb~ibed pu~ 8~t ~ ~on 4~(b) of ~e Cb~ WOMF Act ~d published h ~ CFR b. Tht ~e ~ w~ ~niist of ouiUbb ma~ri~ f~ ~m M~e ~Hu~ c. T~t ~e fill ~aMd by ~e ~s~up w~ ~ pro~r~ m~ M p~vant ~sion ud o~er non-~t source of ~tin- floe. DISPOSAL O~ Df, EDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WAI~IS: J fi. Tbet the dls[Mia] wfl] be carried out in conformity wiLh the foals, ob~ocUval, and roquh, emanm of the EPA criteria oambUsbd pursuant Go SocUon 202 of the Marine Pto~ocUon, Jbsoucb and SancGotries Ac% of 1972, pubUsbed in 40 CFR 22~ I b. Tbet the permit~ee shall place a copy of this permit in a ~ansplcuou, plac~ in the vessel GO be used for the transportition and/or d~slMsal of tho d~d~ad mat, aria] ns authored herein. This IMFmlt shall become effective on.tho dat~ of the Diot'.ic% ~--n~'..ifnatur~. I Pormi~e~ hereby accepts and th'~ees Go c.o'~p~"~ith t. he t~rms and con~it. Jons of I/~ ~ . · ~ -~.-- //Y ~ /.~ /. ,' ~P~RMITTEE~* ~ / ~'" '-' DATE ~,~.. BRIFFIo,-C-.,lor~.l / . - DAlE --,~ rlw.~.S. A m Corm- o~ E:no nevi r 'i' TRANSFEREE 4 DATE :/ IISSbED TO 10-84-1383 PERMIT UhDER T"E FN¥IRONMENTAL CONSEItVATION LAW  AEHCLE 15, (ProleclionolWacer) ~ AETICLE 25, (TidaIWellaods) ARTICLE 24, (Freshwaler Wella~b) ~ A~TIC~ 36, (Canslruc/ion in Flood Hazard Areas) Donald Bayles, Michael Levinson, OFPE~EAlbacore Dr'iv~ Southold, NY (Seclion o( ~lream, I~dal weIlanJ, dam, buHd~ngJ Wilhelm Franken ~rivate Canal LON OF PROJECT dge 375' area of Private Canal south of Tarpon Drive to 6' below mean .ow wa~"b-y-~e crane ~-i't5 FWsu~t~Kf spoiI--~3-0-0-~ds.) to be placed upland .~o~bUlkhead at southwest corner of Private Canal. There will be no distur- c~g~a%~d~l~w~l~d~ %~ ~r~-of Franken & thold, NY. ITY NAME thold (Clly, Town, Village) Southold folk J,:lA ¢ ,',o. I °^" GENERAL CONDITIONS permHlee shall file *n Ihe oHice o( Ihe approwiale Reg*onal Iwork suspended ~f the public inleresl so requires, i~ material lo be deposited or dumpc~l under Ihis permit, e~ther m within or behind a 8ood and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such Tarpon Dr. 8. Thai Ihe Slate of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or ,njury IO Ihe slruclure or work hereto authorized which may be caused by or 9. That Df the d,splay of hShls and signals on any work hereby authorized 10. All work tamed oul under Ihis permit shad be performed in accoro 12. This permit shah nol be ¢onslrued as conveying to the apph¢,~n! any project. Par! 500 of 6 NYCRR (Construchon in Flood Plain Areas having Special Flood (SEE REVERSE SIDE) ,r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT G CORE SAMPLE MAp I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT H SHELLFISH SURVEY MAP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT I SOIL TYPE MAp TM~- L.,,NMP d5'6.. I I I I i I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT J TEST BORING MAP AND ANALYSIS I I i I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I Il IIIH IHIIIINIIIINIIII=IIIi NIIINIII NII[~Illl ~IIIINIIIN[II . tli111,1,111 ll/'l~l,i J'J ~ I I I I L'L'I I I I,~ I t I.','i I I i,TI I I I.'L'I I 1 I~ I 111111 P,11111111 IL'L'i I I I,'L't.I,1 tJ I~,t I I I'! I [11,1111 I,I I1 ~lll~llIl,lllll,lllt NIII ~IIIJ,IIIINIIII / / I ~i,SLACKE TEST BORING, INC. (.Mrl. I '~l~y A~'~ S!acl~e. President I 3242-85 D,~ted: ~.farth :.'~;, 19~;5 Job No "Yuun,:[s ?,farina", Sage Road, Greenport, Tawn of .5'.~thoId, Stzffolk ~'uunty, :'~ ! I I I I I I below Ground Surfece 1'6" Topsail, Loam, Gravel, small pieces ,.~ Broken Bricks I~6 16' Coarse tO Medium Brown Sand, some Hediurn to Fine Gravel, some Silt SempZe # I 0 5' to 7~ 13-11-11- 14 24" ~ample # 2 ~ 10~ to 12' 14-19-14- Sample # 3 O 15' to 17' 6-9-I0-I0 2.1" 1~' 53' Gray C!ay Sample # 4 0 20' to 22' 6-8-12-12 2,1" Sample # 5 0 25' to 27' 6-12-17-18 21" Sample # 6 ~ 30' to 32' 4-11-18-19 21" I Sample # 7 0 40' to 42' 6- 12-16-20 21" j Sample # 8 0 50' ~0 52' 7-13 17 20 2.1" 5J" 59' Coarse to Fine Light Brown Sand. ~ome Fitte Gravel Sample Il 9 0 55' tO 57' lo IO-ll-I 2.1" Sample # lO ~ 57' to 59' ~ I1 11 12 24" DRILLED IN USED I I I I I I I I SLACKE TEST BORING, INC. 4 MAIN STREET, PO. BOX 64. KINGS PARK, L I. NEW YORK 11754 * (5;6) 544.04.,4 I I ''~ 'r" Jc, b NO 3242-85 Duted: .Urn'ch 26, 19,~5 Sage Road, G'Pe~'n[)c)rl. Town of Southold. Suffolk (_'.)u/,t , Water Level ~s I I 3' 10' I I0' 53' ! ! ! ! ! ! Topsoil Lorn, trace Gravel Coarse to Medium Brown Sand. Gravel, some Silt Gray Clay Sample # i 0 10' tO 12' Sample # 2 ~ 20' to 22' Sdnlple # 3 ~ 30' to 32' S~nple ~ 4 0 40' to 42' Coarse to Fine Light Brown Frae Ndmple 4 5 0 55' to 57' $-13 17-2d 11- ',3 Id 21 5-9-13 15 10~14 Id-2 24 ' DRILLED IN ~':1';I, USED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT K SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DESIGN DISPOSAL SYSTEMS/WATER USAGE I All sub surface sewage disposal systems are to be designed according to the occupancy rating and/or ~he following criteria= I~uildin~ Us~ I. Design Flow I Sin le ~lvalent I 300 a11ons/da Effi~nit plus ~ood service Bow n s ace I Tennis Courts I 100 or I I I I Indu~ Hoe Public Bars Cater Markets I Stores Take Out I Bath House floor area area area floor area area ! I I I I I ! ! I I ! I i I I I I I I EXHIBIT L LETTER FROM ARTHUR FOSTER ON PUMP-OUT DISPOSAL (516) 298-4777 298--8127 CUSTOm C6SSPOOI. S, Inc. I CESSPOOLS - EXCAVATION - BULLDOZER - CRANE SERVICE  FILL - BACKHOE SERVICE I P.O. BOX 1132 MATTITUCK, N.Y. 11952 :'ebruarv 14, 1986 I I I I I I I I I Joseph 2ischetti {obart road Southold, 3.~. 11971 Dear Joe, Please be advised that I steadied the situation concerning sewage and or sludge removal from a hold- inz tank located, at the marina now known as gainers or Uhls does not impose a problem as far as pm.tmpiu5 and disposal is concerned, as we have facilities in our or~iuization available for pumpiu~, and disposal is available at the "Sewage Disposal Plant" witkin the incorporated VillaEe of Gree~port. Waste material can be pumped and disposed of at the rate of 2500 Eallons per trip taking approximately an hour and one half per trip. If you have any further %uestions please contact me at 299-9660. Sincerely, A.P. Poster President AP/ts I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT M LETTER FROM SOUTHOLD TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT I I i I I I I ! I I ! I '1 I I I I I H. DANIEL WINTERS POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PECONIO, NEW YORK, 119§8 TELEPHONE EMERGENCY DIALg$1 28 Oanuary,1986 ADMINiSTRATiVE: 516 765-2600 516 7348022 Mr. Joseph Fischetti P.O. Box 616 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Southport Development~ Youngs Marina Greenport,New York Dear Mr. Fischetti: Pursuant to your inquiry, please be advised the construction of a motel at Youngs Marina, Greenport would not have an adverse impact on the work load of the Southold Town Police Department. In the past we have experienced a minimum of complaints and problems with other motels in Southold Town and I can see no reason why a motel at Youngs Marina would be any different. If I can be of further assistance to you please feel free to contact me. Very ~t~YT~ yours, H Daniel Winters Chief of Police HDW/w I I I I I i I I i I ! I !' I i I I I I EXHIBIT N LETTER FROM JOSEPH FISCHETTI, TO SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JR. I I I I I I I I February 12, 1986 $outhold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Master Plan - Marine Business and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members: This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between the intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient motels in general and Young's Marina ($outhport Development) in particular. When Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft Proposed Zoning Regulations, dated April, 1985, prepared by Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was in favor of the project and recommended the zoning change to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State- ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us that Mr. Tasker, the Town ~ttorney, was make possible revisions to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we should contact him to inquire whether Southport Development was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. ~n discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business district this use was being removed from the Code. I I I I ! I ! I I I I I I I ! I I I I Southold Town Board February 12, 1986 Page 2 We then contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. Emilita, and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our understanding that the Zoning Maps were being revised to reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and that the Town Board, in support of the Master Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, however, that the maps were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of Hobart Road in Southold. I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of th~ Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and the Planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. Very truly yours, Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.F. JF:mdh cc: Southold Town Planning Board I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I EXHIBIT O LETTER FROM SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, TO SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD INC. I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I SZEPATOVVSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO: RE: F ROt.!: DATE: Southold Town Board Southport Development Szepatowski Associates, January 20, 1986 Inc. Upon Szepatowski Associates, Inc's. review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold, ~Y prepared by Land Use Company, Wading River, NY, the following concerns and discrepancies were raised. The major points are: 1 Proposed Development conflicts with: Change of zone requested and the proposed zone on Town Zoning Map. Sage Boulevard is not a public road, therefore, possible problems with access, road width, and improvements are apparent. There are problems with the Marina expansion, specifically what is to be done with boat pump out; suitability of dredge spoil for intended purposes; and providing boat slips for "less than luxury boats (less than 30 ft.). Lack of Schematic sketch plan to demonstrate -Location of ~.lotel, Restaurant -Environmental impacts -Mitigation measures -Adverse impacts A meeting was held on January 13 to discuss the above concerns and the follo%~ing detailed comments. The proposed response has been indicated. The change of zone requested (General ~Iultiple Residence) allows for docking facilities for non-commercial boats and hotels, and motels both with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning (Marine Business) on town zoning maps allows for marinas, fuel sale, swimming pools, tennis courts, and boat yard (storage) all under permitted uses. Restaurants are permitted by special e×ception. Hotels are not listed under this zone. As just pointed out, the proposed development conflicts with both the change of zone requested and the proposed zone on the Town Zoning Hap. The Planning Board has recommended t~arine-Recreation for this site and the applicant has agreed to comply with that District. The proposed Zoning t4ap needs to be amended. 23 Narragansett ~-',e. [ames[o~,',,n. RI 02835 ,,;.0t 3,23-0430 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ¢ As a general comment, the DEIS contains many typographical errors and unfinished sentences which should have been detected with proof reading before submission. They detract from the quality and credibility of the document. 4. 5. 6. Page 1 - ~]o regard for fresh water use impact on Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify if it can provide peak flow Page 2-3 - Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. However, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, "Marine Business", does not allow motels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has recommended "Marine-Recreation" (M-Rec) as appropriate for this site, but this zone does not permit boat yards. A resolution of these conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not moored at the marina. Page 3 - Sanitary effluent will be subject to denitrification system. This eliminates only 30% of nitrogen from effluent. Where will effluent be discharged? It is not clear from the report, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs to show the system. Page 4 - A public need for the project is referred to, but surveys or other evidence is not offered. An intention to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translated into fact as the proposal is developed. The statement is made that there will be no increased demand for public services, yet public water is needed. Police and fire protection are also needed. A statement from the Village is needed on water supply and from the Police an Fire Departments as well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful. Page 6 - Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with its abuttors having some control over access and "improvements" there on. Since improvements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the applicants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This is essential for project approval since existing access is not satisfactory for the proposed project to be approved. The question of maintaining Sage Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be improved jointly. An agreement on same will be necessary for site plan approval. SZEPATOwSKI ASSOCIATES INC. I I I i I I I 10. 11. Page 7 - A supposition is made as to potential negative impacts from spills of industrial compounds which might be used by industries under the current zoning. It appears that an impression is trying to be created that somehow this would not be possible under the proposed use. However, it is a known fact that even the existing use has such compounds on site and that there already exists a threat to the environment. This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned. Page 9 - Dredge spoil analysis must be done to determine suitability of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands creation). If contaminants are found what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland grading as stated in DEIS would not be possible. Dredging method, time, upland dewatering, and runoff control method must all be addressed. Page 10 - Concern with regards to boat slip length. Ail are over 32' in length. This does not allow for "less than luxury boats." What is the public need in the area for "elite boating?" Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method. Page 11 - What is pervious material used for 288 space parking lot? Inconsistantcy on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be "pervious" or "impervious", or "semi-pervious". A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. must be shown along with drainage calculations. A "0" runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. 12. Page 11-12 - Since no site plan has been included in the DEIS, it cannot be commented upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity and no mention is made of employee parking. Unsubstantiated statements are made regarding "satisfying zoning requirements", runoff generated from impervious to semi-pervious surfaces. This section needs to be supplemented. Page 12 - Mo calculations of peak water use and sewage flous are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation without going saline during peak season? If not, Greenport must be made aware and utility acknowledgement is needed. SZEPAI-OWSKI ASSOCIA[ES INC. F_~.VIRON&~£N'E~L CON%LJLT;,'~ rS I i I i I I I I I I I 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Page 12-13 - What is meant by the statement, "Subsoil testing will be conducted to determine" etc and "If such material..." and "proper design criteria..." and "proper erosion contract..." This is a draft environmental impact statement and this information is needed to properly evaluate the impacts and to clarify the vague statements made. Supplemental information is necessary. Page 15 Soil borings, since they will be necessary anyway, should be included in the DEIS. Unknown subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts. Page 16 The last sentence is missing at least two words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded. Page 17 - Undocumented "Agency observations" are held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence. the Page 17-18 - Does the "representational species list" represent actual observation? If so, why call it "representational"? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this area so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation measures. Page 19 - why aren't the bird and fish species actually sited named? On what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory. I I I 20. Page 20 - Reference is made to a USACE maintenance dredging permit. Is it in force or pending? A copy should be included in the DEIS. A low water depth of 6' is mentioned, while on Page 9 a depth of 7' to 8' is mentioned. Can this be done within the scope of the USACE permit? Who holds the permit and who will do the channel maintenance dredging (aside from basin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrated in the DEIS. If this depth of dredging is deeper than the entrance channel, the reason for doing any dredging is missing. Where will the initial spoil and the maintenance dredging spoil be deposited? A modification to the dredging is needed as well as more detail and a soundings plan. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. [N.\IRON,%'IENTn, L C©N, SIILTa, N~ FS I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I 23. Page 27-29 - The significant environmental impacts discussion on soils, topography, groundwater, surface waters, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands cannot be commented upon without a more detailed environmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan to demonstrate before and after conditions. The impacts listed are conjectural and not conclusory based on evidence contained in the DEIS. This section needs to be rewritten. 24. Page 30 - A statement is made that mitigation measures could be made a part of a proposed project. Specific mitigation measure, even though general at the change of zone level, should be identified as being an integral part of the project. For example, regrading and modification of existing drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned as mitigation measures but since the extent of the impact being mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of the mitigating measure cannot be defined. 25. 26. Page 31 - Wkat is the design of catch basins, as described, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is toward water. A site grading plan is needed. Page 33 - Why will the phragmites be removed and why is it really a nuisance species? This needs to be detailed. 27. 28. 29. 30. S li Page 34 The creation of a natural Wetland along the entire basin shorelines is proposed. The DEIS does not show this. A better rendition is needed. Page 35 - "Little demand" ignores freshwater use for the entire expansion proposed. Page 37 - The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be completed without an analysis of the existing bottom to be dredged. Page 41 - Document economic infeasibility. What does thi~ mean? SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. [N~,Ir~On,"',~ENTaL cO~,LJLr,,'~ rS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FEB 1:3 February 12, 1986 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 ~e: Master Plan - Marine Eusiness and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members: This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between the intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient motels in genera], and Young's Marina (Southport Development) in particular. When Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft Proposed ~oning Regulations, dated April, 1985, prepared by Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was in favor of the project and reco~[~ended the zonin9 c~an~e to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State- ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us that Mr. Tasker, the Town ~ttorney, was make possible revisions to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we should contact him to inquire whether Southport Development was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business district this use was being removed from the Code. Southold Town Board February 12, 1986 Page 2 We then contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. Emilita, and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our understanding that the Zoning Maps were being revised to reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and that the Town Board, in support of the Master Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, however, that the maps were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of Hobart Road in Southold. I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of th~ Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and the Planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. ~oseph Fischetti, Jr~,~ JF:mdh cc: Southold Town Planning Board PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 4, 1986 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO "M-I" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It is now 8:00 o'clock and we have a scheduled public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement by Southport Development. Councilman Schondebare will do the official reading. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, ont he westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: January 7, 1986. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit of publication of that notice on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board by the Town Clerk Judith Terry. I have an affidavit of publication of the said notice in The Long Island Traveler-Watchman, and an affidavit of publication of said notice in The Suffolk Times. I have in the file a copy of the Draft Environ- menal Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold, New York. I have in the file comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 17, 1986 submitted on behalf of the interventors Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn. I have in the file the comments by our Town Planner Szepatowski Associates Inc., which in reality is Dave Emilita, the Town Planner. I have a letter in the file also from Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn, Attorneys, dated February 4, 1986 with rel~erence to $outhport Development Dral~t Environmental Impact Statement. This is dated today so I think I should read this one. It's five pages long. Pag'e 2 - Southport Devel~J~ent DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Maybe just the comment, Jay, about the time they need to reply. COUNCILMAN SCBONDEBARE: They would like two weeks from today to reply. Have you seen this? Mr. Flynn, do you know anything about it? MR. FRANK FLYNN: No. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I'm going to read it to you then. "Dear Members of the Board:" Unless we make copies. Do you want me to read it now? If I made copies and gave it to you now, rather than my reading it here. Maybe you won't catch something that I'm saying? MR. FLYNN: I should like to have ample time to study this five page letter rather than have it read to me and I'd like ample time to respond to the letter if necessary. I consider this a bit of an ambush to present this letter at this time when all comments were supposed to have come in approximately two weeks ago. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I think, speaking to the Supervisor, and with the consent of the other Board members, what we will do, is recess the public hearing after the public comment tonight and then reconvene it for comments at a later date. That way you'll have a chance to look at it and see it. MR. FLYNN: That will not preclude me from making comments this evening? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: No. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We'll probably recess to our next Town Board meeting in three weeks, and it's an afternoon meeting. MR. FLYNN: I defer to advice of counsel. MR. HENRY WEISMANN: We'll have an opportunity to respond to any supplemental material. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: And the Town Clerk will make this available for you. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: The remainder in the file pertains to the change of zone and not the SEQR process which is what we're discussing here tonight. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we've heard the official reading of the notice of this meeting and the comments that were made. Is there anyone here would llke to represent the applicant? ANTHONY CONFORTI: I'm the author of that letter. I'm from the firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale and Shenn. I have to look at the letter because we~ve just formed our firm very recently. I'm not going to give a presentation tonight. The purpose of that letter was to urge members of the Board to conduct this public hearing, which you are doing. It is our intention to respond to the detailed requests made by the planning consultant and to file at some point in time after all public comment has been heard, after we have gotten feedback from the Town as to what you consider essential to be addressed, we will file our final environmental impact statement. We are here tonight to hear comments from the public and at a later time, if it's appropriate, and if it is mandated by this Board, we will certainly respond. Thank you. Page 3 - Southport Devel~I~ent DEI$ SUPERVISOR MURPHY: is there anyone else here would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? (No response.) Anyone like to speak in opposition to the applicant? Sir. HENRY WEISMANN: I would just like to know that after the petitioner submits their final, or their corrected and completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement that interested citizens will have the opportunity thereafter to submit comments directed toward it, as provided by the SEQR procedures? Is that the purpose of the adjourn- ment ? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, as long as we keep the public hearing---as long as we don't close this public hearing. MR. WEISMANN: You will give us an opportunity after the filing of the corrected and completed impact statement, to have our people submit comments with regard to it writing? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Our Town Attorney is sick tonight, so I can't give you a legal interpretation. Dave, can you comment on that? DAVID EMILITA, Town Planning Consultant: On the question of the submission of additional data, I think the gaps in the data are sufficient enough to render the additional submission as a supplement to the draft, rather than as a final impact statement. MR. WEISMANN: That obviously leaves us in a posit~on where we can comment on it after the supplement. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mr. Flynn? MR. FRANK M. FLYNN, Tarpon Drive, Southold: I'd like to make some statements with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development and although they may be rather blunt, I think they may be of assistance to the Board, certainly of interest to the Board, and possibly may save some taxpayers money. What we have here, if I may consult my notes---we have had what was supposedly a Draft Environmental Study submitted on the part of Southport Develop- ment, which apparently is going to be surplanted by an entirely new organization. This doesn't surprise me. The original statement submitted is, in my opinion, a cynical travesty, replete with errors and arising from ignorance or desire to mislead and misinform. I have a point by point rebuttal of the original Draft Environmental Impact Study in my bag. I shan't take the time or the Town Board to go down it point by point, because in a way Mr. Emilita has at least partially done so already. In the statement every basic premise is incorrect and I'm prepared to provide it from the public record, but I would like to say also that this is not my personal opinion. This is not my unsupported opinion. If the public and the media were to inspect the Town's records, there are, within the records, a detailed report by distinguished Planner Mr. Fred Reuter and a Naturalist Lawrence Penny, on file in opposition. Perhaps more persuasive the Board has the belated report, and I say belated report, filed with the Town by Szepatowski Associates, identified as Mr. Emilita's firm. I criticize that report in a sense as being somewhat vague as to what prompted the report. There's a reference to a meeting as of January 13th, but I would like eventually to find out where the meeting was held, who was present, and generally what the background of the meeting was. However, Mr. I~milita's report I must admit, makes devastating comments on the report prepared for Southport Development by the Land Use Company, Mr. Bowman, and it questions its quality, its durability and cites critical lack of supporting evidence. Now this, in my opinion, P~g'e 4 - Southport Devel~ent DI~IS is sufficient of a report like this is trifling with the time of the Town Board and the taxpayer's money. But to go further, there is support to a particular aspect of Mr. Emilita's report that I don't think anybody has called to the attention of the Town Board, notably, that there has been a recent serious oil spill in the area of this property and it is certainly dilaterious to the environment. There has been no mention made of that. Didn't I not know better I would consider the arrogance and the smug complacency of Southport in submitting such a cursory and legally inadequate statement as evidence that could possibly lead one to believe that the applicant was assured that the D£1S was a proforma thing and that the approval of his application was certain. This, of course, I can't believe in the Town of Southold because it will be a denial of due process or deny the public the right to comment in detail on this sort of thing. However, the smug assurance with which this report, this this charade was proiected to the Town Board certainly gives rise to questions that should be answered. Now, I believe and I am prepared to cite the evidence for it, that the basic premise all the way through of Southport's report, as presented by Mr. Bowman, is incorrected. My examination of the public records in Riverhead, my examination of the records in Town Hall, and my queries of Town Hall lead me to believe that the existing marina, in large part, is an illegal operation. I'm prepared to recite chapter and verse and provide you with any deed transaction on this property, the chronology of the whole thing. Now, should this be the case, any petition or application such as this, and any application to maintenance dredge an area that is illegal to begin with, is really futile. Now, I request the constituted authorities of this Town to investigate this as a very serious question. Now, other than that we have other things of interest. I~ven were this not the case Mr. Bowman stated on Page 9 of his report, which is available to everybody, and I would encourage anybody interested in this to consult it, that the existing marina operation encompasses the majority of the site. Now, the existing marina operation is reputed to have 91 slips. If the indefinite expansion referred to in different numbers on different pages were to be in the vicinity of 130 slips, it would be an approximate 50% increase in the marina operation, and consequently from my knowledge of marina operations, would require the entire upland even were it legal. Now, to presume that it is possible to fill 82 motel units on excess land over and above that required for the marina operation, when by definition the entire upland is required for the marina operation, is contempt of me, it's contempt of the citizenry of this town and certainly it's contempt as far as the Town Board is concerned. I would say that if the Town Board really desires to treat this matter in a fairminded manner and act in good conscience, in view of the serious questions raised as to the suitability of the site for the purposes for which application was made and which would also be included in the Master Plan, any action on the Master Plan for this area be deferred until the serious questions herein raised are answered. What you have on the part of Bowman, and what you have on the part of £milita are an indictment of the background studies done for the Master Plan. The Master Plan is inadequate. The Master Plan has not considered the serious affect on the environment and the economy arising from this proposed use, and were this thing to be stampeded through--and when I say this thing I refer to the Master Plan-- the end result would be to destroy the economy of an area and the environment of an area. At this point I think I've said sufficient to give you some food for thought. Thank you very much. SUPI~RVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? Marry? MARTIN GARRI~LL, Chairman, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council: I felt that on projects of this sort that we would weigh in with some kind of a CAC opinion. Also, because part of my work, my research as an energy and environmental problem · P~g~ S - Southport Develogent DEIS solver, if you will, a consultant at Brookhaven Lab I do this kind of thing for a living and I've worked for a long time with environmental impact statements, both EIS's that I've written and EIS's that I've read, so I've sort of been on both ends of it. I'm looking at this time. I had a number of general comments and I had specific comments, but since I'm going to submit these in writing anyway through Linda Cooper, I'll just give you some general thoughts on this and then leave it with Judy. My general comments were as follows: I really velt the serious flaws and omissions in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement render it inadequate and possibly illegal. In fact, it resembles a lot of the rambling and general impact state- ments which were often rejected by the courts in the 1970's at the beginning of the National Environmental Policy Act. The suits of the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resources Defence Council were quite successful in wiping out a lot of such impact statements. The disclosures in this particular impact statement were incomplete and the information in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was at best sketchy, and the document needs to be completed and resubmitted. Practically all of the information was general and not site specific, maps were poor. Cataloguing of the impacts was ragged and the treatment of soils, plant and animal life was given very short shrift. Alternatives were not suitably addressed and the economic justification, which is important for a project like Southport certainly was almost non-existent. Our comments on--to be a little bit more specific, a few of our main comments were that the loadings to the Bay from such a development should be calculated carefully and compared with current loadings. Fish and shellfish are un- doubtedly affected, as well as wildlife habitat. And you can estimate the fertilization loading as well as the nutrient loading. Any good environmental plan or any good environmental consultant should be able to write a report that does that. How can 82 units and additional docks not have a substantial impact on Route 25 traffic patterns? you've got to go back and recalculate this, expecially for peak times and you surely can't assume that the users of 48 foot cruisers are not going to be--the users of 48 cruisers are going to be the first ont he water and the last off the water like commercial fishermen. They're going to use the waterfront facilities at peak times for the roads. The assumption that the deterioration of Peconic Bay waterfront is inevitable if South- port is not permitted certainly doesn't seem justified, and the alternatives to the development of the site certainly exist and must be addressed in a document of this sort. ElS documents by law must address alternatives. We don't see what's in mind in this report for storm runoff system and for a denitrification system. And it's hard to believe that the water demands can be met by 13,300 gallons a day for 82 units and a restaurant. I would figure at least 16,000 gallons Der day alone for a fully occupied motel, and whether that's a motel or even condominiums you've got to specify which you're actually looking at, permanent residency, or are you looking at temporary residency. And even more important what will be the consequent demands on local groundwater? That must be addressed. There must be a detailed description of holding tank facilities for a marina of this size and there are no maps submitted with the plan to illustrate the areas for parking. There should be detailed maps with this and any sketches, any maps at all should show a project which uses up an extraordinary amount of land relative to the site. I can't quite understand why the plan insists on talking about 12.35 acres, because the actual size of the land is 8.63 acres, or are we talking about underwater construction? The last comment I had had to do with economic impacts, which are a part of the DEIS. If the current facility and its operation are supposedly unrealistic and not economically feasible, how can you justify this operation as it's proposed. Are there some magic calculations used here? If there are you've got to show them with dollar signs. That pretty much says it generally, but my conclusion, or our conclusion, speaking for the CAC, is that this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is in need of so much revision that it might even at this point be a waste of time to go to a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant needs to rewrite practically the entire document and get a good enviornmental planner and a good environmental consultant before resubmitting it. Thank you. ' 'P~,~e 6 - Southport Develo~ent DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Henry? TOWN TRUSTEE PRESIDENT HENRY SMITH: I'm just going to make comments on the Trustee portions and the problems the Trustees had. The only thing we would like to have something definitely would be holding tanks in the marina if it is built, and boats that would be moored there permanently. I don't mean transient boats. Boats that would be moored there permanently would have holding tanks in them. That would have to be something we'd put in the covenants or what have you. And the only other thing we have is the navigation. There will be no restriction of navigation to the people behind to get in and out of the creek. We do recognize the Town does need marina space. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Henry. Is there anyone else? Ruth? RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: We read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and we would agree with the Conservation Advisory Council. We found it wholly inadequate. We felt there should be soll cores taken instead of just taking it from a map. Taken by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation people, to show both the gravel area, the composition of it where they propose to put their denitrification system, and also in the clay area where they propose to put some sort of drainage system for runoff. We just don't feel that they can meet these runoff standards with this enormous clay layer underneath, that it is going to run out into the Bay. There was no benthic study as far as the bottom of the proposed inlet, both for the dredging and the placement of spoil. We would like to see that. They had some sort of a wildlife summary which we found was totally inadequate. It was done in the fall. People that have lived in the area say there are nesting wildfowl in the area. We would like to see a study done this spring of that. We would like to know the affect on the extension or additional amounts of water from the Greenport Water System, what affect it would have on that. We would like to see a letter of recommendation, not approval, but from the Suffolk County Board of Health that this denitrification system which runs a sulphur limestone bed works. We found there were no viable alternatives, just residential housing. There was nothing to just enlarge the marina, to have the marina plus the motel, or the marina plus a restaurant. Also we found the traffic study to me was totally inadequate. They did it at a time of year that there is not much traffic. We would like to see it done say in the summertime when there is a tremendous amount of traffic on Route 25. Also I do not see how a 16 ft. right-of- way is going to carry what they propose 2400 trips a day down to the marina, let alone down to the proposed cluster housing in the Sage development. Thank you. We hope that this would be completely rewritten. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Anyone like to make any comments at all? Sir? MR. CONFORTI: Very briefly, Mr. Supervisor. The comments that I've heard tonight in opposition, though in earnest and very meaningful, I think are misplaced. At this point before this Board is an application for a rezoning, not an application for a site plan approval, not an application for a special permit. According to the Town Code the authority to give those approvals is vested in other boards, more specifically the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. For that reason the Environmental Impact Statement that was submitted was in fact not more detailed. If in fact my clients are successful in this stage of the application we are faced with subsequent applications to other boards and those other boards are going to mandate · 'Pag~ 7 - Southport Devel~ent DEIS very, very detailed study encompassing much of the material sought or suggested tonight by people in opposition. I would like to again remind the Board,as I have pointed out in this letter, of what your true function is and again of the limited scope of this hearing. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Any Town Board members like to make a comment at this time? (No response.) If not I would like to make a motion to recess this public hearing until 3:30 P.M. on February 25th--Tuesday, February 25th. MR. FLYNN: Mr. Supervisor, may I make a comment? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes. MR. FLYNN: Is it not possible to hold that in the evening rather than the afternoon so that more people interested in this may attend? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It's unfortunate on the time. You want to move along. This is a three week spread because of this Association of Towns meeting. MR. FLYNN: I'm merely saying that it precludes the attendance of a lot of interested parties if you hold it in the afternoon. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Well we're here now. This is the evening. Are there any interested parties that are here now that can't come back, as far as interested parties? Is there someone who can't come back? MR. FLYNN: I prefer not to. It's rather costly for me. It's costly for my wife to come back in the mid-afternoon at the convenience of the applicant, really. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEB^RE: No, it's the convenience of the Town Board. That's when we have the meeting. Everyone can come back. Moved by Supervisor Murphy, seconded by Councilman Schondebare, it was RESOLVED that this public hearing be recessed to 3:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 25, 1986, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council- man Schondebare, Councilman Stoutenburgh, Justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy. This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. c~ gudith T. Terry ~_~ $outhold Town Clerk TFLFPHONE Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) SOUTHPORT By The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Dr. [~artin H. Garrell, Chairman Hearing at Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York February 4, 1986 GENERAL COMMENTS The serious flaws and ~missions in this DEIS render it inadequate and possibly illegal. In fact, it resembles the rambling, general impact statements which were so often rejected by the courts in the 1970s at the beginning of NEPA. Disclosures were incomplete and information in the DEIS was sketchy at best, and the document needs to be completed and resubmitted. Practically all of the information was general and did aot site specifics, maps were poor, catloging of impacts was ragged and the treatment of soils, plant, and animal life was given incredibly short shrift. Economic justification, which is important for a project like Soufhport was almost non-existant. COMMENTS ON "ENVIRONMENTAL INPACTS", pages 27 ££. Loadings to the Bay from such a development ought to be calculated and compared with current loading. Fish and shellfish will undoubtedly be affected as well as wildlife habitat. Fertilization can be estimated as well as nutrient loading. How can 82-units and 121 docks not have a substantial impact on Route 25 tra£fic patterns? Better go back and recalculate this, especially for peak times. Surely the users of 48-foot cruisers are not going to be first on the water and last off the water like commercial fishermen! Why do you assume that deterioration of Peconic Bay waterfront is inevifable if Southport were not permitted? Alternatives to the develop- ment of thesite surely exisT. EIS documents must address alternatives in a reasonable fashion. What do you have in mind £or a storm runoff system and for a denitrifi- cation system? It's hard to believe that water demands can be met by 13300 gpd for 82 units and a restaurant. I'd figure at least 16000 gpd for a fully occupied motel alone. What will be consequent demands on local groundwater? Let's see a detail description of holding tank facilities for ~, marina of this size. There are no maps submitted with the plan which adequately illustrate the areas for turf and parking. I believe any sketches would betray a project which uses up an extraordinary amount of land relative to the site. Why do you insist on talking about 12.35 A? The actual size is only 8.63 acres, or do you intend to reconstruct Atlantis underwater? OTHER COMMENTS p. 4 Public need for a marina never justified economically. p.13 Do you really believe you can get the approvals from these agencies in 2 years? p.14-17 Where are maps showing land use, soil samples, vegetation types? p. 19 What are "limited popularities of upland wildlife species"? The species with most limited popularity are not the animals at all! p.20 By your own admission, your traffic will add 14 per cent to the gaps on the road, yet you claim virtually no impact. Is the LIRR really the only means of public transportation, or haven't you heard of the S-92 coach? Of the Sunrise coaches to NYC daily? p.33 Where are you planning to dredge? Show this and discuss effects on Bay, effects on shellfish, please. P 34 How is wildlife habitat for nesting and shelter compatible with an 82-unit motel? What about noise levels, periodic disturbance of all surrounding wetlands? P 36 How will a zoning change "remove the potential threat" of environmental pollution? What will you do to the area if are not given the zoning change? See discussion above of need to discuss alternatives. p 37 No significant effects anticipated for shellfish populations? Be~ter map out dredge areas and nearby shellfish beds first! p.41 If the current facility and its operation are "unrealistic" and "not economically feasible", how can you justify your own operations? Is there some magic calculation used here? You must show this with dollar signs. SUMMARY We conclude that the DEIS is in need of so much revision that it may be a waste of time to go to a FEIS. The applicant needs to rewrite practically the entire document before resubmitting it. Anthony T. Conforti Lynne M. Gordon P. Edward Reale Patrice Dowd Shenn Kathleen F. Schwartz CONFORTI, GORDON, R£ALE & SH£NN ATFORNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 149 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-3107 February 4, 1986 FEB Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southport Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Members of the Board: This office is counsel to Joseph Fischetti, Jr., doing business as Southport Development, contract purchaser of Young's Marina on Sage Boulevard, Southold. Pending before this Board is Southport's application for a change of zone of that 12.35 acre site from the current "C Light Industrial District" to an "M-1 General Multiple-Residence District". Tonight the Board will conduct a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") submitted by Southport at the Town's request. As part of the statutory process outlined in the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), the Town, through its environmental consult- ant met with the applicant on January 13 and issued its comments on the DEIS on January 20. By agreement between Southport and the environmental consultant, those comments will be addressed by the applicant within the next two weeks so that both the comments and the responses can be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") as required by SEQRA law and regulation. Despite assertions to the contrary, this procedure is entirely within the letter and intent of the environmental review process as mandated by SEQRA. There are essentially five steps to the SEQRA process. The first three - the question of whether SEQRA applies to the action, the designa- tion of a lead agency, and the classification of the action as Type I, II or Unlisted - have been completed for this project. The Town Board's review of the Southport project is now in the fourth step of the process the preparation of community. In fact, this is the basis upon which the United States Supreme Court originally sustained the validity of zoning in general. (Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 US 365 [1926]). This requirement is so fundamental that it has been codified in New York State (NY Town Law ~263). Therefore, the comprehensive studies conducted by the Town's planning consultant in preparing the Master Plan Update obviates the need for extensive data in this particular EIS process since the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan. For example, if the North Carolina planning consultant who criticized the DEIS had been sent the Master Plan Update Background Studies, most of the questions he has raised would have been answered. In the Background Studies memoranda, the Town's planning consultant has done extensive analysis of the land use needs and patterns of the Town of Southold. The Master Plan Update makes specific findings that tourism and recreation is a "major component of Southold's economic base" and that "in spite of the number of marinas, there are current shortages of boat slips, docking spaces and moorings, particularly for large boats". Moreover, SEQRA provides that an EIS "should not contain more detail than is appropriate considering the nature and magnitude of the proposed action." (N.Y. Environ. Cons. Law §8-0109 [2]). This section also provides that "agencies shall make their own independent judgment of the scope, con- tents and adequacy of the EIS" (§8-010913]). Clearly, as the only issue currently before the Town Board is a request for a change of zone, the EIS need not approach encyclopedic pro- portions. In fact, the authoritative SEQRA Handbook prepared by the DEC takes the position that a broadly-focused "Generic Environmental Impact Statement would be appropriate" in con- nection with a local government rezoning of land at the request of an applicant (SEQRA Handbook, page B-45). In further discussion on this issue, the SEQRA Handbook suggests that this option should be considered "when a subse- quent site-specific project involves one or more discretion- ary approvals". (Handbook, p. B-46). As the Board is aware, the Southport Development proposal must be reviewed by a Town Planning Board having broad discretion in approving and placing conditions upon the final plan. In addition, if the zone change is approved, the applicant must meet all of the criteria in the Zoning Code for the special exception uses proposed for this project before obtaining Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the proposed uses. 3 It is submitted that the Town's Master Plan alone is sufficient to make the environmental determination necessary to decide the issue now before the Board. Quite clearly, the Master Plan taken together with the DEIS public comments and responses is ample information "considering the nature and magnitude of the proposed action". Although most of the comments received from the Town's environmental consultant will be responded to by the appli- cant within the next two weeks, some of these items need not, nor indeed can they be, addressed until many of the specific engineering details of the project are formulated. As a contract purchaser of the property, the applicant has already gone to considerable expense in pursuit of the necessary approvals. Since, if the zone change is approved, this project will be subject to close scrutiny and possibly many changes, it is unnecessary and unreasonable to require such detail at this time. Again, the DEC, through the SEQRA Handbook, has taken the position that where an "applicant is unable or unwilling to risk the financial outlays for a project which requires rezoning unless the rezoning question is resolved" a broad Generic EIS is sufficient environmental review (SEQRA Handbook, page B-45). A reasonable reading of the SEQRA law and regulations makes it clear that the DEIS is intended to be concise and carefully analytic and not an encyclopedia of the flora and fauna of the region. The SEQRA statute provides that: "the purpose of the draft environmental statement is to relate environmental considerations to the incep- tion of the planning process, to inform the public and other public agencies as early as possible about pro- posed actions that may significantly affect the quality of the environment and to solicit comments which will assist the agency in the decision making process..."N.Y. Environ. Cons. L §8-0109(4). Thus, the purpose of preparing a draft EIS is to circulate the document and to invite agency and public comment so that this input can be considered, addressed and included in the Final EIS upon which the Board shall base its determination. The applicant has, thus far, complied with every requirement of SEQRA. If, in the Town Board's judgment, public comment raises issues that must be addressed, the SEQRA "process" provides a mechanism for inclusion of the public comments and responses thereto in the Final EIS. (6 4 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.14[h]). There is no reason or requirement that the public hearing on this DEIS should be postponed or that the environmental review process be unnecessarily delayed. Yours very truly, ANTHONY ~/ CONFORT~' ATC/bah 5 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO: RE: FROM: DATE: Southold Town Board Southport Development Szepatowski Associates, January 20, 1986 Inc. TOWN OF SOU~i~L~ j Upon Szepatowski Associates, Inc's. review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold, NY prepared by Land Use Company, Wading River, NY, the following concerns and discrepancies were raised. The major points are: Proposed Development conflicts with: Change of zone requested and the proposed zone on Town Zoning Map. Sage Boulevard is not a public road, therefore, possible problems with access, road width, and improvements are apparent. There are problems with the Marina expansion, specifically what is to be done with boat pump out; suitability of dredge spoil for intended purposes; and providing boat slips for "less than luxury boats (less than 30 ft.). Lack of Schematic sketch plan to demonstrate -Location of Motel, Restaurant -Environmental impacts -Mitigation measures -Adverse impacts A meeting was held on January 13 to discuss the above concerns and the following detailed comments. The proposed response has been indicated. The change of zone requested (General Multiple Residence) allows for docking facilities for non-commercial boats and hotels, and motels both with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning (Marine Business) on town zoning maps allows for marinas, fuel sale, swimming pools, tennis courts, and boat yard (storage) all under permitted uses. Restaurants are permitted by special exception. Motels are not listed under this zone. As just pointed out, the proposed development conflicts with both the change of zone requested and the proposed zone on the Town Zoning Map. The Planning Board has recommended Marine-Recreation for this site and the applicant has agreed to comply with that District. The proposed Zoning Map needs to be amended. 23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown. RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 As a general comment, the DEIS contains many typographical errors and unfinished sentences which should have been detected with proof reading before submission. They detract from the quality and credibility of the document. Page 1 No regard for fresh water use impact on Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify if it can provide peak flow e Page 2-3 - Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. However, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, "Marine Business", does not allow motels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has recommended "Marine-Recreation" (M~Rec) as appropriate for this site, but this zone does not permit boat yards. A resolution of these conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not moored at the marina. w Page 3 - Sanitary effluent will be subject to denitrification system. This eliminates only 30% of nitrogen from effluent. Where will effluent be discharged? It is not clear from the report, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs to show the system. Page 4 - A public need for the project is referred to, but surveys or other evidence is not offered. An intention to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translated into fact as the proposal is developed. The statement is made that there will be no increased demand for public services, yet public water is needed. Police and fire protection are also needed. A statement from the Village is needed on water supply and from the Police an Fire Departments as well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful. Page 6 - Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with its abuttors having some control over access and "improvements" there on. Since improvements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the applicants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This is essential for project approval since existing access is not satisfactory for the proposed project to be approved. The question of maintaining Sage Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be improved jointly. An agreement on same will be necessary for site plan approval. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. £NVIRONMENI,%L CONSULTAN15 Page 7 - A supposition is made as to potential negative impacts from spills of industrial compounds which might be used by industries under the current zoning. It appears that an impression is trying to be created that somehow this would not be possible under the proposed use. However, it is a known fact that even the existing use has such compounds on site and that there already exists a threat to the environment. This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned. ® Page 9 - Dredge spoil analysis must be done to determine suitability of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands creation). If contaminants are found what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland grading as stated in DEIS would not be possible. Dredging method, time, upland dewatering, and runoff control method must all be addressed. 10. Page 10 - Concern with regards to boat slip length. Ail are over 32' in length. This does not allow for "less than luxury boats." What is the public need in the area for "elite boating?" Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method. 11. Page 11 - What is pervious material used for 288 space parking lot? Inconsistantcy on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be "pervious" or "impervious", or "semi-pervious". A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. must be shown along with drainage calculations. A "0" runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. 12. Page 11-12 - Since no site plan has been included in the DEIS, it cannot be commented upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity and no mention is made of employee parking. Unsubstantiated statements are made regarding "satisfying zoning requirements", runoff generated from impervious to semi-pervious surfaces. This section needs to be supplemented. 13. Page 12 - No calculations of peak water use and sewage flows are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation without going saline during peak season? If not, Greenport must be made aware and utility acknowledgement is needed. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTa, NTS 14. Page 12-13 - What is meant by the statement, "Subsoil testing will be conducted to determine" etc and "If such material..." and "proper design criteria..." and "proper erosion contract..." This is a draft environmental impact statement and this information is needed to properly evaluate the impacts and to clarify the vague statements made. Supplemental information is necessary. 15. Page 15 - Soil borings, since they will be necessary anyway, should be included in the DEIS. Unknown subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts. 16. Page 16 - The last sentence is missing at least two words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded. 17. Page 17 - Undocumented "Agency observations" are held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to the subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence. 18. Page 17-18 Does the "representational species list" represent actual observation? If so, why call it "representational"? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this area so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation measures. 19. Page 19 - Why aren't the bird and fish species named? On what dates were observations made? supposed to be an inventory. actually sited This is 20. Page 20 - Reference is made to a USACE maintenance dredging permit. Is it in force or pending? A copy should be included in the DEIS. A low water depth of 6' is mentioned, while on Page 9 a depth of 7' to 8' is mentioned. Can this be done within the scope of the USACE permit? who holds the permit and who will do the channel maintenance dredging (aside from basin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrated in the DEIS. If this depth of dredging is deeper than the entrance channel, the reason for doing any dredging is missing. Where will the initial spoil and the maintenance dredging spoil be deposited? A modification to the dredging is needed as well as more detail and a soundings plan. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIA1-ES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULIANT$ S/II 23. Page 27-29 - The significant environmental impacts discussion on soils, topography, groundwater, surface waters, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands cannot be commented upon without a more detailed environmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan to demonstrate before and after conditions. The impacts listed are conjectural and not conclusory based on evidence contained in the DEIS. This section needs to be rewritten. 24. Page 30 A statement is made that mitigation measures could be made a part of a proposed project. Specific mitigation measure, even though general at the change of zone level, should be identified as being an integral part of the project. For example, regrading and modification of existing drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned as mitigation measures but since the extent of the impact being mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of the mitigating measure cannot be defined. 25. Page 31 - What is the design of catch basins, as described, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is toward water. A site grading plan is needed. 26. Page 33 - Why will the phragmites be removed and why is it really a nuisance species? This needs to be detailed. 27. Page 34 - The creation of a natural Wetland along the entire basin shorelines is proposed. The DEIS does not show this. A better rendition is needed. 28. Page 35 - "Little demand" ignores freshwater use for the entire expansion proposed. 29. Page 37 - The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be completed without an analysis of the existing bottom to be dredged. 30. Page 41 - Document economic infeasibility. What does this mean? SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULI.,XNT'=, THOMAS A. TWOMEY. JR STEPHEN B. LATHAM JOHN Ia. SNEA. III CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY AMY B. TURNER LAWRENCE M STORM* MAUREEN T. LICCIONE T~VO~IEY, LATHAM (~ SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BOX January 17, 1986 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11937 {516) 324'1200 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk mown of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. Dear Ms. Terry: This firm represents Henry Weisman and Frank Flynn who live in close proximity to the Southport Development project. Enclosed please find an original and five copies of their comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development for review and consideration. In light of the gross inadequacies of the DEIS and its facial legal inadequacy, my clients would request that the public hearing on the DEIS be adjourned from February 4, lq8~ until such time as the Draft is amended to correct the incorrect information found therein and to supply the necessary material that has been omitted. The enclosed comments set forth in detail the legal problems with the DEIS. Sincerely, Christopher Kelley CK/lcd Encls. cc: Supervisor Murphy Town Planner, David Emilita TOWN BOARD OF TH£ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1984, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN January 17, 1986 CHRISTOPHER KELLEY Of Counsel TivoM]{Y, I~ATHASI ~: SI{EA TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter o~ the Application of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1984, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN January 17, 1986 CHRISTOPHER KELLEY Of Counsel TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT The annexed comments of Land Use Planner, Frederick Reuter and Environmental Analyst, Laurence Penny, are submitted on behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn who reside on Tarpon Drive in close proximity to the proposed Southport Development Project in the Town of Southold. We have reviewed the proposed Draft EIS with our clients. That document, prepared by the applicant without any corrections or revisions by the Town Board, is legally inadequate. The Board should note that under the State Environmental Quality Review Act A Draft EIS . is intended to be the source of information used by each involved agency to consider environmental concerns in making its decisions. The Draft EIS also serves as a public disclosure of a project's environmental effects. (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, SEQRA Handbook, Page B-29). As the SEQRA Regulations provide at 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §6i7.14(f), the body of all Draft EIS's shall at least contain the following. (1) a concise description of the proposed action, its purpose and need; (2) a concise description of the environmental setting of the areas to be effected, sufficient to understand the effects of the proposed action and alternatives; (3) a statement of the important environmental impacts of the proposed action, including short- and long-term effects and typical associated environmental effects; (4) an identification and brief discussion of any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed action is implemented; (5) a description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the action which would achieve the same or similar objectives. (The description and evaluation should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comporable assessment of the alternatives discussed. The no-action alternative must also be discussed and evaluated); (6) an identification of any irreversible and irretrievible commitments of resources which would be associated with the proposed action should it be implemented; (7)a description of mitigation measures to minimize the adverse environmental impacts; (8) a description of any growth inducing aspects of the proposed actions, where applicable and significant; (9) a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on the use and conservation of energy, where applicable and significant; (10) (11) a list of any underlying studies, reports and other information obtained and considered in preparing the statement; As noted in the SEQRA handbook, it is encumbent upon the lead agency, in this case the Town Board, to determine the adequacy and completeness o£ a proposed draft EIS and to ensure that all relevant information is presented and analyized" (Page B-36). -2- As will be discussed below and in the detailed comments attached, there are a number of serious ommissions in the Southport Development dratt EIS. It is totally inadequate for public review at this time. The draft EIS should be sent back to the applicant for inclusion of the critical information that has thus far been withheld. Forcing the public to comment on the inadequate draft at this time is unfair and is contrary to law. As the SEQRA Handbook states, the draft EIS is to serve as a public disclosure for projects and environmental etfects. The public is entitled to complete disclosure of a project's environmental impacts in the DEIS. Applicants and agencies are not permitted to circulate inadequate drafts and then ~or the first time, compile the necessary information in a final EIS. As this Board is aware the public comment process on a DEIS is intended to insure that all potential impacts are thoroughly examined and that the applicant meaningfully responds to the public's comments. An agency cannot legally withhold (or ~ail to require submission of) critical information until the preparation of the final EIS, thereby shielding it from pubic scrutiny. Moreover, such action by an agency --3-- would e~tectively immasculate the SEQRA process. Failure to return the EIS to the applicant now for completion and resubmission to the public for comment will undoubtedly result in a poorly focused and inadequate environmental review, and perhaps litigation and delay. For many years under the National Environmental Policy Act (the model for SEQRA)r agencies Drepared encylopedic EIS's in an attempt to justify decisions already made. The documents were filled with voluminous recitations of generic information on soils, plant and animal life. However, the documents would be short on site specific analysis and real disclosure of impacts and reasonable alternatives to a proposal. Unfortunately, the draft EIS on the Southport Development project is similar to the defective EIS's filed under NEPA in that no real analysis is presented. However, it falls even farther short than the defective DEIS's filed under NEPA in that it does not even catalog relevant generic information on soils plant and animal life, which would be helpful, if not required, to properly assess the environmental impacts of the project. devoid of A review of the DEIS indicates that it is genuine analysis and disclosure of critical --4-- issues. Some of The most glaring ommissions in the DEIS are as follows 1. The DEIS lacks analysis of the current and proposed land use and zoning policies which the site is subject to. The current land use and zoning policies effecting the project site are not fully described in the EIS. The parcel was apparently zoned "C Light Industrial", in 1971. However apparently, this zone change a~fected only the upland portion of the parcel and not the 3.7 acres of privately owned underwater land. That land is presumably still zoned "A Residential". At the time of the change to the current "C Light Industrial" Zone on the upland portion of the premises, the premises was occupied by a pre-existing, non-conforming marina kacility operating on the upland portion of the premises and extending out into the water. Upon information and belief, the pre- existing, non-conforming use of that marina has been illegally expanded, i.e., the number of boatslips has dramatically increased, without the benefit of a variance or special exception. Apparently, in 1976, the prior owner of the premises obtained a special exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals to use the upland --5-- portion of the premises as a "private club" and constructed a pool and tennis courts thereon. Historically, the owner and/or prior owners of the premises have not been content with a single use of the premises but have attempted to jam as many uses onto the property as possible. First, there was a non-conforming marina in a "C Light Industrial" zone, then a special exception for a "private club" was granted, the combination of which was not anticipated in the Zoning Code. Now, the applicant would like to add the additional uses of a high density motel and restaurant to the already existing uses on the site. However, by granting the requested zone change, the applicant can still not satisfy his desire for multiple uses of the property. The proposed "M-l" Designation for the premises does not allow marinas as a permitted use, nor does it allow motels or restaurants. Although, under the "M-l" District, one special exception use is "hotels and motels", and another is "marinas", nowhere is there provided a "compound" or "triplicate" special exception use that would allow a marina, motel and restaurant. In fact, restaurants are not even contained within the special exception uses in this district, and would be forbidden without a use variance. The --6-- need for a use variance was necessary approvals on page 13 ot variances are not easily obtained omitted from the list of the DEIS. Such from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The simple Xact is that the zone change applied for would not allow the project as proposed. The applicant is simply asking Xor a combination of uses which are not permitted in any district in the current zoning scheme of the Town. In addition to proposing new non-conXorming uses the applicant proposes a density of use ot the parcel far in excess oX anything anticipated by the Code. The applicant proposes an 82 unit motel complex. ~100-17 of the Code sets forth the unit density for hotels and motels. Since the proposed project would not benefit from a public sewer system, it is required that each motel unit "have Six Thousand, (6,000) square feet of land for each unit". It is beyond belief that the applicant proposes to use in its calculation of density, the Xull 12.35 acres of the property, including 3.7 acres oX underwater land- The absurdity oX using underwater land in the calculation of density and not excluding the land occupied by the other uses, of a restaurant and marina are at a minimum contrary to all notions of good planning. --7-- As shown by Fred Reuter in the attached comments, assumming that motel units were approved for the site and using conservative figures, the maximum density of motel units would only be 32. This would be the density the Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Planning Board would have to start with before reducing it based on environmental and aesthetic constraints. What is apparent from the whole application is that this is a proposal to severely over develop, and too intensely develop the subject site. 2. Nowhere in the DEIS is the impact of Federal Flood Insurance Regulations discussed and the constraints they may place on this project. 3. No serious analysis of the need for the project or the economic impacts of the project is set forth. The DEIS states The proposed Southport Development Project has been designed to fill a growing demand for recreational facilities on Long Island's North Fork. (Page 6.) No statistical analysis whatsoever is shown to support the underlying presumption that the Town and the North Fork is in need of yet another marina and restaurant. While the DEIS states that a transient motel is needed by the community the nature of the project suggests that is either currently contemplated for, or will be easily converted to condominium use. However, the need for motels or condominiums is not discussed in any detail other than to make the unsupDorted conclusory statement set forth above. 4. Nowhere does the application discuss the cumulative impacts of this type of development on the surrounding surface waters or on the surrounding residential areas. The ommission of such a discussion makes the document legally inadequate. 5. Perhaps the most glaring inadaquacy of the DEIS is the lack of discussion or analysis of potential alternatives to the proposal, either under the existing or the proposed zoning. It has already been established that the applicants cannot get the uses that they hope to get either under the existing or the proposed zoning. What then can they get under the existing or proposed zoning which fits into the environmental constraints, which the site provides? The law reqires that when an impact statement is prepared, it must include, among other things, a description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the action which would achieve the same or similar objectives. (The description and evaluation should be at a level of --9-- detail sufficient to permit the comparative assessment of the alterna- tives discussed)The "no action" alternative must be discussed and evaluated. (6 NYCRR ~617.14 (F)5. As stated by the Court of Appeals in Webster Associates v. Town of Webster, 59 N.Y. 2d 220, 464 N.Y.S. 2d 431 (1983)= to be meaningful such an assessment [of alternatives] must be based on an awareness of all reasonable options other than the proposed action. The degree of detail with which each alternative must be discussed will, of course, vary with the circumstances of each proposal 464 N.Y.S. 2d at 434. See also E.D.F.v. Flacke, 96 A.D. 2d 862, 465 N.Y.S. 2d 759 (2d Dep't. 1983). SEQRA does not require that every conceivable alternative must be considered before an EIS will be considered acceptable. Coalition Against Lincoln West v. City of New York, 94 A.D. 2d 483, 465 N.Y.S. 2d 170 (lst De p't. 1983) at 176. Rather, the rule is one o~ reasonablness and balance. Id. However, the no action alternative must be discussed and evaluated. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.14 (f) 5. In addition, the assessment of the alternatives must be "analytical". E.D.F., Supr_a_a 465 N.Y.S. 2d at 763. So long as officials and agencies have taken a "hard look" at environmental consequences, a Court will not seek to impose unreasonable extremes. -10- Coalition against Lincoln West, Supra, 465 N.Y.S. 2d at 176. As stated by at least one legal writer: The EIS requirement is intended to institutionalize the consideration of "environmental factors" at the policy formulation stage of agency decision making. Environmental factors that must be considered involve not only the potential adverse impacts of the proposed action but all reasonable alternatives to the action that would result in less environmental degredation to the area involved. In fact, the Courts have recognized that the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action generally is the "linchpin" of the EIS. In order to guarantee that environmentally enhancing options are not ignored or unnecessarily foreclosed by project development, the EIS must compare all "feasible" alternatives to the proposed project. Feasible alternatives necessarily include the option of not proceeding with the project at all, the "no action" alternative, as well as the entire range of mitigation measures that could be used to minimize potential environmental impacts. Glitzenstein, Project Modification~ Illigitimate Circumvention of the EIS Requirement or Desirable Means to Reduce Adverse Environmental Impacts? 10 Ecology Law Quarterly. (1982) at 264. The discussion of alternatives at page 40 and 41 of the DEIS barely touches on the "no action" alternative, which would consist in the continued use of the project as a pre-existingr non-conforming marina and "private club". The vague and conclusory statement that "continued operation as the facility currently exists is -ll- both unrealistic and not economicall (sic) feasiDle" is not supported by any economic analysis in the DEIS. In fact nowhere in the document is the current capacity of the marina, its yearly income, or the type and extent of the "private club" operations on the site discussed. Presumably the applicant's assessment of the "no action" alternative also consists in its vague suggestion that the property without the requested zone change, could be used for some sort of intense heavy industrial use such as the handling ot toxics or hazardous materials. This is plainly rediculous. First, the waterfront nature of the property would not De suitable for such a heavy industrial use, particularly given the location of the premises. Second, such a use would only be a special exception use, and any Zoning Board of Appeals with the public health in mind would severely limit such a use through the SEQRA process, and through conditions it would necessarily place on the project to protect the sensitive environmental features of the area, surface and groundwater. Third, the DEC in its regulation ot the would not permit such activity location without the utmost of -12- including property in such a sensitive security in preventing emmissions of toxic chemicals. It is clear that the applicant, in an attempt to satisfy the requirement of an analysis of the "no action" alternative, has set up for itself a bizarre and improbable, if not impossible, strawman to knock down with a few vague generalities such as "the requested zoning appears justified by assessment of potential environmental impacts" Page 40. Aside from the "toxic or hazardous material" scenario and its threat of "industrial discharges" the only single other alternative discussed is that of single family residential use. Again, a single unsupported and vague generality that the development for residential use is "not an economically viable alternative" is grossly inadequate to satisfy the DEIS requirement of serious analysis. This document must be rejected as incomplete and inadequate. 6. The issue of legal access has not been addressed properly by the applicant. (See the comments of the Secretary of State annexed hereto.) As the application stands, given the provisions of ~280A of Town Law, the applicant would not be entitled to a Dulding permit for lack of legal access on a public highway. The applicant proposes three intense uses of -13- this property with only a 16 ~oot right o~ way to provide access to a public road. A legal issue is raised about the applicants ability to additionally burden that easement to the extent necessary to provide access for the project. A planning question is raised by whether such traffic on a right-of- way that size is advisable given the residential development proposed for the Breezy Shores parcel over which the easement runs. 7. No discussion is given in the EIS of the project's failure to meet the necessary setback requirements from the lot lines for the docks. On the sketch plan submitted to the Town Board. dated August 8, 1985, the proposed docks in the marina facility would extend right up to the boundary lines o~ the premises and not conform to the required 20 foot set back in the "M-l" District. In addition, while the applicant says in its letter to the Town Board, dated September 13, 1985, that the marina will not be expanded the EIS at page 1 describes the project as a proposal to "reconstruct and ~pand the aforementioned marina ~acility to encompass 121 boat slips A question is raised as to whether the project is an expansion or whether it isn't an expansion of the marina, and i~ it is, doesn't it contradict the condition o~ approval of -14- the Suffolk County Planning Commission that it will not De an expansion of the existing marina. CONLUSION The only conclusion that can be reached after review of the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Statement is that it is legally inadaquate and must be revised substantially at the draft stage, prior to circulation to the public for comment. The expert analysis of our land use planner and environmental analysis is annexed. We respectfully request that the Board return the draft EIS to the applicant for the changes and additional information outline herein. Respectfully Submitted, Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley Attorneys for Intervenors Address and Post Office Address 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Ph.: (516) 727-2180 -15- To~vn C~erk S~ufhold STATE OF' NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 1223~ December 27, 1985 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Souti~old, NY llg71 Dear Hs. Terry: The Department of State, as the State's coastal management agency, appre- ciated the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental .Impact Statement for the Southport Development prepared by The Land Use Company. The Department is interested in this pending action by the Town of Southold, for the zoning change described in the DEIS would affect over 12 acres of land which front on and lie beneath the waters of Southold Bay. Although the proposed rezoning would facilitate the siting and operation of water dependent and water enhanced uses in the State's coastal area, the planned development does raise a few concerns about the utilization and pro- tec~ion of coastal resources. Our comments on these concerns are as follows: Since the marina will provide 120+ mooring spaces for seasonal and transient use, special efforts should be taken to protect the quality of the Bay's waters from pollution caused by the discharge of vessel wastes. Therefore, pumpout facilities should be provided for the safe disposal of such wastes. Further, signs should be posted advis- ing boat owners to use the available pumpout facilities and not to discharge vessel wastes into coastal waters. To minimize the impacts that the marina activities may have upon adja- cent property owners, all floats, piers, etc. should be set back a reasonable distance from the seaward extensions of the site's property lines. A setback distance of 15 feet is frequently used to reduce the effects of adjacent boat mooring activities. Due to the enclosed con- figuration of the water area and the proximity of the land area to the north of the marina, however, additional setbacks or realignment of the proposed piers may be warranted. The need to dredge the marina basin to a depth of l0 feet below Mean Low Water is not fully demonstrated in the DEIS. This need is further complicated by the fact that the existing channel which would serve Ms. Judith Terry December 27, 1935 Page 2 the marina has an authorized depth of -6 MLW. This item requires addi- tional explanation. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard as a safe and convenient service road for the motel/restaurant/marina complex, existing uses and other planned developments seems questionalbe. For example, it is doubtful that two trucks (delivering supplies to the motel/marina complex) could pass each other in opposite directions without one of the vehicles going off the paved surface. If other developments are planned along Sage Boulevard, this may be the &ppropriate time to consider the improvements necessary for this roadway. The DEIS identifies a number of State coastal policies that would be applicable to the proposed action and subsequent development. However, this section of the document does not adequately describe how the action would be consistent with those policies. The FEIS should contain further discussion on these coastal policy concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. Should you or the preparer have any questions on the above comments, please contact me or Mr. Aram Terchunian at (518) 474-3642. Sincerely, ~ ~'rt~'o n Coastal Resources Specialist WFB:dlb cc: A. Terchunian K. Cross Town of Southold, New York REVIEW AND ANALYSIS of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Dated September 26, 1985 January 14, 1986 Prepared by FREDERICK H. REUTER AICP Community Planning and Zoning Consultant CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OF A DEIS 1 2. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2 3. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - NATURAL RESOURCES 9 4. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - HUMAN RESOURCES 10 5- V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - NATURAL RESOURCES 17 T. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN RESOURCES 18 8. VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 19 9. VIII. ALTERNATIVES 20 10. IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE CO~ITMENT OF RESOURCES 20 11. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS 20 PURPOSE OF A DEIS Having determined that the Southport Development action may signi- ficantly affect the quality of the environment, the Town of Southold has required that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be prepared. It is their DEIS that is the subject of this review and analysis. The SEQR Handbook describes the intent and purpose of such a DEIS as follows: "It is intended to be the source of information used by each involved agency to consider environmental concerns in making its decisions. The Draft EIS also serves as a public disclosure of a project's environmental affects. "A close relationship exists between project planning and the Draft EIS for projects that have been planned with environmental goals as integral considerations. This concept of 'good planninE' was one of the objectives con- templated by the legislature when it passed SEQR. The process of scopinE is a key element in '~ood plannin$'." (Emphasis supplied)( Page B-29) The Southport Development Scoping Session occurred on August 5,1985. It resulted in an outline of the necessary elements of the DEIS for the contemplated action. The comments and questions raised in this report are prepared in the context of that outline, The SEQR Handbook and the DEIS for the Southport Development, dated September 26, 1985. The captions of the following sections of this report are derived from the Scoping Session outline as reported by David Emilita, the Town Planning Consultant. Those which are not the subject of comment or question have been omitted. - 1 - III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Public Need for the Pro~ect: The DEIS does not report the "munici- pal objectives based on adopted community development plans". What are those municipal objectives? With reference to public need,two unsupported, wide-ranging statements are made: one is that the "project has been designed to fill a growing demand for recreational facilities on Long Island's north fork", and the other is that "This demand has increased dramatically in those areas associated with marine use and tourism." How do these related to the proposed project? Considering the project sponsor's objectives, neither of the above needs describes what type of boating creates the demand, vessel characteristics and what kind of facility is needed; any quantification of the demand or its distribution between seasonal and transient use; or the validity of assuming that a restaurant/motel complex is needed to augment such dockage. Further, no proof is offered that any such need if documented actually manifests itself at the subject Southport Development site. What are the specifics of the public need for this project and the specifics of how the project sponsor's objectives relate to these needs on the subject site? Are there any authoritative statements for such specific statements? B. Location: The DEIS offers three, relatively simple, outline maps with reference to the proposed location. They are: Figure 1, Area Map, which locates the town on Long Island; Figure 2, Location Map, which locates the site with reference to the Conkling Point peninsula and Route 25; and Figure 3, Site Map, which is essentially a blown-up segment of Figure 2. -2- The SEQR Handbook, in discussing scoping, notes that one of its five objectives is"to identify the potentia~ boundaries of the project's impacts"(page B-29). Further on, in discussing the location and physical dimensions of the project it states: "This is best accomplished by the use of a location map (preferably USGS standard topographic maps, scale 1:24000) and in many cases, a site plan showing parcel subdivisions, streets, drainage, topography, land use, etc. These maps may also be used as a basis for the de- scription of the environmental setting." Figures 1 through 3 are not an adequate basis for a clear understanding of the Southport Development proposal and are certainly not the source of much information. If one seeking information extends his search to the zoning amendment application map, which is not mentioned in the DEIS, he finds adjacent property lines and owners (with the exception of Tax Parcel 12.4 represent- ing the remaining underwater land in the embayment lying between the subject site and upland parcels to the west and north) and the approximate location of buildings. This map does not show the entire embayment. It does show seven existing buildings and the outline of existing docks. Another map, given passing mention in the DEIS, is the conceptual site plan. It was apparently used by the sponsor in presenting his applica- tion for a change of zone district. It is an illustrative sketch of the proposed development. However, it only shows very nominal information about the site's immediately adjacent neighbors and nothing about exist- ing conditions on the site. Where are the boundaries of the project's impacts? Who is the owner of the underwater land in the embayment just Outside the Southport Develop- ment site? What are the existing conditions within these areas, includ- ing marine access, buildings and environmental characteristics among other things? -3- With reference to'the description of access to the site, the DEI$ gives no information in this element's text or mapping other than a nominal double line indicating the existence of Sage Boulevard. Its character- istics and the sponsor's right to its use should bs clarified here in describing the project. Further, with reference to marine access, there is no information in the text or mapping of this element showing where the channel is located or its general characteristics. As a description of access to the site this element is inadequate. With reference to existing zoning, the site is in the C Light Industrial District which, as the DEIS states, does not permit motels or hotels. Essentially every use in this district is a special exception use subject to the approval of the Board of Appeals and site plan approval by the Planning Board. Further, just as with this proposal for the Southport Development, they would be subject to SEQR review in appropriate cases. As a result the same environmental and planning considerations would tend to limit their development to an acceptable level. There is no mention of Flood Plain Zoning in the DEIS. This regulation may be expected to have a significant affect on this site's development. The scoping outline for this element requires the sponsor to provide a description of the waterbodies. This has not been provided. C. Desisn and Layout: The scoping included all the outlined items in the The SEQR Handbook for this element. In terms of the total site area it may be deduced that, since 3.72 acres are underwater land, the upland area must be 8.63 acres to make up the total of 12.35 acres. However, there is no indication of the "proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads)". There is a statement that the parking areas will have pervious surfaces even though there may be a question as to the degree of permeability of the surface soils in this area. The site was previously used as a brickyard because of the availability of clay soils in the vicinity. With reference to -4- drainage, it is proposed to control run off "by a common storm water management system designed to eliminate any possible impacts to ground or surface waters". Since the only information with respect to soil conditions on this shoreline site is the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, which designates the surface soils as "made land", and since the historic uss was that of a brickyard, the feasibility of providing such a common storm water management system should be explored further in the DEIS and not simply assumed to be feasible. The DEIS does not describe the amount of land to be cleared or the number and area of buildings and facilities to be demolished. Also there is no report of the open space to be preserved. With reference to structures the DEIS presents only one square footage, the 5,500 square foot area of the restaurant. The size and character of the motel units and their supplementary facilities are not made available nor are the square footages of marina buildings and facilities, if any. Nominal capacities of 125 diners for the restaurant and 82 units for the motel are provided. Are these seasonal uses? Is it poss- ible that the motel units will become condominiums? If so, will~t~ey continue to be available for transients? Will the motel include such uses as a health club open to residents in the area? Will the restaurant include a cocktail lounge/bar or a night club? As in the case of the storm water management system, there is no evidence that the "made land" surface soils will accommodate the sewage disposal system proposed without polluting the surrounding surface waters or creating problems on the upland ground surfaces. A third element in the utility services is the private well to be used for washing boats and irrigation. No offer is made of the quantity of water to be pumped or its location on the site. How can its impact be assessed? With reference to the marina facility, no mention is made of the demo- lition of the existing docks, bulkheads and similar marine structures. 5 This seems to be implied. Is this the case? Does it involve a change in the shoreline and, if so, where? Since the embayment is actually an abandoned clay pit excavation, what is the character of the bottom material to be dredged? If it is unsuitable for the creation of tidal wetland, can we assume that it will be suitable for use on the land surface? There are some indications in this area that a fine clay silt on the land surface has led to some localized ponding and poor surface permeability. Will the spoil material aggrevate this condition? Is the proposed expanded marina capacity to be used seasonally? Will the upland area be used for open storage of boats over the winter? Will the boat launching facility be available to local residents, day-trippers or other transients looking for a launching ramp? If so, where will boat trailer storage be provided? Other than fuel, what services will the marina provide to resident and transient vessel owners? Will there be a ship's supply store and minor or major repair services? Will there be utilities available at the dockside? Pump-out facilities? Marina area lighting? Public address system? What will be the character of those utilities and services ? In terms of zoning, relating these proposed uses to the M-1 General Multiple-Residence Disrict regulations suggests that several issues need clarification. One is with references to the uses themselves. Restaur- ants are not a permitted or special exception use in §100-50. Open boat storage and marine fuel sales and storage are not permitted or special exception uses either, although they now exist on the site. Are they to be considered nonconforming uses? To what degree will the expansion of the capacity of such uses be permitted once rezoned? For instance, the marina capacity is now only 91 berths, could it be expanded to 121 berths if the nonconforming aspects increased as a matter of necessity? Considering that the site development proposal includes three distinct principal uses, what area of the site should be assigned to each of them? For instance, it is a commonly accepted standard that the upland area of a marina should be equal to that of the water area. In this case that would be 3.72 acres. This would leave 4.91 acres for the restaurant -6- and motel uses. Even a nominal area allowance for the restaurant would include its 5,500 square foot building coverage plus an equal amount for its immediate environment and parking for 25 automobiles for a total area of at least 0.45 acres. This leaves 4.46 acres for the motel. The zoning regulations require 6,000 square feet of lot area per motel unit where no public sewer system is available. As a result, the remaining land area would accommodate no more than 32 motel units. It seems apparent, even on its face, that the Southport Development proposal is a case of over development of the site. This is without reference to any environmental conditions which in a shore- line area could result in additional constraints. With reference to the DEIS parking element, it is apparent that the project sponsor proposes to provide substantially more total spaces than the existing regulations require, very nearly the number that would be required under the newly proposed zoning standards. The minimum parking space area standard in the existing zoning regula- tion is 350 square feet. This indicates that the minimum parking area without accounting for any site plan specifics would total 2.13 acres, or 27 percent of the site's 6pland area. Visual inspection of the conceptual site plan eonfirms that parking and driveway will occupy a very substantial portion of the site. How pervious will these surfaces really be? Will there be any storm water runoff management system and, if so, where? Will these areas be lighted? If so, what will be the character of the lighting? Since the proposal is for commercial uses in a residential neighborhood, the question of signage should be addressed. The M-1 General Multiple- Residence District permits "one (1) advertising sign, either single or doublefaced, not more than fifty (50) square feet in area . . the upper edge of which shall not project more than fifteen (15) feet six (6) inches above the ground. Will this generate a claim of hardship for the proposed marina/restaurant/motel complex? Will they need and seek a variance? What would be considered necessary in terms of signage for such a business? -7- D. Construction and Operation: With refsrence to the construction period, the DEIS states that it will take a minimum of two years. What is the maximum construction period? Since it is noted on page 11 that the motel construction would be accomplished in two phases, when will they occur during the overall construction period? With reference to maintenance dredging as the first activity, will that depend on receipt of all the necessary approvals or will it begin as soon as possible based on the maintenance dredging permit? Will the dredging be timed with reference to the seasonal calendar? Similarly, will the demolition and debris removal occur prior to receipt of all the necessary approvals? If so, will the site be rehabilitated in case the necessary approvals are not received or the project delayed for some other reason? With reference to scheduling, when will the sponsor complete the planning and design phase? Assuming that the change of zone district is granted, when will the sponsor be ready to apply for all the other necessary approv- als? Start construction on each of the principal building types? When the initial construction generally described in the conceptual site plan is completed, does the sponsor anticipate any potential future con- struction on the site? In terms of operation and maintenance, how many employees does the sponsor expect to engage for each of the principal uses by season and by time of the day? Does the sponsor propose to continue the maintenance dredging as needed and be responsible for renewal of the maintenance dredging permit when the existing permit expires? If Sage Boulevard is improved as a private road, will the project sponsor pay his share of the upkeep and maintenance, including such things as snow removal? F. Approvals: Since the project sponsor seems to leave some details for later decision, it also seems likely that there will need to be a further SEQR approval on the final plans. -8- IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - NATURAL RESOURCES A. Geology: The DEIS's discussion of soils is extremely limited. Using the very brief generalized descriptions of "made land" and "cut and fill land" is hardly revealing when it is a known fact that the site and its surrounding area were historically a brickyard and its associated clay pit excavations. "Made land" in this context strongly indicates an impact from the brickyard activity and the immediately adjacent clay pit excavations, one of which now serves as the harbor/marina and the others which are the "cut and fill land" to the north of Sage Boulevard across from the subject site. The clay pit soil type is Canadiee silt loam. The soil survey description of this soil's limitations includes slow permeability, seasonal high water table at a depth of ½ to 1½ feet and, in the case of sanitary land fill where leaching would be a factor, hazard of water pollution. With reference to its engineering properties the soil survey reports that Canadics silt loam would affect foundations for low buildings because of seasonal high water table, high compressibility and large settlement. The textural description also points out that "The soil must be artifically drained for successful production of commonly grown crops, but a lack of suitable outlets makes artifical drainage difficult." Topographic mapping and test hole data records prepared for the Breezy Point subdivision proposal surrounding the Southport Development site confirm the aerial map notations of the soil survey with respect to the clay pit excavations in the "cut and fill land" area across the northern boundary of the subject site. The nearby test holes also found substan- tial clay strata remaining in this area. Any discussion of soil conditions in this area should be considered in- adequate without a significant number of test holes and careful evaluation of the resultant data. Special note of The SEQR Handbook's recommendation that "In general, accurate sketches, photos, charts and tables should be used wherever possible to supplement and simplify narrative description" is appropriate. -9- "Most importantly, graphics should be clear, legible and understandable to the layman." This entire geology element of the DEIS is textural. There is not even a topographic map of the area to illustrate the complexity of the terrain that resulted from the brickyard activity and the potential extent of the impact of the proposed Southport Develop- ment on the surrounding properties. Such a map might help locate the small sections of high and intertidal marsh found on the site and the existing structural controls "such as bulkheading and riprap". B. Water Resources: The DEIS report that "depth to ground water on the subject site varies between 0 to 81, however, fluctuation of up to several feet can be expected due to percipitation damages" is apparently a typographic error. The suggested test hole data would certainly help to establish the ground water elevation at a particular time and could be further modified by giving consideration to the fluctuation factor mentioned. The discussion of surface water is incomplete without noting the obvious fact that the marina is in an embayment off of $outhold Bay. Further, because of its restricted opening into the Southold Bay, tidal flushing may be limited and that, as a result, cleansing of the embayment waters may be limited. This raises the question of the impact of activity in the embayment on all of the shorefront properties around the embayment. What will that impact be? III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - HUMAN RESOURCES A. Transportaion: The Deis presentation with respect to land transport- ation is found in the attached Exhibit A. Much of this analysis is based on personal, on-site field observations and supplementary manual traffic counts. Since the North Folk is a seasonal resort community, it is important that the reader know when these observations and counts occurr- ed. Were they on summer weekends? The traffic flow information gathered from the New York State Department - 10- of Transportation establishes the average daily traffic on Route 25 as 7,450 vehicles and the peak weekday hours as 8:.00-9:00 A.M. and 4:00-5:00 P.M., according to the text. Examination of that data, which is included at the end of the report, reveals that it is a partial count for the week of June 23 through 29 in 1984. It records hourly direction- al counts for Monday afternoon through Friday morning. It does not in- clude Friday afternoon through Monday morning, the most active traffic period on a s~mmer weekend. Through factoring these data the department derived an annual average daily traffic volume of 7,445. The DEIS apparently rounded this figure up to 7,450. Can the results of such a partial count and derivation be considered reasonable as the sole source of information? The average weekday hour data in this same data indicates that hourly traffic volume, with only infinitesimal exceptions, builds up from midnight straight through to 4:00-5:00 P.M. in the afternoon. In general the data for individual days bears this finding out as well. There is no customary morning peak commuter hour evident in these data. Since great emphasis is placed on the Saturday peak hour between 4:00-5:00 P.M., on what day of what year was that count taken? Was traffic dis- tribution by direction on Route 25A determined from this other count? When were the available gaps recorded? With reference to the trip generation analysis, it would be helpful to know more about the actual operation of the Southport Development. For instances just what character will the principal and supplemental land uses have? How many employees will they engage? What will be their hours of operation and when will the employees be arriving and depart- ing? What sort of service vehicles might be expected? What about oversized vehicles? There may be more of these if on site open boat storage is not contemplated or if launching ramp operations are encour- aged. While it is true that overlapping uses on the site may lead to multiple purpose trips, there is no evidence in general experience to suggest that this is a significant factor in the case of marinas, restaurants and resort-type motels on Long Island. More specifically, in terms of trip generation rates, what are the relative rates for marinas, restaurants, resort motels and pool and tennis clubs? If this material is to be evaluated with reference to potential elements of the.use that need to be reduced in capacity to decrease traffic generation,the analyst must know which use has which trip generation rate. There is no evidence presented with reference to the peak hour traffic generation for these uses. Are there different peak hours of traffic generation projected for these uses? What are they? What traffic will be generated by other development on Sage Boulevard? In analyzing directional distribution two of the guidelines are derived from the traffic counts. What was the anticipated origin and destination of the users data derived from? In discussing site generated traffic impact on Sage Boulevard, the DEIS describes Sage Boulevard as the "primary access" to the site. Aside from boats, what other access is there? If consideration is given to the boat access which is exclusive of any land access, to what degree was this considered to be a factor? How was this determined? Examination of access to the site itself indicates that there are now two access driveways but that the proposal will only have "one major access point off of Sage Boulevard". The conceptual site plan shows two access driveways much the same as the existing ones in terms of location. What is the difference? The discussion goes on to point out that the sight distance at this major access point is excellent. What about the sight distance at the other access driveway which is located within about 60 feet of the ninety degree change in alignment of Sage Boulevard to the east? Despite these more detailed questions, there is one overriding question, what will be the impact of this commercial traffic on a local street in a developing low density residential area? Will the residential environ- ment that existing and future property owners anticipate when they purchase their homes deteriorate? What will be the impact on Breezy Shores? With referenee to marine access, the location of the channel is not shown - 12- on any map in the DEIS, where is it? Has there been any projection of marine traffic generated by Southport Development and by others fronting on the embayment? This was a particular concern in the Scoping Session. B. Land Use and Zoning: The Scoping Session expressed concern for land uses primarily on the Conkling Point peninsula. The DEIS fails to describe the existing and foreseeable residential development of almost all the remaining vacant land for standard or clustered residential development. It also fails to distinguish between the Southport Development site and the Port of Eygpt site. The comment regarding the current "C" Light Industrial District is not disputed. Fortunately, SEQR, the special exception use procedure and site plan approval provide some response to this concern. A similar concern may also be expressed for the same reasons about any intensive development. This does not seem to appear in the DEIS presentation. The reference to the "recently adopted Master Plan" is in error. The Master Plan is still subject to possible changes after the public hear- ings are completed. The Master Plan has not been adopted . The proposed Master Plan does state that "Marine-related water-dependent uses are encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or along creeks and bays where they do not negatively impact on residential neighborhoods or the natural environment.,, It also says that "The Marine Recreation category is recommended for locations along creeks that have suitable harbor areas, but less tidal flushing than is possible in bay- front or soundfront locations." The fact that the Master Plan does show the Southport Development site in the Marine Business category is contra- dictory to these findings and others expressed in the goals of the Master Plan. It may be anticipated that this fact will be brought up at the public hearings which have yet to occur. With respect to the low density residential category shown over most of the remainder of the Conkling Point peninsula, the Master Plan states "These low densities are partic- ularly applicable to coastal areas to protect ground and surface waters and environmentally sensitive portions of the Town including wetlands, - 13- beaches, bluffs and dunes." Among the Master Plan Goals those associated with the environment include the following: "Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas, exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. "Maintain and improve water surface quality. "Maintain and protect finfishing and shell fishing habitats." Since the Master Plan has not been through its public hearings or adopted,and since the proposed zoning regulations are designed to implement the Master Plan, it is premature to consider them in any detail at this time. D. Demography: The Scoping Session found that,although this is a minor item, some information should be provided about the users. With a commercial land use this would include employees as well as transient residents, diners and service personnel. Also with reference to commercial developments, it is important to know the time periods during which such people are on the premises. None of this is provided. E. Cultural Resources: The Scoping Session notes include a presentation with respect to noise: existing and proposed uses and noise impact. There is none. V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following factors in the environmental settings have not been - 14 - adequately addressed: Setting Soils Topography Groundwater Adverse Impact Ponding surface water due to impermeability of soil Inadequate potential for structural solutions for storm water and sanitary sewage disposal systems due to poor soil characteristics Fuel tank, structure and building settlement due to soil character- istics Disposition of poor quality dredge spoils due to unsuitability for use as upland surface soil supple- ment, dune enhancement or wetland resource material Inadequate quantities of supplement- ary soils for grading due to poor soil characteristics Private well draw down of limited groundwater resource leading to possible salt water intrusion (this was an element in the Scoping Session outline but not included in the DEIS) Pollution of resource as a result of discharge from storm water and sanitary sewage disposal systems Lack of adequate tidal flushing of embayment to accommodate in- creased activity and larger vessels Doubtful potential for creating effective biological filtration - 15- Vegetation Wetlands Transportation Zoning and land use systems due to character of dredging spoils and existing surface soils Potential permanent loss of 7,000 s.f. of HM and IM areas Potential permanent loss of 7,000 s.f. of HM and IM areas Deterioration of residential character of local road usage Increased trailered boats and oversize vehicle traffic and consequent impact on residential local road improvements Increased marine traffic and potential congestion in channel and embay- Overintensive land utilization as a result of at least three principal uses in an environmentally sensitive residential neighborhood If constructed any one of these principal uses might prove to be economically infeasible leading to pressure for a more intensive and/or less attractive reuse in this residential neighborhood* Exposure of property improvements, including utility systems, to flood hazards Need for zoning regulation amendment to permit 125 seat restaurant Pressure for zoning variances part- icularly to permit greater signage Outdoor area lighting on both land and water This case is made in.this very DEIS with reference to the existing use on the site - see Alternatives. - 16 - Community services and cultural Resouces Compatibility of 288 parked cars and other vehicles in a residential neighborhood and across property lines from residence sites. Increased noise levels and nighttime activity on both land and water areas Increased need for police protection Increased need for monitoring marine traffic, marine security and water quality Deterioration of existing and potential residential neighborhood environment and property values Disposal of demolition debris (this was an element in the Scoping Session outline but not included in the DEIS) Potential increased demand for seasonal employees and housing for them rather than employment for year round residents Visual impact of commercial uses and activities and outdoor lighting VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - NATURAL RESOURCES A. Geology: According to the Survey of Soils the Southport Development site's upland area is almost entirely "made land". The DEIS describes the topography as "generally level with slopes descending towards the basin and bay" with average elevation of approximately 8 feet above mean sea level. Considering these factors and the need to observe flood plain zoning regulation, the potential for regrading to"create aesthetically pleasing land forms to screen undesirable views (Ed. Not previously disclosed or located either on or off the site) and add interest, diversity, - 17- and views on a presently monotonous site" certainly needs clarification and amplification. The conceptual site plan and missing topographic map are no help in this matter. B. Water Resources: With respect to ground water, the mitigating measure merely recites the standards the sponsor will have to meet if conditions on the subject site actually permit them to be met. There is no evidence presented in the DEIS to the effect that the subject site conditions do in fact permit them to be met. Some sites cannot accommodate any and every use as a result of technological modifications. This could well be one of them. In connection with surface water, no mention is made of restricting marina activities in any fashion, nor is any mention made of pump-out station facilities. The question of storm water and sanitary sewage disposal system adequacy also applies to this subject. VI. o MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN RESOURCES A. Transportation: Since the DEIS fails to find any adverse impacts in this area, it does not propose any mitigating measures. This is inadequate on its face considering the questions of adverse impact raised in this analysis and also in the Scoping Session. B. Land Use and Zoning: The mitigating measures proposed in this element include a change in the existing plans for the Town of Southold based on an as yet unadopted Master Plan which is only now reaching the public hearing stage which would lead to adoption. Whereas the existing "C" Light Industrial District admittedly permits many undesirable uses on its face, it is not admitted that all such uses at any intensity could survive the review and approval that must be endured. Specifically, it should be noted that the existing comprehensive zoning plan has apparently led to the designation of for-profit marinas, boatyards and similar marine uses as "C" Light Industrial Districts. Thus it screens out essentially - 18- all non-marine retail uses and requires all other uses except commercial agricultural operations and town owned and operated buildings, structures and uses to go through the three review and approval procedures as special exception uses. The proposed new uses include motel which is not permitted under the existing comprehensive zoning plan. It may be noted here that there is no equivalent district to the proposed M-1 General Multiple-Residence District in the proposed zoning. It is assumed that'the sponsor, faced with the proposed ordinance, would seek either the Marine Recreation or Marine Business District designation. Interestingly, neither of these districts, if adopted as proposed, permit motels or restaurants as a matter of right. It would require the three step review and approval procedure as a special exception for either one. It must be concluded that these uses have critical characteristics in terms of the Town of Southold"s existing comprehensive zoning plan and even of its as yet unadopted plan. Any discussion of the state's 44 CZM policiem and of area market demand . can only provide a very general background when dealing with a specific site. They cannot be considered persuasive where there is no supportive local CZM policy as yet nor any other adopted local plan. D. Cultural Resources: The mitigating measures offered relate to some good and some doubtful perceived beneficial impacts. There are no measures related to visual impact of commercial use with signage and outdoor area lighting, nighttime activity on both land and water areas, need for increase police protection, marine patrol and monitoring, the potential increased demand for seasonal employees and housing for them contrasted to year round resident employment, the disposal of unsuitable soils and demolition debris, and the deterioration of existing and potential residential neighborhood environmental and property values. VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED Most of the adverse environmental impacts recorded here as unavoidable - 19- have not been discussed in the DEIS prior to this section. Further, the text does not consider dredging, which was listed in the Scoping Session outline, as unavoidable. Finally, even with a degree of mitigation of many of its aspects, if the proposed over intensive commercial development was to be injected into this rea,dent,al neighborhood, it must be considered to have an adverse impact. VIII. ALTERNATIVES This entire discussion of alternatives is obviously inadequate and incomplete with reference to the requirements of the Scoping Session outline. It is clearly not in accordance with the standard that "Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a compara- tive assessment of costs, benefits and the environmental risks for each alternative" as described in The SEQR Handbook. 10. IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES It should be recorded here that the community will also face further erosion of the neighborhood's residential character and deterioration of surface water quality in the embayment. 11. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS This section of the DEIS has not responded to any of the Scoping Session's items. In many ways the earlier lack of any demographic or detailed surrounding land use presentation makes it almost impossible to prepare a complete statement of this Southport Development project's growth inducing aspects. - 20 - FREDERICK H. R[UTER, AICP Planning and Zoning Cansultant 1030 Forest Hill Road Hendersonville, N.C. 28739 (704) 692-7104 GENERAL BACKGROUND Frederick H. R~uter, AICP, has engaged in planning and zonin~ consultation since 1950. Until August of 1984 he was active as the principal of She firm of MeCrosky-Reuter. His former partner, Theodore T. McCrosky, had founded MeCrosky- Reuter's predecessor firm, Theodore T. McCrosky, Consulting Engineer, in 1950. Both practices were located in the New York metropolitan area. Mr. Reuter's consulting practice serves civic associations, private individuals, businesses and professional firms as well as public and institutional clients. Projects have frequently involved teamwork with other professionals in such fields as architecture, engineering, environmental sciences, law, real estate In the context of community projects this involved the community's officials, staff and sociology. teamwork also and other consult- Characteristically the scope of these consulting services range from professional opinions or expert witness roles to complete maeter plan programs, zoning ordinances, community development programs and development projects - some are typical day-to-day operational planning services while others are major in depth studies. Frederick H. Reuter's office is now in Hendersonviile, North Carolina, but he also maintains a limited office at 900 Ellison Avenue in Westbury, New York, in conjunction with Storch Associates. The telephone number there is (516) ~82-8288. CONSULTING SERVICES Comprehensive or master plans for communities and regions Capital improvement programming and preparation of long range financial programs Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and similar development regulations Community development programs and rehabilitation Continuing planning and renewal advisory services Site selection; development and subdivision plans Demographic, economic and land use analyses and projections Traffic and parking surveys, analyses and solutions School enrollment forecasts and development programs Economic analyses of shopping centers, industrial parks and similar facilities Environmental evaluations and impact studies Expert testimony, investigations and reports CLIENTS IN RECENT YEARS Several of these McCrosky-Rsuter clients continue to be served by Frederick H. Reuter, AICP. These assignments reflect much of the scope of services that are available to his clients. PUBLIC CLIENTS Harrison (Town/Village) East Williston (Village)- Hempstead (Village) - Lawrence (Village) East Hampton (Town) Oyster Bay (Town) Sag Harbor (Village) Smithtown (Town) Halstead Avenue/Harrison Avenue Business District Marketability Study, Development Plan and Public Improvement Plan ( with Economic Research Associates Community Development Block Grant Applications for 1982 through 1985 New Zoning Ordinance and Land Sub- division Regulations Intermodal transportation center, subcontractor to Storch Associates for land use, planning and zon- ing analysis Apartment planning and planning and zoning ations zoning study, recommend- - Master Plan Update: housing, traffic and infrastructure elements in cooperation with the Town Planning Department staff; environmental assessment of the housing element; evaluation of resort motel zoning concepts and proposed text - Expert testimony in the Supreme Court on planning and zoning - Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Plan (CMP) New Zoning Ordinance Park funding applications (LWCF) - Business district development plans for the Kings Park and St. James Communities - 1 - PUBLIC CLIENTS ( Continued ) Saltaire (Village) Study cf potential funding programs Application for a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program funding Expert testimony on planning and zoning Southampton (Village) Comprehensive planning studies and Updated Master Plan and zoning recommendations Upper Brookville (Village) Comprehensive planning studies and Updated Master Plan Expert testimony in Supreme Court on planning and zoning Westhampton Beach ~Village) Comprehensive planning studies, Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including flood plain zoning Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Plan (CMP) - 2 - CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS~ INSTITUTION AND PRIVATE CLIENTS A. D. H. Realty Corp. Planning. financial and zoning analysis in preparation for a change of zone application to permit the adaptive reuse of Kahn's Castle for residential condominiums in the Town of Huntington Barbash/McGovern - Planning and zoning analysis for a change of zone to permit the construction of a Marriott Hotel on Pinelawn Road at the Long Island Expressway in the Town of Huntington Brookville Taxpayers Association - Expert testimony in the Supreme Court on planning and zoning Century Ciruit, Inc. - Analysis of the compatibility of a proposed free standing theater sign in the Plain%~iew Shopping Center in the Town of Oyster Bay Committee to Save Good Ground Water - Analysis of environmental impact of a proposed major subdivision and to,~n sponsored upzonin~ of the Red Creek area of the Town of Southampton East Moriches Civic Association Planning and zoning analysis and expert testimony opposing an application for a change of zone district to permit a motel use in the Town of Brookhaven Greyhound Bus Company Planning and zoning analysis of a proposed Greyhound Travel Center at the intersection cf the Long Island Expressway and the Motor Parkway in the Town of IsliD Instruments Systems Corp.-Analysis of the best development potential of an ISC vacant site at Hunzington Station in the Town of Huntington CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS~ INSTITUTION AND PRIVATE CLIENTS (Continued) KAPCO Lincoln Savings Bank Long Island University C. W. Post Center New York Insitute of Technology North Shore Atrium Associates Save Three Mile Harbor Committee Stop the Airport Committee Traffic and parking analysis related to the application for the Haupp- auge Ramada Inn and Conference Facility on the Long Island Expressway and Veterans Memorial Highway in the Town of Islip Planning and zoning analysis related to an application for a special permit to relocate and expand a drive-in banking facility Prepare a Draft and Final Environ- mental Impact Statements, planning and zoning analysis and expert testimony related to a special permit to expand thecampus into the Village of Old Westbury Planning analysis related to an application to increase the height of a proposed new building beyond a covenant restriction in the Village of Old Westbury Planning and zoning analysis related to a change of zone to permit an office building in the Town of Oyster Bay - Planning and zoning analysis reated to opposing a proposed motel site in the Town of East Hampton - Planning and zoning analysis related to opposing the proposed Riverhead Airpark in the Town of Riverhead FREDERICK H. REUTER Community and Regional Planning Consultant EDUCAT[OXAL AND PROFESSIONAL AFFiLIATiONS Education Licenses Societ res 19flO-198q 190'_ - 1966 1957-1962 Cornell University -- 1938-1940 and 1946- 1948 (Course interrupted b? military ser- vice/ B. Arch., 1918 Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- Master of City Planning, 1950 New York -- Registered Architect No. New Jer_e~ / -- Professional Planner No. 542 -American Institute of Certified Planners -American Institute of Architects -Tau Beta Pi (honorary engineering) -Gargoyle (honorary architecture) -Lambda Alpha (honorary land economincs) -Urban Land institute PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Proprietor, McCrosky-Reuter, Planning Consultants Partner, McCrosky-Reuter, Planning Consultants Associate Partner, T. T. ?,lcCroskv Con sultants 1953-1957 Senior Regional and Community Planner, T. T. McCrosky, Consulting Engineers, acted as planning director for the Town of Smithtown, Suffolk County, New York 1951-1053 Principal Planner, blcHugh and McCrosky 1947, 1948 and 1950 Planning Engineer, Nassau County Plan- ning Department, special responsibility for population forecasting and land use survey and analysis 1949 Resident Planner, South Charleston, West Virginia, for John M. Muddeman and Asso- ciates, Planning Consultant 1946 Eggers and Higgins, architectural and engineering work 1942-1946 U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, private to captain: Company commander with field supervision of theater of operations con- struction in Europe and the Pacific 1941-1942 Jr. architectural engineer, Krey and Hunt, Consulting Engineers; Caribbean Architects- Engineers, and other firms. CLIENTS OF McCROSKY-REUTER Community Clients: Complete Comprehensive or Master Plan Programs, including Surveys and Analyses, Plans, Zoning and Subdivision Regula- tions and Capital Improvement Program: Calverack (Town), N.Y. Collins (Town), N.Y. Concord (Town), N.Y. Harrison (Town), N.Y. Highlands (Town), N.Y. Highland Falls (Village), N.Y. Honeoye Falls, (Village), N.Y. Maybrook (Village), N.Y. Mendon (Town), N.Y. Montgomery (Town and Village), N.Y. Newfane (Town), N.Y. Onondoga (Town), N.Y. Oswego, (City), N.Y. Paramus (Borough), N.J. Perrysburg (Town and Village), N.Y. Philmont (Village), N.Y. Port Chester (Village), N.Y. Quogue (Village), N.Y. Riverhead (Town), N.Y. Scottsville (Village), N.Y. Southampton (Town and Village), N.Y. Springville (Village), N.Y. Walden (Village), N.Y. Wheatland (Town), N.Y. Community Development Programs and Housing Assistance Plans and Related Program Consultation: Oswego (City), N.Y. Riverhead (Town), N.Y. Traffic and Parking: Garden City (Village), N.Y. Irvington (Town), N.J. Stamford (City), Conn. Zoning Ordinances: Monroe County, N.Y. (Rochester Airport Zoning Analyses and Regulation) New Britain (City), Conn. Thomaston (Village), N.Y. Urban Renewal Studies: Huntington (Town), N.Y. Islip (Town), N.Y. Lindenhurst (Village), N.Y. Oswego (City), N.Y. Stamford (City), Conn. School District Forecasts and Development Programs: Greece Central School District No. 1, N.Y. Gates-Chili Central School District, N.Y. Other Specialized Projects: Plainville (Town), Conn. (Subdivision Development Analysis and Regulation) Wayne County, N.Y. (Preliminary Overall Economic Development Program) Village of Port Washington North and Baxter Estates, N.Y. (Shoreline Preservation Plan) Village of Port Washington North, N.Y. Planning and Zoning Study for undeveloped area) Professional Firms Clients: Cannon, Thiele, Betz, Cannon, Schackleton and Fitz- gerald, Architects (Craig Colony Master Plan, N.Y.S. Department of Mental Health) George Diamond, Architect (Dehli Institue, N.Y.S. University Construction Fund) Faragher and Macomber, Architects (Alfred Institute, N.Y.S. University Construction Fund) Francis X. Gina, Architect (Oneonta College, N.Y.S. University Construction Fund) James D. Landauer Associates, Inc., Real Estate Con- sultants I.M. Pei, Architects (Fredonia College, N.Y.S. Univer- sity Construction Fund) Seelye Stevenson Value and Knecht, Consulting Engineers (Northwest Quadrant Comprehensive Sewer Study, Monroe County, N.Y., and Millstone Comprehensive Sewer Study, N.J.) Smith, Smith, Haines and Lundburg, Architects (Stony Brook University, N.Y.S. University Construction Fund) Private and Institutional Clients: Kaufman and Broad Litwin and Swarzman New York City Stock Exchange Building Corporation and Sol G. Atlas, Builder N.Y.S. Mental Hygiene Facilities Improvement Fund (as consultant to Cannon, Thiele, Betz, Cannon, Schackle- ton, Fitzgerald, Architects - Engineers) N.Y.S. University Construction Fund (as consultants to various architects on five campuses) New York Telephone Company Northport Boatyard Otto J. Paparazzo Pepsico Webb and Knapp AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEIS FOR A ZONING CHANGE FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHOLD BAY, SOUTHOLD TOWN, NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS prepared: by: January 15, 1986 Larry Penny Environmental Analyst 450 Noyac Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 INTRODUCTION I have reviewed the proposed facility - motel, restaurant, marina, and boat maintenance complex - requiring the zoning change sought by the site's owners and carefully read and evaluated the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) written in support of such project and zoning change. My focus in this evaluation has been on environmental concerns, namely groundwater resources, site topography and stratigraphy, fisheries resources, surface waters, and alternatives. Suffice it to say that there are other environmental concerns (air pollution, etc.), but I have chose to treat only those imminently impacted by the proposed action. The outstanding deficiency in the DEIS is its complete lack of critical information, or data base, on those paramount environmental parameters (water quality, fish stocks, habitat types, and the like), existing and to be applied, by which the magnitude of the impacts can be measured and risks to the environment evaluated. It is safe to say that any one of the principal uses proposed, taken separately, could substantially degrade the environment. Taken together, in the absence of meaningful and practical mitigation, they represent a -1- grave threat. Certainly, it can not at all be said, from a reading of this DEIS (p. 36), that Lastly, the zoning change will remove the potential threat of environmental pollution and improve the visual characteristics of the site, as will be pointed out in the sections that follow. SITE TOPOGRAPHY/STRATIGRAPHY A. Topography. The site is essentially an island, water off of which drains down slope all around into adjacent surface waters and wetlands. Greater attention to topography is needed in light of coverage and runoff surface increases to be part and parcel of this project. This is particularly true because of severe site limitations (high water table, questionable soils and subsoils) as far as handling stormwater. Inasmuch as only a fraction (ca. 1000 cubic yards) of the projected 17,000 cubic yards of dredge materials can be incorporated (at most) into the small marsh rebuilding project, it is presumed that the remainder will need to be used on site. This -2- amounts to a pile of spoil 125 yards by 125 yards which would raise 37% of the upland portion of the site by one yard in elevation, or the entire site by more than one foot (not counting upland excavation materials to be added to this volume), We need to see how the topography of the site will be so changed. Elevatin~ this site in relation to others around the basin will effect flooding potential during storm tide conditions on lower lyin~ sites. B. Stratigraphy. The specific nature of the made (Ma) land and cut-and-fill soils and subsoils on the site must be elucidated before decisions on the appropriateness of this site for the proposed complex can be wisely made. There are no soil borings or soil and subsoil composition breakdowns provided. We have no depth to groundwater data (it has been estimated) available. The site's present substrates will be used to structurally and functionally interact with spoils to serve a variety of very important purposes (effluent percolation, storm drainage, vegetation management and the like), yet we know almost nothing about them. -3- GROUNDWATER RESOURCES A. Water Use. The DEIS seriously underestimates water use 13,300 gallons per day (gpd) during peak. Using Greenport Water District figures (see Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Phase I. (Draft), Appendix E.) of 110.8 gal. per. capita per day in the Greenport Water (a conservative figure) 27,250 gpd, or 2.5% of pumpage, a significant District, the projected water use for the proposed complex will be the Water District's summer single-source increase on a district that is already quality stressed, especially during the summer. On the basis of motel water use considered separately, the 82 units will conservatively generate 225 gpd of usage per unit during peak times, or at least 18,500 gpd. When you add up all of the non-motel uses to the motel units' use, it is very possible that on the order of 30,000 gpd will be used by this project at full operation. In terms of resource cost to the water district, all of this use will be consumptive, the water will be lost to the potable water supply from which account the district must draw. This net loss amounts to some 1.67 to 2.45 million gallons -4- during the critical 90 day period, June through August, when figured on motel use alone or total use. Obviously, the DEIS has not properly evaluated the project's impacts on the area's groundwater resources. The proposed use of private well(s) to account for secondary water uses (boat washing and the like) does not take into account the strong probability of entraining contaminants from the site's aquifer which will become increasingly quality stressed from the complex's upland activities. There will be then the increased liklihood of facilitating the spread of this contamination into adjacent surface waters. Such pumping from on-site sources will also affect the groundwater flow regime which could exacerbate impacts vis-a-vis underflow into these surface waters. B. Subsurface Flow. The DEIS suggests that the subsurface flow of groundwater (and entrained effluent) on the site will be to the south and southeast (p.16) without providing any hydrogeological data, empirical or modelled, upon which to base this pronouncement. It is almost a certainty that part of the subsurface flow is to the basin, as well as the Southold Bay. In either case effluent from the project entrained in this flow will move into -5- adjacent surface waters and will have an impact there (see FISHERIES BIOLOGY and SURFACE WATER sections, elsewhere in this report). We need to know much more about the parameters which shape sub-surface flow, ie., the composition of soil and subsoils, the elevations after completion, the situation of the leaching pools and leaching fields associated with the complex, the water use and secondary recharge volumes and more. Mitigation can only be based on a complete knowledge of these parameters of which so little is actually made part of the DEIS. C. Effluents. The nature and volume of the effluent to be generated by this project and the kinds and amounts of other liquid wastes to be produced (pool wastes, boat wastes) has not been evaluated. The potential impacts on surface waters and fisheries resources evaluated elsewhere in this report are very great. We need to know the composition and amounts of these various waste water products. The outstanding contribution to liquid waste will be made by the motel and restaurant parts of the project. We need to know more about how effective the proposed dentrification system will be in treating -6- such diverse wastes, especially in the case where the peak volumes anticipated will clearly exceed those projected in the DEIS. It may well be that the denitrification system except for some nitrate removal, will be unable to adequately treat these volumes and waste stream components and that a larger system (e.g. tertiary treatment plant) will be needed. It would be an absolute catastrophe to nearby surface waters if the treatment facility is undersized, if it is not proper in this situation and is placed near the water table where its products co-mingle with the groundwater. The inefficient and only partial treatment of wastewater effluent will lead to the destruction of the fisheries resources in the vicinity of the project. This kind of impact from poorly treated effluents has already been realized in several surface waters of Long Island and has been of great harm to recreational and commercial fisheries located therein. FISHERIES RESOURCES THe Southold proposed ways, fisheries resources of the subject basin and Bay stand to be impacted significantly by the motel-restaurant-marina complex in a number of none of which have been satisfactorily addressed -7- by the applicant. A. Shellfish Contamination The generation of wastewater will add considerably to contamination of the surface waters of the basin and Southold Bay over present levels. Water use will probably exceed 25,000 gallons per day during the summer peak period. Only a fraction of this water will be generated on site. It is a well known fact that boat wastes from commercial and/or residential vessels are responsible for extensive surface water contamination. The increased contamination from operation of the complex is of two sources, microbial and chemical. 1. Microbial. Active marinas are always likely candidates for high levels of surface water microbes attributable to human causes. Coliform counts in large-boat marina waters so often exceed USFDA standards that the soon forthcoming manual on shellfish sanitation, governing criteria upon which surface waters will be certified or decertified with respect to shellfish taking, will recommend decertifying many marina waters. Attached to this report, for example, are 1985 summer readings for marinas in Three Mile Harbor, East Hampton Town, which -8- grossly exceed coliform standards and which have moved the New York State DEC to close considerable waters in that harbor to shellfishing. In practice the provision for pump-out stations has not led to the effective diminution of such microbial contamination. Moreover, the microbes from such hot spots of contamination can spread to peripheral waters leading to their closure, as well. In the long term, as a result of chronically high coliform levels generated by a string of coastal nodes, a long stretch of coastal waters can be contaminated to the point where they are decertified. happened in Three Mile South Bay and numerous past. Very few waters This is precisely what has Harbor recently and in Great other Long Island waters in the once decertified are recertified; the long-term trend is evident, on long Island and elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, more and more coastal waters are closed to shellfishing. Certainly, not all of the enhanced microbial levels in the subject coastal waters will be attributable to boat wastes. There is a gathering body of evidence that runoff and septic outflow will also contribute considerably to these levels. In terms of effluent contributions, the proposed project -9- will generate more than 20,000 gpd of effluent during the peak summer months. Because of the questionable nature of the leachin~ soils, the high water table and the proximity of the upland uses of the site to surface waters, the Drobability for movement of microbes into basin waters high. This probability is, viral particles, which are and Southold Bay waters is of course, hiqhest for considerably smaller than bacteria and thus much more mobile in subsurface substrates. The mitiqatio~ measures to be provided in the form of pump-out stations, storm water runoff system, denitr~fication system, and other lesser measures (e.q. recreation of wetlands) will not necessarily provide the mitiqative relief proposed or required. The runoff system is dependent on the availability of proper soils and subsoils - to d~te we h~ve no actual boring records to analyze, no soil samples to evaluate, the storm water system is purely conceptual at this point in time. Catchment capacity so close to the surface waters of Southold Bay is a very bi~ if factor, the small amount of marsh to be created is too thin and too sloped to be of much use in fi]terin~ out sheet flow to emanate from the site as a result of -10- rains and irrigation. The denitrification system proposed may remove nitrates, but it is not designed to kill or remove viruses and many bacteria. ~be effectiveness of pump-out stations in limiting boa~ waste impacts remiains to be demoDstrated. 2. Chemical. The same water uses attendant to such an ambitious Droject that will generate considerable microbial contamination, will also produce a great amount of chemical wastes: ~rom boats, motel grounds, swimming pool, restaurant and boat maintenance facilities. Of the chemical contaminants to be generated by such a mix of diverse activities and uses, some may be partially contained by the so-called storm drainage system, the denitrification system, and pump-out system. As the storm drain system and percolating soils load up they will leach more and more of these temporarily impounded chemicals into adjacent surface waters. The denitrification system will not only pass through several chemicals but will add sulphurous and other chemicals associated with the denitrification treatment. Many motel maintenance chemicals and restaurant chemicals (cleaDinq agents, pesticides, -11- floor conditioners, and the like) will find their way into adjacent surface waters, as will chemicals from the boat maintenance part of the complex. These chemical contaminants add up. Many of them are extremely harmful to fisheries species, especially to the spawn of shellfish and finfish. Others lead to excessive phytoplankton production because they stimulate growth or favor contaminant- tolerant species (e.g., blue-green algae) to intolerant ones. Because the complex of proposed activities and uses associated with the project under consideration will synergize during the summer months, the contamination by microbes and chemicals is sure to be greater at that time, ironically, coincident with the period of maximum shellfish and finfish reproduction. As in the case of some environmental actions (e.g. dredging) which have time windows which are safer than others (winter over summer) no such safe ~ime window is possible with the long term activity of the project, in fact, just the opposite is true. The window operative, summer months, will be the worst possible one for the surface water environment. The DEIS fails to properly address these impacts. There is no breakdown of fisheries resources, there is -12- no elaboration of the products emanating from the treatment system, there is no analysis of site soils and subsoils with respect to drainage and subsurface flow, water use projections are wrong and so on. It is totally inadequate in this regard and attempts to cover up this inadequacy with the offering of mitigation schemes many of which won't work here or are untested in such situations. I think we would find that any one of the proposed uses, practised intensely (as projected) is capable of serious degrading of the environment with respect to fisheries resources. The effective mitigation of one may be possible, of all, highly unlikely. B. Habitat 1. Dredging. to accomodate the an impact on the basin. What this The dredging of the subject basin expanded marina will surely have fisheries resources using the impact will be, we have no idea. Certainly the comment (No. 4) made on page 37 of the DEIS, No significant effects are anticipated for local finfish and shellfish populations. Harvesting of said resources may increase in direct proportion to the number of vessels utilizing the area with the availability of more berths for said vessels -13- has no basis in fact whatsoever and may be indicative of the author's inexpertise (see resume at end of DEIS) with fisheries biology. We have no analysis of the habitat of the basin, we know nothing of the stocks it supports, its primary productivity represented in aquatic vegetation, its bottom types and so on. The removal of 17,000 cubic yards of substrate is no small matter; conversely, a large project, which will remove habitat, deepen considerably the basin and change bottom topography dramatically. It well may be that the end result of this dredging will be the loss of habitat, the creation of a sink hole for rotting, accumulating vegetation and other debris, the creation of a zone of bottom anoxia inimical to shellfish and finfish stemming from rotting vegetation and debris, the development of a "dark zone" inhibiting submerged aquatic vegetation because of turbidity, shading from boats and piers, depth to bottom and increased planktonic growth. The evaluation of the dredge part of the proposed project along these lines of investigation is needed in order to preclude serious habitat degradation in the future. -14- 2. Slips. The desiqn and construction of the boat berthing facilities should be presented in ~reater detail. The location of piles and docks, especially with respect to basin circulation is of extreme importance here. Circulation in the basin hinqes upon bottom topoqraphy, basin shape, tidal channel position and the ~mount of resistance to flow (boats, docks, piles, etc.) manifested in the marina facilitv layout and volume. Again, it shoul~ be pointed out that surface water and habitat degradation result~n~ from reduced circulation is most probable in the summer months when water temperatures are high, fisheries production is hqih and, coincidentally, marina and human activity is the highest. S[~RFACE WATERS The DEI$ pr~,ides no baseline data or reports on the surface water quality in the basin. We need to know what the present quality is, particularly, in terms of microbes. It is stated that the waters of adjacent Southold Bay are "satisfactory" for the takin~ of shellfish. We need to see the DEC data upon which this -15- statement is based, whether it is recent, and whether serial testing over the years indicates deteriorating water quality. Armed with such test results we would be able to project the probable degree and time course of further degradation, to result mainly from this project, but also from the development of adjacent upland areas. We are esepcially concerned here with increases in fecal and total coliform counts over time as well as degradation vis-a-vis chemical inputs from effluents and runoff (see FISHERIES RESOURCES section, above, for additional remarks on this subject). ALTERNATIVES. In addition to the "no-action" alternative, or development under the "C Light Industrial" zoning, presented in the DEIS, the only other alternative given concerns itself with single-family residential use, which alternative is preemptorily dismissed as being economically unviable. Certainly this last finding, without evidence, is dubious. In terms of satisfying SEQRA provisions with respect to providing meaningful alternatives, this section is wholly inadequate. In terms of the statement on page 6 that, -16- the zoning change will remove the potential threat of environmental pollution and improve the visual characteristics of the site, there are other alternatives that will offer a much smaller potential threat of environmental pollution and as much if not more visual relief. In fact, except for heavy industry or denser multiresidential uses, the proposed project compared to several other viable land uses in Southold Town in certainly one of the most significant with respect to potential threatening impacts. Not only are important alternatives missing, there is no environmental analysis of alternatives which is needed to properly evaluate them. This analysis should pay close attention to the critical environmental parameters, impacts on water use, surface waters, fisheries resources, wildlife, flooding, basin bottom, drainage and stratigraphy. designed "C" and effluent not environmentally underflow, and site topography and The DEIS has not demonstrated that a well use without the excessive water consumption flow generated by the subject proposal is safer. -17- CONCLUSION. The DEIS as submitted does not provide adequate information upon which can be based informed decisions on the environmental significance of this project. The DEIS should be returned to the applicant for correction and inclusion of the data heretofore omitted. -18- Bacteriological Water Quality Three Mile Harbor Shellfish Land Number 15 1985 Data Prepared: September 1985 State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Building Number 40, State University of New York Campus Stony Brook, New York 11794 Introduction It was the intent of this study to evaluate bacteriological water quality in Three Mile Harbor. Notes 1. Precipitation data were obtained from this agency's Meteorology Unit for a rain gauge located in Bridgehamton. 2. Using a three tube MPN test, bacteriological water quality at a station is acceptable if the median total coliform MPN/IOOml is 70 or less and no more than 10% of the samples exceed a total coliform MPN/IOOml of 330; OR if the median fecal coliform MPN/IOOml is 14 or less and no more than 10% of the samples exceed a fecal coliform MPN/iOOml of 49. Comments 1. Although the winter data are l~hen compared to the summer data, there is a suggestion that water quality is influenced by the season. Water quality was good during March 1985 even after a 1.31 inch rainstorm. However, during August and September 1985, water quality was unacceptable from Station 5 south and in the vicinity of several of the eastern shore marinas. Hands Creek is also unacceptable. 2. Portions of Three Mile Harbor must be designated as uncertified at least during the period April 1 through December 14. If boat waste discharges were the only recognized problem, a closure from May 15 through October 31 might be adequate but it is not known if the unacceptable water is the result of human activity along the shoreline during the warm months. 3. It is recommended that water quality be restudied from December through March to insure that water quality is acceptable during the cold months. argeS-~ g B Sam ,., / .... , ~zn. _~,..~.,.,'~ ,,*-.~.,~: ,~"~,~_:,~r.~.,~.~.- ,,'"'~,'~,'.,~""' REVIEW OF ~,#'/.~./' ~/~,~.,~ ~ 0 means acceptable bacteriologically · means unacceptable bacteriologically 6~ me~n$ that lPq: fhmn lmm ~mmmlm 19 20 21 24 26 27 28 _-'9 3O ......... 31 32 ~// ,,/ 33 ,~ .,~.~.~ 36. /$ I 18 19 20 21 24 ~.?... ::'-'3.2 19 2O 21 24 I I 19 2O 21 24 28 26 RESUME of Laurence T. Penny 450 Noyac Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 (516) 725-4521 (home) (516) 267-8462 Education 1964-68 University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Ichthyology Animal Behaviour, Marine Biology; ARD* 1962 Chinese Language Institute San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Mandarin Chinese 1961-64 San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Biological Sciences; M.A. 1958-59 U.S. Army Language School Foreign Studies) Monterey, CA 93940 (Monterey Inst. of Russian 1953-57 Cornel1 University Ithaca NY 14850 Biology, Wildlife Conservation; B.S. *I am in the process of reopening my Ph- D candidacy. I have the guarantees of my major professor and the Biological Sciences Department that I will be able to resume my work toward satisfyinG the dissertational requirements. Languages Russian Chinese (Mandarin) French (read only) Spanish (read only) -2- Honors General Motors Fellowship, 1965, 1966 Carnegie Foundation Fellowship 1962 Selectee, UC Berkeley Teaching Internship Program (lst year, model program) 1962 President, S.F. State U. Biology Society, 1962-63. 1984-present 1983-present 1983-present 1983-present 1983-present 1982-83 1981 1981 1980-81 1980-81 Professional Experience Natural Resource Director East Hampton Town Consultant, Waterfront Revitalization projects, Sag Harbor and Westhampton Beach Consultant to The Group for the South Fork, Bridgehampton Consultant to Nature Conservancy Environmental Planner. East Hampton Town Environmental Consultant Adjunct Professor, Field Biology and Environ- mental Courses, Southampton College, L.I.U. Co-Chairman, South Fork 201 Study~ CAC, East Hampton, NY, Southampton, NY Co-Director, Peconic Environmental Resource Center, Inc., Sag Harbor, NY Consultant, Mashomack Master Plan Study~ The Nature Conservancy 1980-81 1980- 1980 Consultant to U.S. Attorney General, Eastern Office, Brooklyn, New York. RE: U.S. vs. Swan Lake Golf Course, Inc. Columnist on nature and environment, East Hampton Star, East Hampton, NY Curator o~ Collections, Mus. L.I. Natural Sciences SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 1979-80 1978-79 1974-78 1971-74 1970-71 1969-70 -3- Staff Ecologist and Wetlands Specialist, Group For The South Fork, Bridgehampton, NY Consulting: environmental science ecology, aquaculture and ~ishery science Southampton College of Long Island University Southampton, NY 11968 Professor o~ Biology and Marine Science: Field Biology, Ecology, Fishery Science, Marine Ecology, Marine Science, Aquaculture Verte- brate Zoology, Cell Biology Chemeketa Community College Salem, OR 97303 Instructor (tenured) of Biological Sciences: General Biology, General Zoology Anatomy and Physiology Community Environmental Council (a co-founder of), Santa Barbara CA 93101 Founding Editor: Survival Times, an environmental monthly, later quarterly from 1970-1976) (ran Community School, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Teacher: Biology Chinese, Russian Math, Environmental Science 1968-69 1968-69 1968 Santa Barbara Collectors, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Co-owner, Operator: collecting live marine specimens for major national aquariums Commerical Fisherman Santa Barbara, CA San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Lecturer: General Zoology (Summer Appointment) 1967-68 1967-68 1967-68 1967-68 1962-65 1962-63 -4- Undersea Gardens, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA Curator-Collector charge of 240,000 aquarium of Living Organisms: in gallon flow-through Santa Barbara Underseas Foundation Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Co-founder, First President: organize and initiate a not-for-profit educational services foundation serving the greater Santa Barbara area and concerning itself with shipboard marine science. Santa Barbara Free School Inc. Santa Barbara, CA Co-organizer, Teacher: help start and teach in the first Summerhill-type school in the U.S. Taught Biology, Psychology, Marine Science, Russian. University of California Santa Barbara, CA Teaching Assistant: Biology, Botany, Ichthtology Biological Abstracts University of Pennsylvania Philadephia, PA 19104 Abstractor-Translator: Of two Soviet journals, Voprosy Ikhtiologii (Problems in Ichthyology) and Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal (Physiological Journal) and parts of Referativnyi Zhurnal (the Soviet equivalent of Bioabstracts) San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA 94132 Teaching Assistant: Biology 1961-65 1958-61 -5- Systematics Laboratory U.S. National Museum Washington, D.C. Translator: cover-to-cover translation about 50 Soviet scientific (principally biological) publications of Army Security Agency U.S. Army, Japan Translator-Chryptographer: translation and decoding of Soviet domestic and military teleradio communications STATEOF NEWYORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Fla r~,t K. Deqn,:Bn of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that ha/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weakly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for one weeks successively, commencing on the 1 ~ dayof 0'anuary 19_ 86 Sworn to before~e this ~ ~N ~. ~f[ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, Febrttary 4, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road. Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Im- pact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect totheir petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Res- idence. District, Petition No. 269, on certain property locat- ed on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the · westerly side of Sage Boule- vard, Greenpet't, New York, consisting of 12.46i acres. Pe- tkioner is desirous of having the zohing status of the. Rrm petty changed to i~rmit the development of a motol com- plex. SEQR lead .agency is the Town of Soutii01d. A ~opy of the Draft Environmental Im- pact Statement is on file in the Office of the Soutilo~d Town Clerk. Town HaiL'Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: January 7, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IT-1/16/86(26) Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southo[d, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for. ................. ./ ........ weeks successively, commencing on the ......... ./.'(: .......... S~orn to before me this . -- /~f day of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public, State of New York No. 4806846 Qualified in Suffoik County ~ Commission Expires March 3u, 19~'{,t-' STATE OF NEW YORK: SS.' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, York, being duly sworn, years; that on tile 8th Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New says that si~e is over the age of twenty-one day of January 1986 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hail, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Notice of Public Hearing - 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986 -- Southport Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Southold Town Hall. Judith m. Terry ~' Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 8th day of Jar~uary 19 86 Notary Public ~ ANN Tim ~ M~h ~, LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY TIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M 1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town New York, and is available for Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, inspectin during regular business hours. DATED: January 7, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 16, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees Southport Development LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY TIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road· Southold, inspectin during regular business hours. DATED: January 7, 1986. New York, and is available for JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 16, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees Southport Development , ? LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE I,~ HEREBY TIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-~I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of ~,.~ain (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspectin during regular business hours. DATED: January 7, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 16, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, /VlAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of 'Town Trustees Southpor t Development RECEIVED JAN 3 i§8d Town Oerl( Soufhold STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 12231 December 27, 1985 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Soutbold Town Hal 1 Main Road Soutiluld, i'i'~ Dear Ms. Terry: The Department of State, as the State's coastal illanager~nt agency, appre- ciated the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Southport Developme.nt prepared by The Land Use Company. The Department is interested in this pending action by the Town of Southold, for the zoning change described in the DEIS would affect over 12 acres of land which front on and lie beneath the waters of Southold Bay. Although the proposed rezoning would facilitate the siting and operation of water dependent and water enhanced uses in the State's coastal area, the planned development does raise a few concerns about the utilization and pro- tection of coastal resources. Our comments on these concerns are as follows: Since the marina will provide 120+ mooring spaces for seasonal and transient use, :special efforts should be taken to protect the quality of the Bay's waters from pollution caused by the discharge of vessel wastes. Therefore, pumpout facilities should be provided for the safe disposal of such wastes. Further, signs should be posted advis- ing boat owners to use the available pumpout facilities and not to discharge vessel wastes into coastal waters. To minimize the impacts that the marina activities may have upon adja- cent property owners, all floats, piers, etc. should be set back a reasonable distance from the seaward extensions of the site's property lines. A setback distance of 15 feet is frequently used to reduce the effects of adjacent boat mooring activities. Due to the enclosed con- figuration of the water area and tile proximity of the land area to the north of the marina, however, additional setbacks or realignnent of the proposed piers may be warranted. The need to dredge the marina basin to a depth of l0 feet below Mean Low Water is not fully demonstrated in the DEIS. This need is further complicated by the fact that the existing channel which would serve Ms. Judith Terry December 27, 1925 Page 2 the marina has an authorized depth of -6 MLW. This item requires addi- tional explanation. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard as a safe and convenient service road for the motel/restaurant/marina complex, existing uses and other planned developments seems questionatbe. For example, it is doubtful that two trucks (delivering supplies to the motel/marina complex) could pass each other in opposite directions without one of the vehicles going off the paved surface. If other developments are planned along Sage Boulevard, this may be the appropriate tine to consider the improvements necessary for this roadway. The DEIS identifies a number of State coastal policies that would be applicable to the proposed actio~ and subsequent development. IIowever, this section of the document does not adequately describe how the action would be consistent with those policies. The FEIS should contain further discussion on these coastal policy concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. Should you or the preparer have any questions on the above comments, please contact me or Mr. Aram Terchunian at (518) 474-3642, Sincerely, ~ ~'r~on Coastal Resources Specialist WFB:dlb cc: A. Terchunian K. Cross COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that the public COmment period has been extended to 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, ~th respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Stateme~snbmit t ed by Southl~or~ i~velopment to th~ Southot~ Town Board with reference to t~ir petition for a chanc/~ of ~ne from "C" Light lu~ustfi~l 'District ~ ~,o "M-I" ~nerai,Multiple l~esi- dence District, Petition ~No. 269, on eert ,~m property l~cat- ed on the ~oath sfde OJ. Lin (State Roul~e. ~) R~i'~tO the weste..,ly ~ of vard/G~ei~rt, Ne*' York, con.sting ~f 12.461 acres. SEQR L~ad Agency is the Southold town Availability for Public Com- ment and Contact Person: The Draft Envirohmental Impact Statement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall. Main Road. Southold, New York 11971. Dated: December 17, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IT-1/2/86(t 1) Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southoid, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for .................. .'~. ....... weeks successively, commencing on the ........ .~ ............. S~orn to before me this ..................... day of ...... Notary Public B&RBzkRA FC:P BES LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE ES HEREBY GIVEN that the public comment period has been extended tx~ 4:00 P.M.. Tuesday, .January 21. 1986, with tal Impact Statement submitted Southold Town Board with refer- ence to their petition for a ehange of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multi- No. 209, on certain property Id- eated on the south side of Main ~State Route 25~ Road, on the westerly side of 8age Boulevard, Greernport, New York. consist- lng of 19.461 acres. 8EQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Com- ment and Contact Person: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the office of dudith T. Terry. $outhold Town Clerk. Tuwn Hall. Main Road. Southold, New York Dated: D~eeml~.r 17. 1985 JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Mary K. Deqnan ofGraenport, ln said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she Is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed ia a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 'olle weeks successively, commencing on the 2 day of .. Principal Clerk ANN M. ABATE [~.)]'~,[~f PUBLIC, Sh~te ul Ne~ Y0r~ Sworn to before me thl~ _ ~t ~lk.C,~unt~ No STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 20th day of December 19 85 , she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, New York 11971. Legal Notice - Notice of Extension for Public Comment - Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development relative to their petition for a chancje of zone - extended to 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985. Judith T. Terr~' Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 20th day of ELe_~.p..mb.e.r~1985 NoLary Public ELIZABETH ANN NEVILLE NOTARY PUBLIC, .,'tare No. 52 8125850 Surf011( LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public comment period has been extended to 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development to the Southold Town Board with reference to their petition for a change of Zone from "C" Light IndUstrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ mental Impact Statement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 1197'1. Dated: December 17, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State Southport Development LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that tile public comment period has been extended to tt:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development to the Southold Town Board with reference to their petition for a change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.tl61 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental Impact Stalement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Towr. Ball, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: December 17, i985. JUDITH m. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Bealth Services N.Y.S. Department of State Southport Development LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public comment period has been extended to 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development to ,be Sou,hold Town Board with reference to their petition for a change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M 1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Sou,hold, New York I~971. Dated: December 17, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold To~n Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State Southport Development July 11, 1986 Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouChold, NY 11971 RE: Southport Development Corp./ Proposed Master Plan Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members File ~- /'~'/~ .... of the Board: I write in response to a report in the June 12, 1986, Long Island Traveler Watchman entitled "Town Readies for Master Plan Adoption". According to that article, t~e Board is preparing to set a hearing date on the adoption of the new Master Plan and has been advised by the Town Planner, David Emi[iCa, to issue a "Negatiw~ Declaration" signifying that the proposed Master Plan will not have a significant impact on the environment. Although I have since visited Town Hall and have been advised by the Town Clerk that a hearing date has not been set yet nor has the SEQRA process been commenced because the blaster Plan is still being reviewed and revised by the Board, I take this opportunity to submit these comments to the Board for its review. As you are aware, this firm represents Henry Wiesmann and Frank Flynn who reside on Sage Cove opposite the proposed Southport Development. Under the proposed Master Plan (according to the proposed zoning map revised as of May 27, 1986) the Southport property would be located in a Marine Recreation District. S~ch a zoning proposal for this site appears to have been tailor-made to permit the Southport project. That project neither conforms to the current zoning of this site nor would it conform to the change of zone t~at the applicant requests to General Multiple Residence District. The reason that the proposal to designate this parcel Marine Recreation seems tailor-made to the Southport project is that such zoning would permit the Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Town Board July 11, 1986 Page two applicant to maintain his marina, add a motel or hotel, and by special, exception, construct a restaurant on the premises, all on an environmentally sensitive cove, the majority of the land surrounding which is currently zoned low-density residential. It is out' position that the adoption of any master plan that includes a change of zone on the subject property to permit the combined uses of the Marine Resort District, (hotel or motel, marina and restaurant) may have a significant impact on the environment and, thus, requires the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. For the Board to find otherwise would contradict the Board's previous findings contained in its July ]6, 1985, and April 22, ~986, positive declarations ghat an almost identical zone change on the subject property to General Multiple Residence district may have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of those two notices containing the findings of the Board are annexed hereto. In a~dition to the fact that issuing a Negative Declaration on the adoption of the Town's Master Plan would De in contradiction of the Town's stated position that rezoning of the subject property, as proposed, would have a significant effect on the environment, the SEQRA regulations themselves classify the proposed Master Plan as a Type I action. Type I actions are those that will[ more likely than not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.12(B)(~) lists as a Type I action: The adoption of a municipality's land use plan or zoning regulations or the adoption by any agency of a comprehensive resource management plan. Also on the Type I list, at 6 N.Y.R.C.R. §617.12(B) (2) are: The following changes in the allowable uses within an), zoning district, affecting 25 or more acre~; of the district; (i) authorizing industrial or commercial uses within a residential or agricultural district; Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Town Board July 11, ~986 Page three Based on these regulations, the townwide placement: of Marine Recreation Districts in areas currently zoned for residential use qualifies as a Type I action and requires the preparation of a DEIS. The Master Plan as proposed would zone other inland water ways to marine recreation as well, although they are currently zoned iow-density residential. It is submitted that the increased potential for more intense deveiopment on these other creeks together with Sage Cove certainly justifies the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the whole of the Master Plan. Specifically, Wickham Creek in Cutchogue, James Creek in Mattituck and Town Creek in Southold, all currently abutt A Residential land uses and have areas on their borders proposed for Marine Recreation under the proposed code. Likewise, the subject property on Sage Cove is currently surrounded by residentially zoned property and in the proposed zoning code would be surrounded by low-density residential property in the R80 and R40 dJ. stricts. Further justification for the requirement of a DEI,3 on the proposed Master Plan because of the location of blarine Recreational use on sensitive inland waterways can be ~ound in t~e comments of the Town's own consultants, Raymond, Parish and Pine contained in a letter dated January 27, ~986, to Supervisor Murphy from Stewart Turner of that firm. At p. 2 of said letter RPPW states: The marine recreation district has been designed to permit and encourage water-rela- ted recreation uses on waterfront properties that are located on inland waterways or creeks. In the RPPW draft, transient or resort hotels were listed as special excpetion uses and only water-related or necessary public uses were listed as pemitted uses. This was done to encourage the desired uses. It would not prohibit the special exception uses but would require greater justification and allow the Town to try to achieve better use of the very limited non-residential waterfront areas. Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Town Board july 11, 1986 Page four In the revised draft Marine Recreation District, transient or resort hotels had been listed as a permitted use instead of a special exception use and requirements were omitted: (]) that such use be a secondary or accessory use to a water-related use and (2) that one-half of the proposed marina or docking spaces or an amount equal to one-half of the existing marina spaces be retained in public use Most areas designated for Marine Recreation use have been located on creeks and inland waterways of the Town where higher densities would often be inadvisable and great care would be essential if hotels and motel were permitted without special exception review. Thus, we think that it is desirable from planning and environmental perspectives to require special-exception approval for hotel proposals in order to add another step in the review process. It is probable that hotels or motels would be more suitable in the marine business district than in 'the marine recreation district, since hotels are a commercial use and the MB district, a basically commercial zone, is mapped in areas that is generally not located on inland waterways so that greater "flushing action" would be available. Thus, even the Town's own consultants have reached the conclusion that the Marine Recreation District, with its high densJ_ty hotel/~notei use are not appropriate for inland waterways with poor tidal flushing such as the subject property, and that it is not advisable from an environ~ental or planning point of view to allow such uses in these areas. The potential negative environmental impacts of the new zoning on ,narine areas is emphasized in the comments on the plan by' Orville Terry, associate research professor at the Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY at Stony Brook. In his letter to the Board dated February 14, 1986, it is stated: Supervisor Murphy and o~ the Town Board JuLy Il, 1986 Page £ive Members My own special interest, as might be expected, is in the Town's marine waters and their preservation in present condition. I think the plan may be weak on this point. Commercial development of the Sound shore is probably acceptable because of its good flushing characteristics. Commercial development or dense housing development along the creeks and bays is very different, something I think professional planners may fail to recognize. These are not, in general, actively flushed and also they support shellfish populations (which the Sound shore mostly does not). Loss of those shellfish, through habitat damage or bacterial pollution, is a very serious danger, one which I don't think the Plan has adequately recognized. Given the comments the Board has received, the fact that the proposed Master Plan and zoning code qualifies as a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and given the Board's ~ast position on rezoning of the Southport property, it zs encumbent upon the Town Board to require the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Master Plan before proceeding with the processing and adoption of same. CK/bb eric. cc: Henry Weismann Frank Flyi]n JUDIT[I [' OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUYHOLD June 4, 1986 To~'n Hall, 53095 Mai:~ Road P.O. [lox 1179 Southold, New Tork 11971 [ICL~!PHONF 1516~765 18ol Lynne M. Gordon, Attorney Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn P. O. Box 149 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Ms. Gordon: The Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on June 3, 1986, granted Southport Development a time extension of sixty (60) days, to August 20, 1986, for submission of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with respect to their change of zone petition at Sage Boulevard, Greenport. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: David Emilita CO1WFOi~TI ~OI~DON ~EALE ~¢ SHENN ATTORNEYS AT LA~v P. O. Box 149 7~9 [~AST ~AIN STI~EET 2 ? 986 Clerk $oufhold May 23, 1986 Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southport Development Final Evironmental Impact Statement Dear Sirs: As you know, we are the attorneys for Southport Development. In that capacity, we request that the time for submission of the Final Environmental Impact Statement be extended an additional 60 days beyond June 21st, the date set forth in your resolution of April 22, 1986. This additional 60-day period of time will allow a more complete response to the comments of the Town Planner, as well as to comments made during the extended public hearing and public comment period. AS you know, the SEQRA Handbook suggests a time frame of 45 days for preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, '"unless extended". An additional 60 days within which time submission may be made beyond the original tim~ frame will allow the continuation of the high standards of this environmental review process. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Very truly yours, '...~:1 ,.,,.. .~- ..'~ L~'.'~k-.. ~-- ' Lyn'ne M. Gordon LbIG:mw CONFORTI GORDON REALE cox; ?3HENN P, O. Box May 23, 1986 Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southport Development - Final Evironmental Impact Statement Dear Sirs: As you know, we are the attorneys for Southport Development. In that capacity, we request that the time for submission of the Final Environmental Impact Statement be extended an additional 60 days beyond June 21st, the date set forth in your resolution of April 22, 1986. This additional 60-day period of time will allow a more complete response to the comments of the Town Planner, as well as to comments made during the extended public hearing and public comment period. As you know, the SEQRA Handbook suggests a time frame of 45 days for preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, "unless extended". An additional 60 days within which time submission may be made beyond the ori~na3 tim~ frame will the continuation of the high standards of this environmental review process. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Very truly yours, Lynne M. Gordon LMG:mw THOMAS a TWOME¥. JR STEPHEN B LATHAM JOHN F SHEA. III CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY MAUREEN T LICCIONE ATTORNEYS Ar LAW' April 28, 1986 COP ' FlOR YOUR 9 NOF~TH MAIN STREET eAST HAMPTON. N Y 11937 516 324-1200 Southold Town 8oard Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Southport Development Dear Supervisor Murphy and Mere)ers of the Board: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter received from James H. Redman of the State Department of Environmental Conservation contradicting pages 35 and 36 of the DEIS in the above referenced matter. I trust tJ~at you will take this into consideration when reaching your conclusions on the DEfS. Sincerelv, . ,./: ,/ } CDK,/bb cc: F. Flynn H. Weismann New York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conse~ation Bureau of Shellfisheries Bldg. ~40, SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11794 I~enry G. Wilhams April 22, 1986 Christopher Kelley, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mr. Kelley: In reply to your letter of April i1, 1986, I have discussed page 35 and 36 of the enclosure with Charles deQuillfeldt of this agency. Neither Mr. deQuillfeldt nor I have any recollection of making such statements. Our current information on the area including bacteriological wate~ quality data are inadequate for making decisions on t~e sanitary quality of the area for shellfish harvesting. Sincerely, ~James/H. Redman Narine Resources Specialist JHR'dg Eric. CC: Mr. Charles deQuillfeldt Mr. Larry Penny Town Board, Town of Southold New York State Depa~mentofEnvironmental Conse~ation Bureau of Shellfisheries Bldg. #40, SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11794 APR 2 4 t 86 April 22, 1986 Henry G. Willlar~$ Cc rnrn~ssioner Christopher Kelley, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York ~L1901 Dear Mr. Kelley: In reply to your letter of April 11, 1986, I have discussed page 35 and 36 of the enclosure with Charles deQuillfeldt of this agency. Neither Mr. deQuillfeldt nor ] have any recollection of making such statements. Our current information on the area including bacteriological water quality data are inadequate for making decisions on the sanitary quality of the area for shellfish harvesting. Sincerely, Marine Resources Specialist III JHR/dg Enc. cc: Mr. Charles deQuillfeldt Mr. Larry Penny Town Board, Town of Southold T'~xoMI~Y. L:\THAM, I'4HE.X ¢k April 11, 1986 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTO~ N Y 11937 5]6 324 1200 James Redman New York State ]Department Conservation Building 40 - SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 of Environmental RE: Southport ]Development DEIS Dear Mr. Redman: This tirm 'represents Henry Weismann and Frank F1ynn intervenors in the SEQRA proceedings on the DEIS for the above-referenced project. Pursuant to our phone conversation of this date, I enclose a copy of pages 35 and 36 of the Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development. As we discussed, the project which the DEIS analyizes is an expansion of an existing marina adding the uses of an 82-unit motel, a 125-seat restaurant and boatyard facility on a small embayment located on the Conkling Point Peninsula in Southold. The embayment, just west of the Village of Greenport, empties into Shelter Island Sound. Enclosed is a copy of the tax map indicating the location of the subject site (by a red "X") which consists of approximately 12.2 acres, 3.7 of which are underwater. One of the issues focused on in the comments on DEIS and its addendum is the capacity of this embayment to flush itself.. The en~Payment or cove is extremely shallow in spots and given the influx of effluent and runoff from the project, we believe that it will be significantly impacted by the project. We believe such an impact will be exacerbated by the cove's limited tidal flushing. In response to this concern, the applicant has quoted you on page 35 of the DEIS addendum that there is a "high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within the project vicinity". Larry Penny, our consultant believes that you were quoted out of context and probably meant that there was a high degree of tidal flushing in Shelter Island Sound, on the Dayside of the 3ames Redman April 11, 19S6 Page two project, rather than on the cove side of the project. This would seera only logical in that the whole of the basin has as its only entrance a 20-foot wide channel at its southeastern end. Please review your statements as enclosed, and contact me to confirm that these statements were taken out of context.. As I asked you on the phone, if your statements were taken out of context, I request that you clarify your statements and indicate with a short letter to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, the lead agency in this matter, that they were taken out of context and not intended to indicate that there was extensive tidal flushing within the subject embayment or cove. CDK/bb encs. cc: H. Weismann F. Flynn L. Penny Sincerely, ~'~.~s~o ~//h e r K/e~l 1 e y uhe S-u~hT!i lay ~rsk z=--~= have recenulv .............. ani ~he resulus '.;ill he :~rcviizi k_~ xltei %h~l sux'.'ersz~isns -..'i_h~ Xr. Jar. e=~ Reir. e.., 2-[mrine Resozrces Sueci~iist fill -.,-iuk zr. likely ~kan-...-~uer vuaiiuy wi_nAn unz. s are~ .~keilfishznu Tur~uses. ibis snatemenz is h~sei sn ihe "hi[~, .=-~,-__~ ..... =- =.- ..... ~..r= 'flushixu.' tha~ is fcuni wilhin the ~rcjecT --~ ....... c==i velsri%ies 5re rroizzei bv ~=--.-==- ,~--k!incs 7cinz "Soughs!i} =-s ..... ~'z:~-.e?:ts nke eib~..~=-= floc! of tiia~- '.-.stets ~-~"~-=;-~ the csr. cen~ra--~zn ,of ~oll'dta?.ls P. iler~ti~n of ~ ........ ~'.'~=~'_l..:,-~ channel entra}~ce ~'"-~--~ will --- ' - cl:-~-- *S.d v.'i!! ~ssure :~-:sfaslcr" ..'~zer ~u~lzzv '.,-izhin she has;~ OFFICE O[' THE TOWN CLERK ]"OWN OF SOUTHOLD Town H:LII, 53(.lU5 M:lm Rc)~Ld P.O. Box 1179 Soullmld. New Y~wk I10~1 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: April 22, 1986 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva tion Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and public hearing on same, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and has requested the filing of a Final Environ mental Impact Statement. Descrip_tion of Action Petition of Southport Development for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, con- sisting of 12.461 acres. Further information may be obtained by contacting Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk.. Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 1197'1. Copies to: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Board of Town Trustees Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State Szepatowski Associates Inc. Southpor! Development ILDIHIT TFRRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 *lam Road P.O. Box 1179 Southc, ld, New York 11971 April 23, 1986 Southport Development P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a second "Notice of Significant Effect on the Environment" with respect to your petition for a change of zone, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution on April 22, 1986, of copy of which is also enclosed. Southport Development is hereby requested to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for submission within sixty days of the date of the aforesaid resolution. Whereas your office has already obtained the comments of the Town Planner, Szepatowski Associates, Inc., a copy of the minutes, and other comments contained in the change of zone file, I do not think it is necessary to transmit them to you again. However, if you wish to review the file again, you are welcome to obtain copies of those documents referred to in the resolution free of charge. I am enclosing a letter dated April 15, 1986 from the Southold Town Baymen's Association, Inc. pertaining to Southport. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry r/ Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (3) OFFICE OF THE ~[O~,vN CLERK TO~,¥N OF SOUTHOLD Fown Hall, 550q5 Main Road P.O. B,~x I 179 Southold. Nuw York 11971 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, 1986: WHEREAS, Southport Development has heretofore filed a petition with the Town Clerk, pursuant to Article X of Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold, for a change of zone on certain property at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, from "C" Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, Southport Development did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development at the Southold Town Hall on February 4, 1986, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to speak, and said hearing was recessed to February 25, 1986 and again to April 8, 1986 to provide an opportunity for comment on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby determine that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Southport Develop- ment, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final Environmental Impact S'tatement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, and incorporating therein the comments of the Town Planner, Szepatowski Associates Inc., comments made at the public hearing, and comments made during the public comment period.. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk April 23, 1986 RL, mvm ,PR 2 lg86 Southold Town Baymen's Assn. Inc. POST OFFICE BOX 523 5outhold Town ~rush.~s Sou;;hold '['o':;n iialt Southold, i.:.Y. 11971 Re: The gouthDort Pro,jest GREENPORT, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11944 Aoril 16, 19 6 Dear Tru. stea s, ?he DEI:Z re~vort st.w~Itted ~v the %oubhn, ort ~rojcct is a v,,el.! known fact thab Sa~e~s is a ~roductive cl~v~mln,~ creek. Considerln,' its a~all size, this creek should be considered a very mroductive natural Ufe wold polar out that any mamin'~ tro,~ect on the f. outhnort scale will cr,Jate a ne~at~v,3 effect on saaitary certification fo~ ~hellfish~n ' in 7a-e's w~ll also be a ~ot.~nti~llv. . neL,a ..... .~ve effect )r: the adja- cent ?econic .ay system. ': .... : '~ -~ ..... c_all~ e~ec~=d w uld the scallo9 '~roduc~.n3 beds r~.nnin~ we ~tward froq the en- trance of Sa 'e's creek ~o ~eixedon and Town Harbor. This eqtLre coastline o~ Southold 5at has alwa[,s been a ~o- ducSive area. ueve _.atson secret~ry co: Sou ::.hold '['own Council ilew 'fork EtaUo De~)artnent of Coastal ~[ar, ajanent f rojrs~n '.rate Southold Town Baymen's A sssn. Inc. POST OFFICE BOX 523 GREENPORT, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11944 Re: The Southoort Project .Dear Trustee s~ The DEIS report s:tL.'nitted by the Southoort project peoole, claims that no si.lnificant shellfish ,~o~:~.isos~.ana is a nell knonn fact tha~ Sage's is a orodective o].~ninS creek. Coasiderin.l its analt size, this creek should be cons!doPed a very productive natural hmbitat. 7;e ro~td point out that any marina project on the 2omthoort scale will create a negative effect on sanitary certification for shellfishin~ in ?ale's creek. There will also be a potentially negative effect on the adja- cent 2ecc, aic l}ay system. Especially effected wsuld be the soello9 producing beds running westward fron~ the en- trance of Sa2e's creek to Eeixedon and Town l{mrbor.. This eatLre coastline o? Southold lay has always been a oro- ductive area. '?~ ~^ '~-~ -"~- ~ - 61 ~}resident ?teve Latson secretary cc: South.old ~'~ ' ' L o,,~'n Council few York State De~rtment of CoasJal" ' ~ - ~anaoemen~ Profr~ .~ta be PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED from FEBRUARY 25, 1986 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD APRIL 8, 1986 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO"M-I" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I would like to open the public hearing. This is a reconvened public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. Original hearing was held on February 25th, 1986 and recessed until today. Now, is there anyone here would like to speak? Any representatives of Southport Development? LYNNE M. GORDON, Attorney, firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn: We are the attorneys for Southport Development and I'll be pleased to yield the floor and listen to the other comments and then I will comment on those comments. Thank yOU. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. Is there anyone else would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? (No response.) Is there anyone would like to make any comments at all on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Sir, go ahead. JOHN SHEA, Attorney, firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, Riverhead and East Hampton, New York: We represent Henry Weisman and Frank Flynn. As you may know, our firm has filed comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and we have also filed comments on the Addendum to the Draft. I believe you received our most recent set of comments on March 26th, '1986. Without repeating a great deal of what we've said in those comments, I decided it would be most beneficial to the Board to hear perhaps from one of the experts that helped prepare those comments, Lawrence Penny, who's an Environmental Planner for the Town of East Hampton, and is acting on behalf tonight, on behalf of Mr. Weisman and Mr. Flynn. I had prepared this in a question and answer format with Mi'. Penny and I don't know the best way to do this since we have one microphone. Mr. Penny, could you give your address. LAWRENCE PENNY, Environmental Consultant: 450 Noyack Road, Sag Harbor, New York. Page 2 - Southport MR. SHEA: And how are you employed? MR. PENNY: I am the Environmental Protection Director of the Town of East Hampton. MR. SHEA: Could you give your background and education as an Environmental Planner? MR. PENNY: Yes, I have a Masters degree in Biological Sciences and have been a consultant in biological analysis, biological reports and many other technical areas that have to do with planning, and have been Environmental Planner for the Town of East Hampton approximately a year, and since that time I've been the Environ- mental Protection Director for the Town of East Hampton. MR. SHEA: And you reviewed, did you not, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on this projecl, as well as the Addendum to that Draft? MR. PENNY: Yes, I reviewed both. MR. SHEA: Right. In reviewing the Draft and the Addendum, could you explain your rating of the quality of those sections dealing with wildlife and vegetation at the proposed site? MR. PENNY: Well, in terms of wildlife, it happens to be one of my areas of greatest expertise. The original DEIS was very deficient and the Addendum had some informa- tion based on a relatively superficial look at the wildlife in the Cove area, on the upland area, and --- MR. SHEA: When you say, "superficial look at the wildlife", what do you mean? MR. PENNY: Well, the sampling for shellfish, for example, was done at an in- appropriate time, a few clays at the end of January, beginning of February, and I believe there's actually a one day sampling for say clams, other bivalves, and if you were to do the appropriate sampling, and that's why it should have been done earlier when the DF!IS was written, you'd do it at a time when most of these species were accessible. For example, the DEIS Addendum says there's no blue crabs present in that site, and you don't sample for blue crabs in the end of January, middle of winter, and other species--it says there's no bay scallops on the site, and we all know that bay scallops, this past year, suffered dramatic population decreases and are absent from many small bodies of waters, coves and creeks, embayments on both the north and the south forks because of the mystery algae bloom. In general I find it hard to believe that one days sampling would turn up three hard clams in the sampling areas when I know that the bottom type is suitable for hard clams and I have communication evidence from baymen that work those waters that they do produce hard clams in that type of sampling. In terms of the waterfowl, the Addendum does identify black duck, mallards, and so forth, and my two visits identified several other waterfowl species, and also black crown night herons, great blue herons--- MR. SHEA: Mr. Penny, you were talking about the baymen before. Do commercial fishermen actually use this cove? MR. PENNY: Commercial fishermen do use that cove. MR. SHEA: Based on your research and knowledge of the area, what species would you expect to find at the site? Page 3 - Southport MR. PENNY: What shellfish species or what species? MR. SHEA: Start with shellfish. MR. PENNY: First of all, it's suitable habitat for a variety of shellfish because it's protected waters. It has a fresh water influx, therefore it would make it a very good habitat for say bringing up scallops--starting scallops, bringing them up. Hard clams, oysters should do well there. They like--especially oysters like a little brackish water, and also the more fresh the surface waters--the few the starfish predators. We all know that starfish predaceous is becoming a very big problem again in Peconic/Gardiners systems, and these little coves are ideal bodies of water for not only catching shellfish, but also for breeding shellfish natural stock. MR. SHEA: What other species? What other shellfish species would you f'ind here? MR. PENNY: It depends upon the season, of course, and the year, because certain years are more -like in bay scallops- are more prolific than other years. MR. SHEA: Would you expect to find blue crabs? MR. PENNY: Well, I had never seen a blue crab in there, because I haven't been there at the appropriate time, but I have, again, had hearsay evidence from people who have used the cove, that there are blue crabs there. I would expect to find blue crabs there, yes. MR. SHEA: All right, yes. What I'm asking you is knowing the habitat, you've studied the habitat--- MR. PENNY: It's good habitat for blue crabs. MR. SHEA: What is this good habitat--what other species is this good habitat for? MR. PENNY: American eel, which is a very important commercial species. Several fish species, especially big fish species. MR. SHEA: Winter flounder? MR. PENNY: Winter flounder would be in a situation like that. Would ew:n breed in a situation like that. MR. SHEA: And what did the DEIS conclude in terms of wildlife? MR. PENNY: on the three waterfowl is Well, in terms of the shellfisheries, it was very negative, based hard clams and a few other bits -odds and ends. As far as the concerned they .... MR. SHEA: Well, before we go on to waterfowl, is your analysis of the site in agreement or disagreement with the DEIS? MR. PENNY: Oh, it's in disagreement, because I think there's more there then has been presented, and it's got -it's not a bad habitat. It's a good habitat for shellfish, so obviously we're in disagreement. MR. SHEA: Now the DEIS concludes that the project will increase the availability of shellfish in the cove. What is your assessment of that conclusion? Page 4 - Southport MR. PENNY: Well, I'm not quite sure what anaylsis that's based on. It would be my experience that in those kinds of situations where you have intense shore- side development that not only the diversity of the shellfish goes down, but the individuals. Numbers of particular species population tends to go down. It depends upon the intensity, but we're talking about fairly intense use here. So it would be hard for me to say there was any kind of evidence that would suggest that the shellfishery in themselves would be enhanced by development of this kind. MR. SHEA: Well, based on your review of the project, what do you believe would be the impact of this project as proposed upon the shellfish? MR. PENNY: Well, it's very intense situation. Here we have three intense uses. Eighty two units, a large marina--expanded marina, and a restaurant, and other services, accommodations and so forth, boat accommodations, maybe some minor repair. That kind of thing. It's very intense and I would say that the--in terms of several impacts from the proposed development. The quality of the water and the quality of the--and diversity of the wildlife- would go down considerably. MR. SHEA: All right. I'm addressing now specifically shellfish. What would be the impact of this project,as proposed, on the shellfish in the area? MR. PENNY: In terms of probability the impacts would not be good, because of the--first of all the great amount of water wastewater to be generated and enter the basin. MR. SHEA: The DEIS said that the project would increase the availability of shellfish. MR. PENNY: I don't believe that it would, first of all. Okay? MR. SHEA: Do you believe it would so you don't believe it would increase the shellfish ? MR. PENNY: I can't see how it could, no. MR. SHEA: Do you believe it would decrease the shellfish. MR. PENNY: I believe that it would tend to decrease the number--tend to decrease their spawning. Yes, those kind of things. MR. SHEA: The DEIS addressed the question of surface water quality, and as did the Addendum. Do you know what records were used for that analysis? MR. PENNY: Well, the Addendum provided the first evidence we've seen on the surface water quality. Those three tests- three different days of coliform days presumably gathered by the DEC, and run in their labs under controlled conditions, and what we'd like to know, but we don't have, and we asked for, was more data. Data that would be--that we could see that would associate with a more peak time. It is interesting that one of the--a couple of the coliform values, in fact, exceeded the limits--were very high for total coliform. They were 240 in January. That's rather unusual unless you ah'eady have--- MR. SHEA: Why is that unusual? MR. PENNY: Well, because in January activities that were uses, and most cases you see that the --t~at the level of coliform contamination is relatively strongly Page 5 - Southport coincident with the increased activity around the water. MR. SHEA: And what occurs in the summer? MR. PENNY: In almost all cases you have heightened coliform values where you have intense use around the surface water. MR. SHEA: So what impact would this complex as proposed, this project as proposed, have on the coliform counts in this cove? MR. PENNY: As far as I can see they could not help but go up. So-- MR. SHEA: Why is that? MR. PENNY: Because of the added impact. We're talking about something on the order of 15,000 or more gallons per day of effluent, including boat wastes, or else we're talking about the possibility of clean-out- pump-out station, I appreciate that. We're talking about the surface runoff from activities, and so forth. We're talking about swimming pool use. We're talking about a lot of intense use and area that has a very high water table. It's going to see a lot of that effluent is going to go right into the cove. Whether it goes in in one day, or whether it goes in in a few days. Okay? And it's been my experience -I've looked at a lot of these kinds of situations that coliform ~alues go up in those kinds of circumstances. I've very rarely seen- in fact I have never seen one case where they go down, or where they remain the same in developed areas. MR. SHEA: Would you please explain your review of the analysis of the--I'm going to rephrase that- the DF:IS makes certain statements about the ability of the cove to flush itself. Would you explain to the Board your view of that--those statements? MR. PENNY: Well, this cove if you look at this cove and you look at the topography of the cove and you look at the way it's shaped and so forth, look at its inlet, it there's a constriction there. They're going to dredge the constriction make it a little deeper--the inlet and so forth. A small embayment like that, a small cove, has very limited flushin~l. It has a very long, extended turnover time. Giving an example: the turnow~r time at say Northwest Harbor they think--which is not a cove, which is out south of Shelter Island and north of East Hampton and bounded by North Haven on the west and Cedar Point on the east, with no inlets. It's an open body of water with constrictions--about 23 days they figure the turnover. Latest calculations. We're talking about many, many more than a few months to actually turnover all the water in a small cove like this. So it has limited flushing compared to open bodies of water and the little bit we can do in terms of dredging to enhance that flushing is going to make it very small amounts difference, really. MR. SHEA: The DEIS included certain comments by a Mr. Redman of DEC. Do you have any views about those comments? MR. PENNY: Well, I know Jim Redman very well. Work with him all the time in the town and I don't think it appropriate to use a remark, which I think i~ out of context--- MR. SHEA: Why do you--explain why you think it's out of context. MR. PENNY: Because the remark refers to the Bay and does not refer to the cove, and that refers to the Bay, not the inshore edge of the Bay, but the outer part of the Bay. Obviously the outer part of the Bay is fairly well flushed. Page 6 Southport MR. SHEA: Given the level of tidal flushing in the cove and the geography of the cove, do you have an opinion as to whether the type of use, as proposed, is appropriate? Based, again, on the tidal flushing and geography of the cove? MR. PENNY: Well, again, I'm going to say that this cove is going to be asked to accommodate on the order of five to ten thousand gallons a day of a effluent. We don't really know much ef this effluent is going to flow into the cove, because we don't have any tough surface flow data, but it looks like, as far as I can see, that the bulk of that effluent is really going to flow towards the cove,, and con sequently a much smaller use would produce much smaller amount of effluent and would have much dramatic--much less dramatic impacts and would be more flushable, but I would say any one of these three uses perchance safely mitigated would have an impact that could be mitigated, but I don't see how you're going to mitigate these three intense uses taken together with some other uses that are a little bit ambiguous at this point. MR. SHEA: On your inspection of the site, did you see any waterfowl or other-- or water birds? MR. PENNY: Yes, I dicl. MR. SHEA: Could you explain to the Board what you saw? MR. PENNY: Red breasted mergansers (?), scup, porgy scup, black crown night herons, great blue herons, buffelhead, about four different species of diving ducks, which means that they're in there- they were diving, by the way. So they're in there feeding on things on the bottom. The diving ducks eat t~e ? little fishes, ? vegetation when they can't find those species. About twenty-five of these diving ducks on both occasions. They weren't all there on the two occasions that I visited. MR. SHEA: How would you rate the population levels in terms of the waterfowl? MR. PENNY: I think it's a very good habitat for waterfowl and for water birds. Good habitat because a lot of the edge has not been disturbed. There's still a lot of wooded edge along that body of water. There are shallows where they can dive and feed, you know, with fairly high visibility. Would be good for dabbling ducks, mallards and black ducks that were mentioned in the Addnedum to the DEIS. I could see black ducks actually breeding in an area like that, and certainly mallards. MR. SHEA: Did you list--a moment ago you listed water birds or waterfowl? MR. PENNY: Waterfowl and a few water birds. MR. SHEA: And a few water birds. What other birds did you see at the site, or would you expect to see at this habitat, based on your study of the habitat? MR. PENNY: Well, you probably at one time or another would have just about every single waterfowl that uses the Peconic system, flies over it and so forth. You would have in addition to black crown night herons, great blue herons. You would have ? herons, and you would have some egrets, casual egrets. I don't think they would breed in that vicinity. Ospreys would dive into the cove from time to time and take a fish or something. I don't think there are any ospreys breeding on the periphery or in that immediate area. You would have several different kinds of shore birds at times moving through. Not a lot of the ocean ? by any means, Page 7 - Southport but you would have individuals working around the shore - yellow legs, those kind of shore birds. MR. SHEA: And how would you rate the quality of the habitat for those birds? MR. PENNY: Well, it's particularly good for diving ducks because of the benthic habitat and it's not bad for herons because of the availability of big fishes and the shallows and so forth. I'm not too sure it would be terrific for shore birds, but it could accommodate some. MR. SHEA: What would this project do, specifically in terms of the quality of the habitit, for those birds? MR. PENNY: Well, it's hard to say, except that this intense use again, during the peak time. It would not be friendly to almost any water birds--perchance mute swans which seems to take kindly to humans and occasionally mallard ducks, but in general this kind of use, this kind of area with lack of protection--you're going to have boats going--120 or more boats going back and forth all the time, or sitting there and sometimes radios and lights and daytime activity, nighttime activity, swimming pool, tennis courts maybe. I'm not sure. Cars coming and out, you know? All that kind of stuff adds up and it would devalue this habitat value, you know? This water fowl value, water bird value considerably. MR. SHEA: The DEIS concluded that there would be an increased diversity in the wildlife population by improving habitat. Do you agree with that conclusion? MR. PENNY: Well, it's hard for me to see how they're going to increase the diversity of say the waterfowl. You have a fairly high diversity there now. I think what they may mean is you may get a few more land birds, cardinals, mocking- birds, those kinds of things, because of some horticultural planting kind of thing. I don't see anything in that DEIS, or the Addendum that speaks of--that will actually result in the increase in the diversity of wildfowl--wildlife in general. I don't see that. MR. SHEA: The DEIS makes some statements about the impact of septic waste from the project on the quality of ground and surface waters. Do you have an opinion as to those conclusions in the DEIS and the Addendum. The Addendum addresses that issue, septic waste, as well. MR. PENNY: Well, I think even the--I think the DEIS and the Addendum admits that the so-called denitrification system will only take out nitrates and presumably most of the coliforms. It says it doesn't take out the chemicals and there are a lot of chemicals associated with these kinds of uses, as you know. And the question of viruses moving underneath the ground is very interesting here, because we know that work that's been done the last few years has shown that viruses migrate through soils, depending upon the soil consistency, quality and so forth, great distances. MR. SHEA: Stopping there for a moment. The denitrification system to which you refer, does that protect surface and ground water, or not? MR. PENNY: To a limited degree. If it works well- if it works well. If ~t works properly. MR. SHEA: Right. My question was just--protect both surface and §roundwater? MR. PENNY: It was designed to protect groundwater. That's why the denitrificatio~ Page 8 - Southport 0 system came into existence, to protect groundwater in areas where you had high density and you didn't have sewage treatment facility, you didn't havE: the avail- ability of the sewage treatment pipes, you know, going to a centralized plant, and you had very high density and because of this high density you begin to exceed the nitrate levels, which is ten milligrams per liter. Therefore the groundwater would not be drinkable clown gradient, or on site. MR. SHEA: Would there still be a significant amount of effluent from this project? MR. PENNY: There's a great deal of effluent from this project. MR. SHEA: And would it have a significant impact? MR. PENNY: It would have- in my way of thinking it would have a very big impact, yes. MR. SHEA: And would you describe that impact. MR. PENNY: Well, you have to keep in mind that a motel, and especially extensive one, and one that might become, who knows you know, bought units and so forth, and a restaurant. Ail sorts of health codes that are involved here. All parts of the health code--the New York State Health Code and Suffolk Sanitary Code.--in terms of keeping them clean. So they have to use a lot of cleaners. Restaurants have to use a variety of chemicals to keep them clean. They're inspected routinely by Suffolk County Health Services inspectors. Okay? There are a lot of chemicals that are associated with maintaining grounds, and maintaining swimming pools. I know, I deal with them all the time in the town. Several chemicals. Chemical-,, that you would not put on your skin, like methylene chloride, and so forth. There are a lot chemicals that have to do with maintaining boats. Granted this isn't going to be a boatyard as such, but I remind the Board about triabucile (?), for example, which is the most common preservative paint--bottom paint, which the EPA is think- ing of banning because it's so toxic to shellfish and so forth. You're going to have a lot of boat chemicals around. You also have an occasional petroleum leak, or petroleum chemical getting into the surface water. You have--I mean there's a whole bunch of chemicals here that in addition to the bacterial stuff they're worried about, that the DEIS does not address. It does say that the chemicals aren't taken out by the system. MR. SHEA: By the way, would you explain your experience with wastewater management in the Town? MR. PENNY: Yes, I'm i,n charge, in terms of one aspect of our scavenger waste treatment plant. I work with a--we have a scavenger waste treatment like Southold has, and we've been told that we better keep that plant in very good shape in terms of what goes into it, because we don't want to kill the cultures. I've worked with the scavenger waste lagoons now, which there are four of. I work with septic systems. I work with the Suffolk County Health Services. We have a standard in Southold Town of 150 feet from- I mean East Hampton Town, of 150 feet from surface water, so Suffolk County has a standard of 100, so I have to make sure that we're getting 150 feet from leaching pools to surface waters and have to keep Suffolk County Health Services on their guard in that respect, because frankly we've been losing too many of our waters. MR. SHEA: Mr. Penny, turning your attention again to the denitrification system, does the proposed denitrification system take out the chemicals you referred to? Page 9 - Southport MR. PENNY: Doesn't take out. MR. SHEA: Does it take our the viruses which affect shellfish? MR. PENNY: it's never been demonstrated it takes out the viruses. MR. SHEA: Does it take our bacteria? MR. PENNY: In the sense that it works like a conventional leach pool system it takes out, I would say, most of the bacteria. MR. SHEA: How much--what percentage of the nitrates does it remove? MR. PENNY: When it's working there's various figures. I think a ballpark figure is somewhere between twentyrfive and thirty percent. You have to keep this thing tuned, however. It has to be charged, it has to be inspected every once in a while to make sure that things are working, because it depends upon a biological culture process. MR. SHEA: So if there's a mistake in maintenance it may not even remove twenty-five to thirty percent? MR. PENNY: That's true. it would then work like a normal septic system really. MR. SHEA: All right, so then the denitrification system only denitrifies, and it only does that up to a figure of about thirty percent. MR. PENNY: It depends upon it again. I suppose it could exceed that on occasion. It depends on a lot of things---temperature of the system, how it's working, the state of the culture. You have sulphur and limestone and the quantity of those, the ratio of those. MR. SHEA: Generally if the system is in tuned it will remove only about lhirty percent--twenty-five to thirty percent? MR. PENNY: That's the figure we hear. MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the analysis in the DEIS about the uses of chemicals at the site? MR. PENNY: There is very little analysis. What they do says is because of the use, ? use, there will be less--fewer chemicals. I find that hard to believe and there are other uses that would ? your chemicals of this use. MR. SHEA: Does it provide an accurate estimate of the boat use the use of boat maintenance? MR. PENNY: They don't have any figures on how--to what degree the boats are being maintained. They'll have to be washed down--- MR. SHEA: There's nothing in the Addendum or the DEIS on that? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about restaurant cleaners? Page 10 - Southport O MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about pest control agents? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about treatment chemicals for the dwelling units? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: What about pool chemicals and turf management chemicals? MR. PENNY: Nothing. It does say that limit turf so that there will be Iow use of fertilizers. MR. SHEA: How would these, according to your review of the project, how would these chemicals be disposed of? MR. PENNY: Well, any chemicals that either go underground in that area, or are on top of the ground, are going to find their way--because the water table, the way it flows, are going to find their way into the neighboring surface waters, and they're not going to be degraded on the.way, because things don't get degraded-- I mean they do slightly, but there's very little bacterial activity underneath the soil. MR. SHEA: So they'll either be effluent or run off. MR. PENNY: Yes. MR. SHEA: What would be the impact of that run off or effluent of those chemicals that we just discussed? MR. PENNY: It will tend to degrade the qualify of the surface waters--of the cove and of the nearby inshore Bay waters. MR. SHEA: Did you review the DEIS analysis or representations concerning the drainage and run-off at the site? MR. PENNY: Well, the DEIS and Addendum continually refers to a zero storm water management plan, but we really don't have any idea how that works, and I have some very strong reservations about the plan here, not knowing how it works, but I know that--- MR. SHEA: Was the plan disclosed? MR. PENNY: Not really. It was mentioned as a concept on several pages. MR. SHEA: So it was mentioned as a concept, but the specifics of the plan were never disclosed ? MR. PENNY: Right. MR. SHEA: So, going back to what you said before, it's your conclusion that all of these--all of this run-off and effluent will end up in the surface waters eventually ? MR. PENNY: Eventually it will end up in the surface waters. Some of it will evaporate. Page 11 - Southport MR. SHEA: Can you do an environmental review, as is required in a Draft ElS, or the Addendum, without the drainage plan? MR. PENNY: Well, I would say these three intense uses on this site, and the elevation of the site with respect to floodplain, with respect groundwater, water table, with respect to its proximity to wetlands behind it on one side and the cove and Bay waters on the other side, I would say that the drainage plan is absolutely crucial to mitigation. I'm not so sure that you could actually design a drainage plan that would mitigate all three uses to the degree that they should be mitigated, however, MR. SHEA: But it is feasible then without it to do a proper environmental review? MR. PENNY: I most certainly would say that you'd have to have something about how that plan is workincj, yes. Fairly you know, a few pages and some good engineering. MR. SHEA: What would be the impact on the surface waters of the run-off that we've been discussing? And I'd ask you to address the ? coliform 7, mosquito control chemicals, etc. MR. PENNY: Something that hasn't been mentioned here, but when you do bring up- when you have 82 units and then others on boats and restaurant and so forth, and there's got to be mosquitos in those wetlands back there. You're going to have to--there's going to be a hue and cry for accelerated mosquito control. It's like now, the County is using BTI, but they do use some hard pesticides, nybalm(?) and so forth, loggers, and they would like to use abate(?) again, and abate is ? to shellfish and so forth, but anyway in terms of an exterminator can come in with the proper license and spray the place, but I don't know of any place like this that doesn't get sprayed routinely, especially during the summer when pests are such a problem. There has always been carpenter ants and termites and a whole bunch of control. So all these things are going--again I repeat it--I'm going to repeat it again--all of them are going to end up in the water at one time. You know, like the chloridane has. MR. SHEA: And again, what's the impact of that ending up in the water? MR. PENNY: The impact is the loss of reproductivity of the shellfish. Loss of the water quality for certain fishes. The fish just wouldn't reproduce in the area and so forth. Certain plankton are susceptible to these chemicals. J~Lst a general degradation of the water qualify for all the highest uses. MR. SHEA: All right, shifting gears now, what's your assessment, as an environ mental planner, of the impact what's your assessment, as an environmental planner, of the access to the site? MR. PENNY: Well, I don't necessarily agree with the traffic study, because it says there's not going to be any traffic impact. I think there certainly is a traffic impact. It's talking about a restaurant, 82 units, 20 employees coming back and forth, day trips and so forth, and whereas I haven't done any traffic analysis on my own, because I'm nol really a traffic analyst, but an environmental planner would consider that. First of all, the expansion of the road that would be required here is certainly going to have some kind of impact on those wetlands behind that area, because to accommodate the kind of traffic that we're going to be looking at here, we certainly need a road that is safe in terms of the traffic coming in and out and also for heavy vehicles, you know, garbage trucks and other surface vehicles. Page 12 - Southport MR. SHEA: So the sixteen foot right of-way is insufficient? MR. PENNY: I don't think the fifteen foot will meet Southold Codes. I'm not an expert on Southold Codes. There is a subdivision which is around -there's a sketch plan for a subdivision in the immediate area and I think that the road would have to be brought up to the specs of the subdivision. MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the sufficiency of the water supply for the site? MR. PENNY: For the sufficiency of the water supply? MR. SHEA: Yes. MR. PENNY: Well, I - MR. SHEA: I refer you to the Greenport MR. PENNY: Right. MR. SHEA: supply. MR. PENNY: Well, I've read all that about the Greenport Water District having all that water and so forth, but I will have to remind the Board that I have a report in my briefcase, it's the Suffolk County Groundwater Resources Draft Management Plan or the Management Plan Draft of it, and it walks about Southold public water supply and Southold has eight wells that are poor. Two that are marginal. I think one that is good, and four that are what they call ambient, which is the best quality. So it has the worst public water well record of any Town in Suffolk County, and that is not only to do with nitrates, but nitrates is a problem. It has the second highest nitrate problem in Suffolk County, behind Huntington. It also has aldicarb problems, proper ? problems, and so forth. It has a bunch of problems. I'm not their water planner, but I would say it's not necessarily good water planning to just look the other way and say, yes, we have enough there. We have enough volume perchance, but I'm not so sure that we have the proper water quality. MR. SHEA: Would you address the alternative section of the DEIS? MR. PENNY: Just address it for the Board? Well, I know the alternatives lack-- first of all the whole thrust of this thing is to get away from commercial use here, but there are commercial uses that could be -I'm not so sure in terms of tt]eir profit making ability- but there are commercial uses that are necessary polluting, and I think it was a little bit of a sham to say that all commercial uses are polluting. I think that given a good high quality marina in itself was not really explored in detail in terms of its feasibility financially. Okay, but that would be thal alternative has been looked at by p<~ple who have looked at it superficially. MR. SHEA: Is it possiblle that such an alternative would be less destructive to the site? MR. PENNY: There are several alternatives that would be less destructive for the site, yes. And I think a good high-quality marina would be absent these two other high intense uses associated with it. Page 13 - Southport MR. SHEA: Did the DEIS or Addendum present adequate economic data to support the conclusions reached by the drafters? MR. PENNY: Well, I will say that they used, I think, a Napa Valley study - multiplier study, which I find to be a little bit out of place here, whereas there are local studies. There are Suffolk County Planning studies, Long Island Regional Planning Board studies. You have a situation here where it's hard to translate from Napa Valley, which is a wine growing area, to a marina area where almost all of the services are going to be provided right there, and it's hard to take that multiplier from California and apply it to this situation here. This very local situation. Very different kinds of economic parameters. MR. SHEA: The Draft ElS and Addendum address--talk about the dredging that's proposed for the project. What would be the impacts of the dredging as proposed? MR. PENNY: Dredging can be beneficial and it can be deleterious. One ef the things I was thinking about is the bottom. We have a lot of clay out there. Now if we dredge the silt, or the silt from the sand, the few things that the shellfish are living in it releases clay, well, obviously we're taking away good shellfish habitat, because clay is not good shellfish habitat in itself. You have to have some kind of loose sediments on top of it to make a good habitat. On the other hand, by dredging you increase flushing, which helps to decrease water quality problems to a certain degree. Dredging has to be done carefully. One of the problems here too is not only that you might remove the best part of the benthic habitat, because when you dredge out you know, dredge sand out over sand you still have sand underneath to repopulate. Okay? Well, sometimes you dredge muds away which are noxious and you still have good substrates underneath to be repopulated again. Here we've got this spoil we don't really know that much about it. We see some bottom crabs. It's very questionable that we can use this spoil upland for all the things that they think you can use it for. For wetland plantings, because it doesn't seem to have the proper quality as far as I can see. Also it's loaded with metals, and it would just run off again if you put the stuff upland the metals would leach out and go right back up in the basin, and so forth. I don't think it's appropriate for that spoil for that site to do all the things they want to do with it. MR. SHEA: Based on your review of the DEIS and Addendum please tell the Board what your opinion is about the scope of the project. MR. PENNY: I think I said this before. I think it's too ambitious for the size of the upland parcel, keeping in mind it's surrounded by wetlands and surface waters, and the limited access. MR. SHEA: And based ,on your review of the Addendum and Draft ElS, what is your view of the information provided for the adequacy of the information provided in those two documents. MR. PENNY: I would like to see more information obviously. We don't have enough information on the sediment that would be dredged. There's displacement. We don't have the zero s, tormwater management plan. We don't know how the groundwater is flowing underneath, because we don't have any test wells. We do see some questionable we see two corings there that shows the water table about seven feet higher than one and another, and they're only a hundred feet apart. Something's going on there. If we're going to put a denitrification plant in here we want to we really have to know what we're doing. We have to have good substrates, you know. Those kinds of things are missing. WouJd like to see Page 14 - Southport e what the coliforms look like in the- later- on in the season when we have some more active use, and I would like to see a better shellfish analysis. MR. SHEA: Last, turning your attention to there is a section in the Draft ElS, and a section in the Addendum which compares -where it was set forth purported benefits as well as impacts of various aspects of the project. If you could first turn to the Addnedum, to the sheets from the Addendum, and those sheets are page 54 to 55, 56, and focus in on the key impacts the purported beneficial impacts, and explain your disagreement or agreement with those particular beneficial impacts. MR. PENNY: Well, first then the soil. I'm not so sure they don't talk about removing the benthic soil which I find to be very important. MR. SHEA: If you could address your comments to the Board. MR. PENNY: Yes, excuse me. So I would say there is an adverse impact. They say none, but I would say removing the benthic soil might be an adverse impact here. Topography creating an aesthetically pleasing land forms--I'm not so sure you're going to be- you have to build up that site and so I'm not so sure how you're going to create an aesthetically pleasing land form on that site. Granted right now it's disturbed and something could be done with it to make it more aesthetic, but I'm not so sure that this is going to make it any more aesthetic from what I've seen thus far'. The groundwater--beneficial impact they say is upgrading of existing sanitary system. I think they're talking about ..... MR. SHEA: Moving back for a second. There's a statement about a ;:ero run-off storm water management system. That's on page 54. MR. PENNY: Oh, right, we talked about that. It could be a beneficial aspect if we could do it here. I'm not so sure we could do it, personally, because of the high water table, the substrates. The limited amount of land and the fact that we are so close to surface waters and wetlands on both sides. MR. SHEA: Is there any basis in either of the documents you reviewed for that conclusion ? MR. PENNY: No. Not at all. MR. SHEA: Moving on Io the upgrading of existing sanitary MR. PENNY: It says the groundwater will have a beneficial impact upgrading the existing sanitary system, and I think what we're doing here is we're see a sub stitution of a system that's going to handle 15,000 gallons per day--a day not a substitution for a system, that's designed to handle four or five hundred gallons per day. That is not a quid pro quo trade-off. I don't see that's a beneficial impact. We're talking about upgrading the existing sanitary system that would be a beneficial impact obviously. Okay? Surface waters -they talk about planting vegetation to capture the gasoline leaks and other leaks of other petroleum products. I happen to just come back from Oil Spill School in Galveston, Texas A & M and believe me, that gasoline runs right through that vegetation. Vegetation does not capture gasoline and other ? I don't think that would work. You might stabilize the land. That would be nice. MR. SHEA: How about 'vegetation. Installation of buffer areas? Page 15 - Southport MR. PENNY: Well, that certainly would help in terms of erosion. Stabilization of areas, but I'm reluctant to sacrifice 7,000 feet of high marsh and intertidal marsh to produce more marsh. I think it's going to be very difficult to produce here because of the steep sidingness of the areas, and it's not an area that easily lends itself to marsh production and I would like to save the existing marsh firstly, and maybe add to it. MR. SHEA: And then under wildlife there is a purported beneficial impact of increased diversity. MR. PENNY: Again I think I talked about that earlier. How we could increase the diversity, increase the quality of wildlife habitat here by doing what we're doing. MR. SHEA: Moving to the Draft ElS, pages 28 through--28 and 29, could you address some of the beneficial impacts on those pages? MR. PENNY: Some of these are the same. I think it's interesting to--28 here where it talks about wildlife again, increased diversity by improving habitat. I don't think we're going necessarily increase diversity and are limited in what kind of habitat we can add here, because the use--the coverage of that site is such that it limits us greatly. The temporary loss of 7,000 square fee of high marsh IM is not going to be compensated for by planting along the edge buffer dune vegetation and so forth. All of those there I don't see any benefit in the whole area. Removal of undesirable species. I'm not so sure what they mean there. Maybe the phragmities, but phragmities can be desirable and does serve a lot of purpose in erosion control and so forth and filtration and so forth. Poison Ivy, maybe. I don't know. I just see that all these benefits are not carefully thought out and a lot of them are very ~ MR. SHEA: All right, thank you, Mr. Penny. Members of the Board, you already have received Mr. Penny's curriculum vitae. I believe that was submitted with his original submission. It eutlines his many years of work in this area. The original Draft ElS had some serious problems and they were to be corrected in the Addendum. I think after you review our written comments submitted by my partner Christopher Kelley, who could not be here tonight, Frederick Reuter, a land use planner, and the written comments as well of Mr. Penny, you'll see that the Addendum (lid not rectify the problems that were found by not only our experts but the many other people who--several other people, including the Szepatowski group -the problems that were in the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We believe the Draft is still inadequate, but more important it's pretty clear that this project is going to have some very serious impacts and before the Board goes any further with this, significant new information has to be developed along the lines that Mr. Penny layed out tonight. I thank you for your patience. I know this is fairly tedious material for you to have to--for you to sit through. I appreciate your patience and your time. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak on this matter? Ruth? RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: We'd just like to support every- thing that has been written or stated tonight in opposition to the Addendum and to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. One just point of information, we have the same problem here as we had this afternoon with the water filters, in that you give certain specifications to the Board of Health for say the water filter, or in this case tile denitrification system, and the Board of Health will approve it, Page 16 Southport e but there is not one shred of date on Long Island as to the reliability of this system, except in the experimental project. Just keep that in mind. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else like to make a comment to the Board? INGEBORG FLYNN, Soutlhold: I'm a realtor and appraiser for the past seventeen years. I have passed the--successfully the courses of the SRA in residential appraisal and income appraisal, and I'm a member at the moment of the Eastern Board of Realtors. I was a member of the Long Island Board of Realtors, and ? for Suffolk County, and a member of many committees. I'm a director for the State of New York, including land use and fair housing and their legislative committee. I also have studied these aspects and I would like to talk to the application of--one aspect of the application which has been largely overlooked and I refer to the economic factors involved in the applicant's attempt to interpret them as justification for a change of zoning. I don't have to point out the functions of the Board and we have heard in that point of testimony from Mr. Penny here, and I can go over this, but I would like to say that in contradiction of all these policies from the Town and of course the Town policies in protecting the wetlands I think that the application for the subject property, with an 82 unit motel and 138 slip marina and 125 seat restaurant, a bar and accessory uses, including tennis court and pool, I think this application must be viewed in the light of a spot zoning, since the property alone in accordance with the surrounding properties would yield three residential ? There's a population density of about 12 people, rather than hundreds who would be expected to occupy this particular piece of property in peak time. It's a part of the outrageous attempt to the intensified use of the property to a degree that it destroys, of course, the values of the surrounding wetlands and residential property. The applicant claims on page 65 of the Addendum, the economic and feasibility of a marina alone. In my opinion as an appraiser, the applicant uses ? a land residual approach, displays either a complete ignorance of appraiser techniques in general, or the economics of a marina operation, particularly, or it presents an attempt to mislead all of us to the true value of the subject property as currently improved. The land residual technique used is really a quite simple and easily understood ? theory. A projection is made of the properties gross income potential, estimated operating expenses are deducted, and the net income remaining when properly capitalized represents the estimated value of the property. The applicant opted to input $103,000 for debt service, leaving a net of $40,000. He then advances the Norvell appraisal theory that the $40,000 represents a return of five percent on debt. Well, the $40,000 net actually rep- resents a return to equity in the land. If he then capitalizes the figure at 4.5%, the indicated land value is $320,000. This can be hardly considered confiscatory, even using the applicant's figures, because he used the 12½% interest rate. Now let us attempt to shed a little bit light on this subject of the economics of the marina operation. The applicant has disregarded many sources of potential income and has, in my opinion, grossly overestimated the cost of a marina upgrading. 1 think you have the report on hand. It is important that he predicates income upon dry storage in that report, of 75 boats. Now let us resolve the question of the high and dry storage. What does he mean? Is that winter storage? It really doesn't explain it in this. Or is this an additional storage for 75 boats? If that is the case, then he really is expanding the marina operation, which he said he wouldn't do, to about 213 boats, because if he wants to enlarge the marina to 138 slips, and now uses the high and dry storage of additional 75 boats, means 213 boats. That is two and a half times the current capacity of the boat marina as of yet. The applicant has stated on page 9 of this DEIS that the existing marina uses and encompasses a majority of upland. Obviously an expansion of marina capacity necessitates the use of additional upland, and areas despite claims to the contrary the areas of the setback from the water lines, Page 17 Southport mandated by the DEC, p]lus the required sideyards and setbacks, plus the 2.1 acres occupied by the tennis courts and pool, pursuant to a ? , combines the require area for marine operation, leave no upland area at all for motel and restaurant use. The applicant professes the intent to operate a marina which will reflect the state of industry standards. The applicant apparently doesn't know that to operate the proper marina, current industry standards call for a full service marina. Thi~ ? the case in which the owner of larger boats, which he is intending to put in 37 foot an average, the owners of these boats just leave the keys in the fall time and expect their boat ready in the spring in the water fully serviced. Morever, the marina space is in short supply, as maintained by the applicant. Marina operators insist, and on their contracts, including winter storage and the right to provide all repairs and services. It is these latter items that make marinas profitable and they are singularly ignored in the applicant's projection. This appraiser believes that the present use is a profitable one of income ,and expense or estimated--if income and expense are estimated realistically. Slip rental should be predicated upon an annual rate, including winter storage. Essential services include winterization of engines, water systems, air condil:ioners, hull painting and boat covering. A properly operated and staffed marina catering to boats in the luxury range, must also provide repairs, facilities for engines, hulls, as well as ? maintained, re model and upgrade vessels, install service, electronics, provide marine supplies, fuel, ? , brokerage and new boat sales are additional sources of revenues not mentioned in the report. Also not noted that no projection of income has been made by the applicant for the pool and the tennis club, complete with the four courts. It should also be noted that in the Southold area many boat owners have private docking facilities that require facilities for winter storage in the winter time for their boats with ? maintenance. This is another other source of revenues which no projection has been made for that. Even allowing for reason- able operating expense and maintenance, it appeared -it is apparent that the value of the subject property as presently improved is far closer to the owner's asking price at that time when it was for sale of one and a half million dollars, then it is to the Land Use Company's opinion that the property is virtually valueless as currently operated, or as a negative value as is stated in their report. In closing I would like to make a general statement. It is my opinion that it is the duty of the Town to employ police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents. It should be concerned with water quality, avoidance of pollutions, and uses which place an extraordinary demand on fire, police and emergency services should be banned in general. It should be recognized that the Town is primarily residential in character, and that marine recreational use is incidental to the use. If these words, gentlemen, sound familiar to you, these are taken newly from your newly promulgated floating home ordinance, and as employed herein applies equally I think to marinas. The applicant's Addendum at page 59 states that .~ pumping station will only reduce illegal dumping by vessels now using the basin. Well, an increase of slips most certainly will increase the pollution again. And I wc, nder if anybody here has considered the potential for firey catastrophy in having a large number of boats filled with fuel in close proximity to a motel, with only a limited means of access for fire, police and evacuation. What chance of a resc,ue for people? And all of the above if all of the above may well be academic, in that that the property's access is so inadecluate even if it would be possible to improve the access would be at an expense of the wetland, the freshwater wetlands and the salt water wetlands. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? Sir. Page 18 - Southport CHARLES BOWMAN, President, Land Use Company: I know it's getting kind of late and I certainly don't want to take too much more time, but I would like to just point out a couple of facts--or at least respond to a few of the comments that were made tonight. The staff of our company has spent a lot of time on this project and we've made over twenty visits, and put in probably over fifty man-hours on the site. I notice that Mr. Penny has been there twice. We have done a shellfish survey. Mr. Penny has not done a shellfish survey. He stood on the banks and he Ioo]ked out. We have provided traffic information. Again, Mr. Penny and his associates have stood in the road and looked there and made their opinions based on what they saw. Shellfish do not migrate, as do some waterfowl that we apparently missed, and I think that's pretty common. You go there at different times of the year and you're going to see different species coming through the area. The shellfish survey that we did do covered the area and it was done with acceptable practices and we did not find any. Nor did we find and shells, which would indicate that there were no standing crops of shell fish in recent history. This is a fact. We have information to prove it. I don't think that Mr. Penny willl say that he went out there and did his own shellfish survey to refute that. I think that's important as far as our interpretation of the shellfish resources on the site. Another point I'd like to bring out is that it was mentioned that the core samples that we took of the sediments were grab samples. That is not the case and it says in the Addendum and the sample information that was provided that they were core samples. We did have the analysis made. All that is of record. A statement was made that the DEIS said that we were going to increase the availability of shellfish. I think that was a misinterpretation. We certainly didn't say that because of the marina we were going to get more shellfish. In fact, I think that what we did say is because there was more people in the marina the demands on the shellfish resource, if there were any, would increase because more people want to go out and pick mussels and clams and oysters. Coliform counts that was pointed out that there were some high coliform counts. That was in January. Those tests were conducted by the DEC. It's interesting to note that the highest ones came from roacf run off during peak rain time, and in fact one of the worst places in that whole basin is by Mr. Flynn's house where the road dead ends there. I think it also should be noted that a lot of the opposition to this comes from canal by Mr. Flynn's house. That canal was a subject of maintenance dredging permits in the past. In fact our company secured those permits, and at that time the residents in that area wanted that canal as deep as possible and they wanted to remove the wetlands that were in there. We, of course, told them that that couldn't be done and we had to just maintenance dredge. All these things contribute to what is out there in the cove and I think we have provided a large amount of data on actually what is there. A large amount of time has been spent. Let's see. The wildlife I think if we went out there every year, or every month during the year we'd count a lot more species. Obviously that's not practical at this point in time. I think the other main point is that this is an intensive use already. The site has been disturbed. There is a swimming pool on the site already. There are tennis courts on the site. There are marine--there are boats, there are vessels there. There's no pump out station. We are upgrading an existing facility. That point seems to be missing through a lot of this discussion. We're not putting in a new marina. There is one there already and I think that's very important, because the impacts on that cove are there, and the impacts go back historically. When we did our bottom sampling---our shellfish sampling, the bottom is covered with bricks from the brick factory--concrete rubble. All sorts of things, you know? But it is not a pristine area by any stretch of the imagination and I think that the level of use, while some- there will be more boats there, there will be more human activity, also the mitigaHon factors that we built into the plan also will be upgraded to make up for ? The last comment I have as far as the potential uses that Page 19- Southport we said were not compatible, I think we were talking about industrial uses, and I believe that's in the impact statment also. If there's any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them for the Board. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the Board? John? JOHN COSTELLO, Greenport: I'm in the marine contracting business locally for the past twenty-five years. I'd like to just address a few comments on this project. I'm not hired by anyone to be here- Land Use, or Southport, or anyone else. I'd like to offer some of my opinions. I personally believe this is one area that can be developed over many, many areas in the Town. These needs are going to increase in Southold Town. People are going to want more boats. The motels we know we need. This is basically clay. We all know the history of that boat- yard. It was a clay pit. Some of the fuel oil spills. This stuff is not going to-- fuel oil doesn't permeate clay as it does sand or groundwater. The effluent. The denitrification and what isn't handled by the denitrification system is again not going to penetrate the clay and bother the groundwater down gradient of this property. It's one of the better pieces of property in Southold to develop as a marina. We all know that our standards over the past few years -or past ten-- constantly increase environmentally. We're all concerned with it. I am. I'm sure everyone here is. This is one area that has an existing boat yard in it and I know the site, it can be improved considerably. With the road run-off- road run- off is a problem everywhere in Southold and I'm sure it's going to be addressed. Sewage. What they have there now is not as good as a denitrification system. The Health Department is going to handle basically that part of it. I also think that dredging that parcel- that is a small area of water, small area of flow. It will increase the productivity in that area. The flow in that area, without the bulkhead lng- and I don't see where anyone's advocating any bulkheading with the natural shore line accelerate tl':e flow of water and if the entrance is dredged and there's more circulation in there it will increase it. I don't know what the depth they anticipate putting in there, but a six foot depth--and I'm sure Mi-. Penny will verify it--a six foot depth is most productive for fish habitats. Anything over six foot loses some of that habitat ability to reproduce with small fish. The coliforms I guess we've heard of the road run off, we've heard of the human beings and sounds like a few people are advocating giving this back to the indians. I'd like that too, but we all know it's not going to happen. The coliform --they've had some problems in East Hampton Town, not that we have plenty of them here. They exist where there's no people. They have a couple ponds where there's no development around and there's coliforms. I'm sure Southold and every other Town around is concerned about it and with the coliform count in this creek now I'd think you'd be screaming to open up and dredge the entrance, get some more circulation in there. I'm not so sure I'd eat the clams in there with the coliform what it is. I think it's one of the better parcels in Southold. I know it's one of the more expensive to develop as a marina, but it's one of the better parcels and it's going to cause less pollution than many, many areas in Southold. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Anyone else like to address the Town Board ? HOWARD ZEHNER: I'm the owner of Young's Boat Yard and Marina. Jus! two comments really. The boat yard and marina occupies approximately 3.7 acres of a 15 acre basin, so that represents a rather small portion. It comes out to about 24 percent of the basin. By all means it doesn't take up the majority of the basin as some people have led to believe. The present docks, for economic reasons, were Page 20 Southport built on clay bars that e,'(isted before the basin flooded in the 20's and the water came up over these bars and they're quite shallow and the fixed docks were built out along these clay bars and the floating docks were off to the sides. Hence the marina is layed out very inefficiently. They have large spaces between boats. The docks were dictated by the clay bars, where we didn't have to drive very deep pilings. In fact, Fred Young built these docks by hand. He drove lhe spiles down with a sledge hammer on these fixed bars. But my point is that the marina lends itself to expansion. There's enormous spaces between docks, and reasonable expansion within this small area--this relatively small area of the basin, I feel will not cause any environmental damage. I would also like to say that I've spoken to quite a few of the property owners- not all of them -but property owners around the basin, and many were contacted by Mr. Flynn to support his opposition to the Southport DEIS. The property owners that I spoke to all refused to oppose the DEIS, except, to my knowledge, Mr. Weisman. The boat yard and marina is owned by myself, and Fred Young previously from 1950 to 1970, and the Sage Estate prior to that, created the marina, owns the inlet, maintains the inlet, owns khas a big land grant for this jetty, maintains the jetty with steel bulkheading, therefore, the marina really exists--the basin, rather, exists and is maintained by the present and previous owners. We do only have a minority interest through. We only own 3.7 acres--3.7 some odd acres of the 15 acre basin, yet we do, from all the property owners, maintain the inlet presently and have spent considerable money for the jetty and previous owners have, as I said, created the basin. Most of the property owners do appreciate thi.,~ situation, hence we've had limited opposition to this project, except as I before mentioned. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Howard. Anyone else like to address the Town Board ? HENRY WEISMAN: Yes, Mr. Supervisor. My name is Henry Weisman, and I live on the cove opposite Young's Marina, and I just wanted to comment on Mr. Bowman's remarks that there are no shellfish in this water. There are baymen in the cove regularly and they apparently earn their livelihood from that cove. We can observe them removing, per man, anywhere from two to three bushels of clams on tide. So I can't possibly understand how they were unable to discover or locate any clams in the cove, but I do recall Mr. Bowman being there on a weekend in January with his little boat,and he apparently spent his time principally in the immediate vicinity of the marina, but did not seem to travel around the cove. Anyone of you are perfectly welcome to come down to my property, walk along the beach and pick up whatever oysters you'd like, and I'm sure you'll find a few dozen of them in a matter of a very short time. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board? MR. SHEA: I'd like to address the Board briefly again. I was just provided with a document that I hope is on file with the Town Board. It's a letter dated April 1, 1986 from the State of New York, Department of State, by Larry Enoch, Environ- mental Analyst, in which he he contends that he was essentially misquoted by the applicant in the Addendum in the dredge spoil analysis for the Southport Development. Is that letter on file? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes. MR. SHEA: You do. All right. One other thing. This hearing is not designed by law to record a show of hands concerning the project. If one person -one Page 21 - Southport citizen comes forward to address the DEIS, those comments have to be considered. The job of the applicant here was to prepare a legally adequate Draft Environmental Impact Statement that meets the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We contend that that job's not been done. The Board should not be concerned with whether one neighbor showed up, two neighbors, or a thousand neighbors. The point is has the law been--has the legal standard been met? We contend it hasn't. We contend that one visit in the middle of the winter to check the shellfish at a time when Mr. Penny says is the worst time of the year to do so, is not an adequate data base for the analysis in this ElS. We contend that you should have been provid~ we should have been provided--with the drainage plan so we could really assess the environmental impacts with respect to drainage. This cove is used by baymen. Mr. Penny has confirmed that. I don't think that that has been properly addressed by the applicant. There is lastly no comparison between the existing use. It is disturbed. We acknowledge that the site is disturbed. But there's no comparison between the existing use and the project as proposecl. This is- let's be frank and candid--this is a significant expansion of the use of the site. Eighty two motel units and an expanded marina and a restaurant is a substantial expansion of the use. By comparison the existing use is minimal. One last point. One of the gentlemen who addressed the Board previously--I think this is the point with respect to the impact of the contaminants described by Mr. Penny in ~his area. One of the impacts--we're not concerned, necessarily, abouit these contaminants getting into the cove and the permeating the bottom of the cove and getting into groundwater. We're talking about the impacts of these contaminants- these pollutants, on the water in the cove and on the benthic life in the cove- the cove's bottom. I think that gentleman misunderstood the point and I wanted to make sure that the Board was clear on that. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. MR. BOWMAN: One very brief comment, because Mr. Shea did bring up Mr. Enoch's letter. I believe--I spoke to Mr. Enoch today and I believe he called Mrs. Terry-- TOWN CLERK TERRY: He did. It's in the file. MR. BOWMAN: -because that letter was written in error. He made a mistake in interpreting the data, and we wanted to clarify that. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEI3ARE: We have a memo in the file. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Everyone was given a copy of the memo. MR. BOWMAN: Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, anyone else? Yes. MS. GORDON: At this close of this public hearing today of the SEQR proceeding, we would first like to thank the Board for the time and energy expended in this effort. Three hearings over a period of two months. And thank the Town generally for its assistance. Unfortunately it's my responsibility to say that there has been an exception to the generally professional manner in which the Town has conducted itself, and we find it's necessary to take exception to the tone of the comments put forward by the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council. We our client will, of course, respond to its comments, but I don't think that we can condone by silence Page 22 Southport O the rather abusive nature of the comments, to which our client was subjected. As to the comments you've heard tonight by Mr. Penny and Mr. Bowman, I'm not going to try to address the points specifically. They're contained in the reports that you have and will review with your environmental consultant. I would point out generally that many of the comments were directed at site specific. That is chemicals to be used, where the denitrification system is to be located, and the particulars of the design. As you know, what our client has applied for here is a change of zone, which anticipates the change in the use proposed by this site by the recently completed Town Master Plan, a result of fairly comprehensive studies conducted by the Town's plannin9 consultant. And again we point out that some of the public comments would put the cart before the house. Southport has requested a change of zone. SEQR recommends a generic environmental impact statement be completed in such cases. Southport has gone well beyond the generic impact statement and has, in fact, given you information more specific than is even necessary for the zoning change. Our client does appreciate the comments of the governmental agencies a~,d the interested general public which have helped make this analysis more complete and have given it a high standard of environmental review. Southport will of course respond to the additional comments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement so that this Board, with it's environmental consultant, can make the balancing analysis necessary--that balance between social and economic goals and environmental concerns. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board? (No response.) If not, we'll close this hearing. Hearing adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Southold Town Clerk THOMAS A TWOMEY JR STEPHEN E~ LATHAM JOHN F ShEA. Ill CHRISTOPHER D kElleY amy b TURNER APR ! 6 1986 LAWRENCE M STORM. MAUREEN T LICCION E ~pl~ ~llll~ (~ll~ll~ 'ALSO A~)MITTED IN CONNECTICUT TV¢(~MEY, [~.VL'II.XM, SIIE.\& ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P O BOX 398 April ll, 1986 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. N Y 11937 516 324-1200 Southold Town Board Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Southport 'Development Corp. Deaf Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board It has come to my attention that some confusion has been created regarding the applicability of the remarks of Larry Enoch, Environmental Analyst of the New York State Department of State regarding the above project. A copy of his comments on the dredge spoil analysis for Southport Development is annexed. In speaking with Mr. Enoch this day, he confirmed that all of his comments in that letter are still pertinent with only one exception. His only change is his withdrawal of the statement in No. 4 of his letter that the test methods used by the applicant were not sensitive enough to measure such small values. He confirmed to me that in all other respects, his lette~ still stands as va[id. In addition, although I was not present, I am advised that applicant's attorney argued again at the hearing on the .Addendum that a project specific EIS is not necessary and that a more general oF geneuic can be utilized since this application involves a zone change. This argument is totally fallacious given the [act that from the very initiation of the zone change application, the applicant has had a very specific project in mind. The position advocated by the applicant would result in this Board acting illegally contravention of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. I, therefore, reiterate my arguments as set forth in my letteu to the Board dated February 21, 1986, a copy of which is annexed. To wit: pale 2, 3:],:7. sel states that S.>¢th?ort has anticipates the chasDe in rise proDose~ for this the p.:c=n:l7 conDteheJ tsw~. m~ster p!:n". He the E'E~ process i: e![m[n:te~. T%i5 2r~sente.J as :he H:mle: '4ee~ing wo,ili h:';e tile prop::s,.~ S.3uthpo~t silo de~!.}~atel f'3[ marine D~siness use. use ~,/es not ilC!lJe motels or hotels as either a permitbed use or a special exsept[on use. This pointei out. b'Z the Tow:l'5 plannLag consultant in comments on the DEIS. The request fDu a change to the zone of general multiple resLdeece in the cuureqb ce!e wout,t per,it boats, hotels ~n! motels with special exceplion, but ws]ld not peri, it rests:]rants. Thus, the proposal aeihler con~o~s to the reluirements of a zone There are many situations where a speciEic project and rezoning issue are so tightly interwoven that is is impractical to treat the generic land use oriented concerns separately. Then it is useful to consider the rezoning as thou,~h it is one of the approvals necessary for the project. I! ,-)xt~.~ i.s n:: :anil/ac ,.¢it'n p~cticzla: e~s: en2 z)nln;, Dla.nnlng anJ en~ir)r, mental iss'ies, he mil'in review ',Ir. Redter's ~s,z:~e attached to ~oth his c:)~men~s ~:,r: the DEiS an.: hi~ c'3mnen~s oF the pr:posed [n.a3ter plan, !f he did h~ · ~:tzl~ fin2 that :Ir. Reuce planni.nI ke~zes 3n Long ls/~ni for thtrt'/-s[:( yearz an2 DEPAFRTM[LNTOF SLATE April 1, 1986 bls. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O. Box 728 Southold, New Yerk 11971 Re: F-85-455 Southport Develogment Corp.. Town of Southold Dear I. ls. Terry: Mr. Barton asked that I review the document you sulmitted entitled "Dredged Spoil Analysis for Southport DeveloFment". This doct~nent should provide the information necessary to kncw the nature of the proposed dredged material and therefore to make decisions on acceptable disposal options. However, I have found serious shortcomings: On page six I am essentially misquoted. My statement was that I had been unable to locate standards. Stan- dards set by E.P.A. do exist and I have since located them. Upland disposal requires that E.P. toxicity testing be performed, however, which is not the case with this document. The paragraph on the bottcm of page six is incomplete. The full wording is "In the absence of more definitive knowledge on the pollution effects of dredged material or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredged sediments at the disposal sites, the following physi- cal and chemical parameters will be used to determine whether biological testing of sediments will be called for..." Thus, the decision making process may actu- ally' require an additional set of tests. Although the proposed dredged material is prest~ed to be Class I (page 10), I could find no data to back this up. It is necessary to have proper data to ccm- pare to the values in the table on page seven. [,!s. Judith Terry April 1, 1986 Page 2 As stated on page 10, very minute quantities of certain organic chemicals can render dredged [~aterial contaminated; for example, 1 part per million of PCB. However, the test methods used were not sen- sitive enough to measure such small values. Ir the case of' the PCB chemicals (Arochlor 1016-]260) the minim~ that could be measured was 40 pDn. Since there are a total of seven Arochlors, the test materi- al could be extremely contaminated yet not be shcwn as such by the test. Even allowing for differences between wet and dry weights, the situation is similar for DDT and Dieldrin. Testing perfo~ined on proposed dredged ma~erial should be in keeping with the stan- dards to be met. When lpp~ of a chemical may reflect cont~anination the testing must be sensitive enough to show this. In my jud{]ement no decision on the suitability of the subject material for a particular disposal means can be made from this doct~aent. Additional testing and retesting of physi- cal and chemical_ parameters are necessary, If you have any questions you ma]., call me at (516) 474-3642. Sincerely, Larry Enoch Environmental Analyst Coastal Management Program LE:hm cc: C. Hamilton - DEC Region I W. Barton - Coastal [.~anagement Program SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S/Il TO: $outnold Town Board RE: Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development FRO£[: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: April 15, 1[)86 Ue i~ave reviewed tt~e Addendum to the above mentioned DEIS find missing elements in tile raateriai. Principal missing elements are: and Documentation from Fire Department Drainage plans A~dit ~onai borings I,~ater qualiey analysis Our specific comments are as £oilows: Comment 1 and Response '£ne site encompassing Southport Developraent will be redesignated "[iarine-Recreational" on the proposed zoning map per the Southold Planning Eoard. The present cJ]angLe-of-zone request tc General [,~ultip3, e Residence District (with a yet to happen application for a use variance for a restaurant) must be deaJt with in the presen~ SEfB~_pro_ce_ss w/lose outcome wiii guide the Southold Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals in making their aeci$ion. Compliance with a DroposeG Zoning Ordinance does not preclude the possiolity of adverse impacts of a specific proposed project. [fo clarify nhe record, ti-~at is the purpose of the present SEQR review. Comment 3 and f~es~ponse Exhibit E is a satisfactory response. Comment 4 and Response The response does ri,ut eliminate the possibility of "boatyard" operations or ~.~inte[ storage. It is recommended that any out-of-water repairs/maintenance take place totally within an encloseo structure. Positive means to properly dispose of sanded paint, motor, and hydraulic oils should be a part of any approval. Simple £Jzorage can take place out-of-doors within a designaued area that will not encroach upon the parking £equirement~ of on-going uses. Looking at the site plan, however, tL]e only possible location for boat repairs and wint,-~r stok-age is south and east of the p,,otei location. This of course 23 Narra;gansett Ave. Jamestown. RI 02835 14011 423-0430 would De a ~er]:ibic "eye sore" to the clientele that they had a "Day view" from their room. Anot~ler ~rob!em with Lhis locate, on for W~a~er storage and/or boat repairs is that ~his area was designated in original DEiS for a "transition and buffer a£ea" to the so-called "oune estab±ishment and enhancen~ent" prog£al~. CommenL 5 and Response · he actual flow generateo may exceed 15,00[] gpd since the calculations equal 15,000 gpd exactly at the outset. Site p[_an approval should not De granted prior to approval Dy SCDHS of the plans for denitrification. Comment 6 and Respc, nse The response ib sufficient except that no documentation from the Fire Departmen5 having jurisdiction is supplied. This is particularly critic, al since access sufficient to suit the i?ire Department will ultimately Dc required. The needs of the Department should be known now. Comment 7 and Response The response is unsatie, factory. widened to Town specifications. granted until SUCh an agreement appropriate 'fown authorities. Sage Boulevard will have uo be 17o projec5 approvals should be is in place and approved by the Comment 8 and Response Tuc response contradicts the response to Comment 4. In addition it is stated in Comment 4's response that ~he existing travel lift will remaiu. This as the applicant is well aware, from tile spill on DecemOer ].6, 1985, poses as a Ge[inite threat of a i~azardous liquid ieak~ namely hydraulic fluid. So in stating that "the said proposal will eliminate t~e potential hazards currently existing for industrial/commercial pollution csused Dy compounds utilitzed in the current as well as the permitted uses o£ tl~e si~e", i~ absolutely false. One must assume boat repair ma~~ occur. (See Comment ~) in the spring a boat normally requires some sort of maintenance, De it stripping and painting the hull or at least cieanir~g it. [[hat will be done with these wastes and where will it occur? SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIA'IES INC. Con~n~ent 9 an~ Response ~fter reviewing Dr~.~dge Spoil Ana~_ysis for Souni~port oeve£c, pment rune main concern i.~i why %..as the actual lab analysis report not include~ in the re.~)ort. [laving Land Use Co relay Ecs Te:st Laooratories, Inc. results st tile dredge spoil on Land Use Co. stationery is highly unusual. Verification of this infor~ation is in,possible unless a copy of the test analysis report is inc±uded. ~i'i~e method of sampling is not indicaned in any of the reports suon~itted nor is the n~etnod of packing or time period of travel of the samples f£on, the site to t[,e lab for volatile organics this is essential for detection. Another cotangent that was not addressed in response is where will dredge material be si~ipped if unsuitable for upland grading and wetlands creation, it appears this might De tile case since in the co£e sample analysis indicated a 6" - 1 ft. sand layer atop of grey clav. Clay is not suitaole for site grading since surface runoff is a probie~i nor is clay suitable for wetlands creation for obvious reasons. Condiment 10 and Respon_s~ Questions are raised as to the condition of ni~e existing undergound tank. lit should be tested and approved by the SCD[iS prior to site plan approval. Lii~ewise the proposed pumpout syotem shall have been approved prior to site plan approval. Coi~]ment 11 and Resp~onsa Until a full review of drainage is completed, the SEQR questions on ~mpact to groundwater and the Day will ten,sin unanswered. approvals sriould be granted nor should a final deter~ination until the drainage questions are satisfactorily addressed. Comment 12 and Res~on__s_e '±'he amounE of area available for t~e ~,]otel appears to be overstated; number of en~ployees understated; no loading ~paces are s[~own; the side yard dimension is incorrect and several ot~]er site plan details are unfulfilled. ?nese, however, ar-= si~e plan questions and do not in ~hemselv~s represcnt significant environmental question~3. Con~ment 13 and Rest3onse Sauisfactory SZEPATOwSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRON/'~]£N]qL CONSULTANTR S/II Comment 14 and F, esoons~ The location of the bo~-ings are list sufficient to reveal whether su,ssurface conditions can support a parking lot, or more ir,~portantly a motel/restaurant complex. At least five more are needed. See test boring plan for proposer locations. Comment 15 und Resj2onse See Coml~ent 14. Co~ment 16 and Res}ponse Satisfactory Comment 17 and Reslho__nsq In the response it is stated that "it is highly unlikely thac water quality with-lng this area would ever be found 'unsatisfactorf' for shell fishing purposes" oecause of the "high velocity of tidal exchange (firstling) that is found wiunin tile project vicinity." This is quoted from a hearsay telephone conversation with T-ir. James Redrdan, [iarine Resourses Specialist iil ([.;YSDEC). A follow up letter should nave Deer oDtained and 2;~ut in the exhioi~,~ section to verify the subject had been researched thoroughly Dy said specialis~. A look a~ the ~rea ,,,a[~ in DEIS shows the location of property to be west of the two pozets which cause tne~.e "constriction" velocities and increase flushing. Furthermore, the marina property it not on E, outho_Ld Bay, it is on ail ac[joining cove whic~ furt]-~er reduces the fioshing capabilities. ThC more removed from the ~,iain wa£er oooy a ,~a£ina is the slowe~ the flushing capaoility of the cove. Just oecause flushing studies have been done on Souuhold Da5 this ~oes not mean £hey neces~ariiy [}ertain us Sage cove. Comment 15 and Thc applicants iaci~ of concern for toxics existing in Day bottom seuiments is unwarranted. 1'he results £ounG ii1 tile shellfish survey of miniL~al vegetation and v~i].dllfe and bzack silt, many times indicates anoxic (lack or oxygen) conditions being caul;ed by soiree bott si! toxic in the environment. ~[ydrocarOons such as gasoline, will cause this situation to occur. The lead agency si-~ould consider thi~ when the analysis is presented Oecause Jfa marina of Young's present size is stressinc_l the marine environment a marina increased Dy 1/3 tne size could De thau mUCh more detrimental to the environment. The validity of the shellzish survey was questioned when onJ~ 3 hardciams (r~e__r_c._e_~!a_Kia, r:!e~lg_e_n_a__r~a) were found in an area v, he~e on two occasions our staff has t:een Southold Baymen ciarm=~ing in these waters. SZEPATOwSKI ASSOCIATES INC. £NVIrONA4£NIAL (IONSLJL¥A,Nts 8/!1 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVII~ON/~4EN]-\L S/II Commen~ 19 and Response Satisfactory Commen~ 20 and Response ts ~he Zenner permit transferrable to new owners? Are any of the permits shown .in ExhiOits F-1 and F-2 pertinent at all to this project? There is no indication on any plan to this linkage, Was the work under Army Permit ~) 10484 ever accoiaplis~ed? If ilot, there can be no maintenance of a project never completed. Comfaent 23 and Response Due to previous unanswered questions, this entire Section cannot be evaluated with regard to groundwater, surface water, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, ianduse, (NY Coastal Zone compliance) and community services (fire protection) Comment 24 and ResL~onse '£he responses (mitlgatiou measures) are not located on the site plan as to where specifically they are needed and located. Specifically f~l, 2, 4, 6, 7, and Comiaent 25 and Kesponse zero runoff system should oecome a condition of any re2oning. Com~,ent 26 and Response. 2'he location of phragmites removal and new planting is not sho%;n. How will pnragmi~es then be controlled after new plantings are made to prevent re-invasion? [;ow are natural wetland species suc. h as ones listed for revegetation to be transplanted and zrom where. Wetiaud creation is contrave~s:ka± wi~h regards to su¢'.ces£, rates. Has this been researched? Comment 27 and P. esponse See responbe ! 26. Comment 2~ and Response Satisfactory. Comment 29 and Response Incomplete. This dOeb not respond to unavoidaOle adverse C_o mme n t_ _ _3_0_ an_~_ ~esponse SZEPA/OWSKI ASSOCIA[ES INC. ENVIRONMEN1AL CONSLILIANIS S/Il Conclusion &lid i.),ecomraendation ~?e would recou~mend that a final environmental De compiled by the aL)plicant as one document, com]~ents, comments made at tr~e public hearing puoiic co~,m]ent per:Lod. impact s t at:e~ent addressing our and during the Eefore determining whether the ti~al ~]IS is complete to reviaw, I uouid strongly u~:ge the Town Board to allow us to exaralne the document. Ti]is particular project is com£)licated and the documentation to date has not Been sauisfactory. I do not wish Eo see the Town rendering a decision on incomplete informatiol%. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVII'~ONN~£N]AL C£)NSULF\NT% S/II OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Soulhokl, New York 11971 April 8, 1986 To: From: Southold Town Board Members Elizabeth A. Neville, Deputy Town Clerk Received telephone call at 2:53 P.M. from Mr. Larry Enoch, New York State Office of Coastal Managemeat, Albany, New York 518 474-3642 Mr. Enoch said that he recently reviewed the paper on Southport Development and had several criticisms. Several of which are still valid, but one of which is not. The following complaint is no longer valid: His complaint about the sensitivity of' the tests as pertains to PCB and DDT. tie must admit that he misread the scales as parts per million, when they were actually part:; per billion. Therefore, the material is not contaminated, but it Js clean. Mr. Enoch stated that he was asked by his superior to call the Town of Southold and withdraw this particular criticism. Mr. lh~och may be reached by telephone at 518 474-3642 tip ~ntii[ 4:15 P.M. April TO: The member's of the Southold Town Board Re: Dr~t Environmental Impact Statement of Southold Deve]pment :.Iy name is How:~rd Zehner and i ~m the present owner' of' loung's Bo~tyard ,'Y Marina. As a licensed N.Y.S. Professional Engineer I have alw~.vs tried to operBte the Matins in an environmentall.i concerned m~nner. I would like f~rst to ~nswer Mr. Flynnts cver- stated complaint of a m~or oil spill. On December 16th, ~ crscked hydraulic: v~lve on the bo~t lift csused ~ to ]0 of hydraulic oil to ~n%~ th~ ba~!n at t~' lift b~lkhesd. ,~s ~n ~eeid~nt ~nd obviously unintentional. ~n the n~+~ou~'' ~%~ west wind ~;~s holdinK the o~1 ~'8~nst th~ in fhr b~s~n tc contain th~ small .')il slick. !~r'ly th+' follo~in~ mor'nin~ ~t N~s ~ll ~uek,~d ~ut by ~ :'-ssoool company. A enns~rv~t~on with the clean up. i would li.k~ to ~i,;e later in th~ mornin~ was s~tisfi~d a br~~'r bsnkgrrouDd of rh~ b, oaty~rd orop~rty. Th~ br~ek' mskin~ on~r~t~on of D~Witt C!~nton Sa~e b~t~,,~en l~qO and the lq;)q's, located ,~reg~,~ th~ S~e Basin from uDlpnd nroDerty ownrd by Mr. The T,~sln w~s ~lnod~d in the lq2O~s when tho dike broke, bri'~k- ~pd the present b~s~n rF'~tJlted. op~r'r~t*ed ~ boatyard and mar[nm unt. i] 7. d'O :~ wh)¢'n t.]me t~,~ ~ru,Y)~Yty. The o~n,~rs al' ~h]2 pr'oo~rty crab, ted ~b~ ,'~x~:~t'n~ ~nd m~int~nqnce dred~in~ to ~eap the ~nl~+; oF~ ~ve j~tty. Y,~t the Youn~'s Do~tymrd and n~'~ sol,']y r~,srw:,ns~h]~' 'or the exi~ton('~ o~ th~ ,ntir~ [;~=~, ~ssin. ~, ~ntly othrr ~rop~'ty own,~rs b~n~.eit ~ow and h~v~ b~n~,f:~t,:.d f ~,-;m Y:~un~s m~nor[ty hr:ldin~ .]nd m~intenmn,*e. b~r~ ~xrend~'d into th~ mg~ina f~n,q which r'l~y dred~rin~ took te",~r'e the basin floodinF. ~ogt slips wert~ ere~ted in ~at,'r to th~ si. de~ of the fixed wslkin~ docks. Th~ ~xist dock lsyodt ri]lows [neffici¢nt o~,'n sDaces d~ct~t,,d by the lc-at[on of those r"[ay bars. With reasonabl& dred~irt~ nnd a mor~ ~f'fie[ent dock lnyotit, vt)om -ould be ~nd~' for up t,') uO)~ mor~ boats (t~,sn th~ 9] ~istin~). It is understood that th~s qdd~t.~,:nsl op,~vid~d wi*bin tht' 13r.')Derty bor,fl~ rs hqd b3~na Zonin¢_ under thC ¢I~ny ~,e~.~ c,mt.~oted ky Mr. Flynn to. ,]pp,~:~e the D~ IS dot >~r~nq. To my ~nc~,lrd?~ ~nd Der cc)nver's~t.~ons five h~r', oth~,r O.co~'ty ,'>whirs ~n S~ E~in. ~ll ront~cted by Mr. Fl. yn~ haw, r~-,~'u~d to o~Oos~' the DLIS ~x~'~pt Mr. Weissm~n. APR 4 1986 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMEN- O~: STATE ALBANY N Y 12231 April 1, 1986 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Re: F-85-455 Southport Development Corp. Town of Southold Dear Ms. Terry: Mr. Barton asked that I review the document you suk~itted entitled "Dredged Spoil Analysis for Southport Develo[~ent". This document shoBld provide the information necessary to know the nature of the proposed dredged material and therefore to make decisions on acceptable disposal options. However, I have found serious shortcomings: On page six I am essentially misquoted. My statement was that I had been unable to locate standards. Stan- dards set by E.P.A. do exist and I have since located them. Upland disposal requires that E.P. toxicity testing be performed, however, which is not ths case with this document. J The paragraph on the bott~ of page six is incomplete. The full wording is "In the absence of more definitive knowledge on the pollution effects of dredged material or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredged sediments at the disposal sites, the following physi- cal and chemical parameters will be used to determine whether biological testing of sediments will be called for..." Thus, the decision making process may actu- ally require an additional set of tests. Although the proposed dredged material is presumed to be Class I (page 10), I could find no data to back this up. It is necessary to have proper data to c¢~- pare to the values in the table on page seven. Ms. Judith Terry April 1, 1986 Page 2 As stated on page 10, very minute quantities of certain organic chemicals can render dredged material contaminated; for example, 1 part per million (pt~n) of PCB. However, the test methods used were not sen- sitive enough to measure such small values. In the case of the PCB chemicals (Arochlor 1016-1260) the minimum that could be measured was 40 p~m. Since there are a total of seven Arochlors, the test materi- al could be extremely contaminated yet not be shown as such by the test. Even allowing for differences between wet and dry weights, the situation is similar for DDT and Dieldrin. Testing performed on proposed dredged material should be in keeping with the stan- dards to be met. When lpl~n of a chemical may reflect contamination the testing must be sensitive enough to show this. In my judgement no decision on the suitability of the subject material for a particular disposal means can be made from this document. Additional testing and retesting of physi- cal and chemical parameters are necessary. If you have any questions you may call me at (516) 474-3642. Sincerely, LE:hm cc: C. W. Larry Enoch Enviror~ental Analyst Coastal Management Program Hamilton - DEC Region I Barton - Coastal Management Program MAR 3 1 1986 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTN1ENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 12231 March 25, 1986 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: The Departnent of State has reviewed the Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development and would like to take this oppor- tunity to outline our concerns regarding the development and protection of coastal resources with respect to this project. Our COllllllents are as follows: This Addendum does not describe how the proposed zoning action and sub- sequent develop~nt is consistent with the State's coastal policies. As indicated in this Department's letter of December 27, 1985, the con- sistency of this action with the applicable policies must be ~emonstrated in the FEIS. Due to the recent oil spill at the present onsite facility, what provisions will be taken to protect the local groundwater system and tidal wetlands from future leakages? The results of the Traffic Survey were based upon June, 1984 conditions. Peak tourist season traffic flows (i.e. for the months of July and August) should also be considered in determining the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing roads and traffic conditions. The Addendum states (p. 22) that "a common storm water management system" will be utilized to achieve "O-runoff" conditions at the site. Because of the site's existing soil conditions, the FEIS should contain a descrip- tion of a system that would be appropriate for the project site. The Addendum indicated that some boating services may be provided at the site. The FEIS :should describe which services will be available at the proposed marina and where other necessary boating services may be obtained. To minimize turbidity during dredging operations, the Department of State recommends that ,:lam shall bucket or hydraulic dredge methods be used rather than a crane with a dra9 line (p. 18). Ms. Judith Terry March 25, 1986 Page 2 The dune enhancement program mentioned on page 55 of the Addendum should be explained further, including the provisions which will be made (i.e. elevated catwalks) to minimize human impact during dune crossings. Please contact Mr. Aranl Terchunian of this agency at (518) 474-3642 should you have any questions on the above colm~ents or need additional information. Enclosures WFB:KAC:dlb cc: M. Greges, COE/NY District C. Hamilton, DEC/Region I R. Musack, DEC/Region I 2.3.13 2.3.14 Si nc~rely, / William F. BarTon Coastal Resources Specialist STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 12231 NEW YORK STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Summary The New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) was approved pursuant to Section 306 of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, on September 30, 1982. Two State laws -- the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Article 42, Executive Law) and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act (Article 34, Environmental Conservation Law) -- provided the State with the additional new authorities needed to obtain this approval. PROGRAM BENEFITS New York's CMP provides a number of benefits; one of these is Federal and State consistency. The New York State Department of State, the responsible CMP agency, reviews Federal actions affecting New York's coastal area to determine their consistency with the Program. At the State level, State agencies are responsible for determining the consistency of their actions with coastal policies and with approved local waterfront revitalization programs. As a result, the activities of all government levels are procedurally integrated to achieve the best use of coastal resources. Other benefits of the CMP result from activities which: -- encourage cooperation between public agencies and private interests to achieve the best use of coastal resources; assist local governments to develop a consensus on the best use of their waterfronts and to implement local land and water use controls through locally developed waterfront revitalization programs; -- increase predictability of government actions for private developers; -- serve as a stimulus for integrating all State agency review and permit actions to expedite appropriate development; -- protect significant fish and wildlife habitats; and -- implement the Coastal Erosion Hazards Area Program, to minimize damage caused by flooding and erosion. 2 COASTAL PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES A number of pervasive problems and opportunities were identified in the coastal area during the six year preparation phase of the CMP. Inconsistent decisions were made by government agencies regarding the use of coastal resources. A need to Establish a means for coordinating decisions made within and between all government levels was identified. New York's urban waterfronts had deteriorated seriously due to changes in transportation modes, failing infrastructure, population shifts, and others. Strategies to promote waterfront revitalization were needed. Habitats for New York's fish and wildlife resources were being destroyed at an alarming rate. I~ey needed to be identified and adequately protected. Flooding and erosion were causing serious damage to the natural protective areas of New York's coastline. A mechanism was needed to safeguard property and to minimize damage. Other problems and opportunities included the need to promote water dependent uses; to p~fotect and/or enhance small harbors, scenic areas, historic sites, and farmlands; to increase public access; and provide decision makers with needed data on coastal resources and activities. NEW YORK'S COASTAL POLICIES To address New York's coastal problems and opportunities, the Coastal Management Program contains policy statements which either promote the beneficial use of coastal resources, prevent their impairment, or deal with major activities that substantially affect resources. Federal and State agencies consider their actions in light of these policies. Local governments provide specificity to these policies as part of their responsibilities when preparing local waterfront revitalization programs. A list of the subject of these policies is provided below. A. Promote the Use of Coastal Resources -- Revitalize underutilized waterfronts -- Facilitate 'water dependent uses -- Expand major ports -- Expand commercial fishing -- Expand public access and water related recreation -- Develop coastal energy resources -- Redevelop tlhe existing built environment -- Expedite permitting procedures B. Protect Coastal Resources -- Significant fish and wildlife habitats -- Traditional. character of small harbors -- Historic and cultural resources -- Exceptional scenic areas -- Agricultural land -- Dunes, beaches, barrier islands and features -- Water and sir resources -- Wetlands other natural protective C. Major Activities -- Siting energy facilities -- Dredging fcr navigation, mining, and excavation in coastal waters -- Managing sclid waste -- Ice management practices -- Siting and building structures in erosion hazard areas Some policies are derived from existing New York State statutes and regulations. Others are based on Article 42 of the Executive Law (Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources) and Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas). Policies detailed in Article 42 carry out the intent of the State Legislature that there be "a balance between economic development and preservation that wil~L permit beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing loss of living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems". Policies on flooding and erosion are based on Article 42 of the Environmental Conservation Law which provides for the identification of coastal erosion hazard areas, including natural protective features. Standards and criteria are prescribed for the regulation of the siting of buildings and other structures in relation to those defined areas. PUBLIC SECTOR ROLES Several state agencies actively participate in the Coastal Management Program. These inc]Lude: the Departments of State, Environmental Conservation, Commerce, Transportation; the Offices of Energy, Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, General Services, Business Permits; and the port authorities. Some of their many activities which affect the coastal area include parkland acquisition, highway construction, administration of funds for capital consl~ruction, regulation of energy facility siting, toxic waste disposal regulation, freshwater and tidal wetlands regulation and technical assistance to local governments. 4 The Department of State worked extensively with most of the 255 communities along the State's 3,200 mile coastline in developing the coastal program. Realizing the potential benefit of the CMP, 107 local governments are currently preparing' local waterfront revitalization programs. The Coastal Management Program serves a dual purpose -- as a coordinator of existing State programs and activities which affect the coastal area and as an advocate for specific coastal actions. The program promotes consideration of the full range of economic, natural resource and social effects of particular decisions and activities on the coastal area of the State. October 1, 1984 New York State Department of scare Coastal Management Program STATE COASTAL POLICIES Excerpted from the S,t,ate of New York Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 6, August 1982 Policy 3 Further develop the State's major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg and Oswego as centers of commerce and industry, and encourage the siting, in these port areas, including those under the jurisdiction of State public authorities, of land use and development which is essential to or in support of the waterborne transportation of cargo and people. Explanation of Polic~ The aim of this poli¢~ is to support port development in New York, Albany, Buffalo, Ogdensburg and Oswego. Three other development policies, discussed in this Section, have significant implications for port development, namely: water dependency, concentration of development, and the expediting of permit reviews. In implementing this policy, state agencies will recognize the legally-established jurisdictional boundaries of the port authorities. If an action is proposed for a site within or abutting a major port, or if there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed action elsewhere would have an impact on a major port, then the following guidelines shall be used in determining consistency: In assessing proposed projects within or abutting a major port, given that all other applicable policies are adhered to, the overriding consideration is the maintenance and enhancement of port activity, i.e., development related to waterborne transportation, which will have precedence over other, non-port related activities. Dredging to maintain the economic viability of major ports will be regarded as an action of regional or statewide public benefit if: a clear need is shown for maintaining or improving the established alignment, width, and depth of existing channels or for new channels essential to l>ort activity; and, it can be demonstrated that environmental impacts would be acceptable according to State regulations governing the activity. Landfill projects in the near-shore areas will be regarded as an acceptable activity within major port areas, provided adverse environmental i~)acts are acceptable under all applicable environmental regulation and a strong economic justification is demonstrated. If non-port relat6d activities are proposed to be located in or near to a major port, ~ese uses shall be sited so as not to interfere with normal port operations. When not already restricted by existing laws or covenants, and when there is no other overriding regional or statewide public benefit for doing otherwise, surplus public land or facilities within or adjacent to a major port shall be offered for sale, in the first instance, to the appropriate ]?ort authority. In the programming of capital projects for port areas, highest priority will be given to projects that promote the development and use of the port. However, in determining such priorities, consideration must also be given to non-port related interests within or near the ports that have demonstrated critical capital programming needs. 6 already oriented towards tourism. Clearly, a m~rlna, ~lsn~:,: .~': on the significant coastal resources. Preference to underutilized sites -- the promotic-, of wate~ depender.- uses should serve to foster development as ~ ~-esuit programming, permit expedit~nc, an~ other Stat~ and iota. currently underutilized. Providing for expansion -- a primary ob3ective o~ the pollc%~ is · create a process by which water dependent uses c~t De accommodates we.~ into the future. State agencies and localities should therefor~ ~... consideration tc long-te~ space needs and whert accommodate future demand ~y ~dent~fylng more land the near future. In promoting water depender.: uses the ~ollowln~ k~nds ct a[ ~.~,: considered: Favored treatment to water dependent use areas with respe¢~ programming. Particular ~ri~r:t~ sb~u!d be give: ~ '.r.~ · and ~lntenance cf port far~!~tle~, roads, ra~iroa& public transportation within areas sh~ta~le for wate~ aepence~ , 2. When areas s~itable for ware: depen~e~-.' uses are p~t.i~c.l, 3~-.e favored leasing arrangements shcu!./ L.e giver t, water depenoe Where possible, consideratlcr~ should be giver tc provicl~,. dependent uses with propert~ tax at.a%er~ents ~a~. at below market rates. State and local planning and economic development agen~e= s~- . actively promote water dependent use~. i~ add~t~¢ ..... available for non-water dependent uses should be malntalne~ , assist developers seeking alternative site5 ~ '!~ · projects. Local, State and Federal agenuie5 should work toger_hez · permitting procedures that may be turdensome This effort should begin for specific uses ~n a part~cu~a~ Local land use controls, especially the use of zoning exclusively for waterfront uses, car: be an effective government in assuring adequate space for the dependent uses. had visual access to, the waterfront. A restaurant which uses good site design to take advantage of a waterfront view, and a golf course which incorporates the coastline into the course design, are two examples of water-enhanced uses. If there ie no {~,ediate demand for a water dependent use in a given area but a future demanc] is reasonably foreseeable, temporary non-water dependent uses should be considered preferable to a non-water dependent use which involves an irreversibl~, or nearly irreversible com=~Ltment of land. Parking lots, passive recreational facilities, outdoor storage areas, and nonpermanent structures are uses or facilities which would likely be considered as 'temporary" non-water dependent uses. In the actual choice of eites where water dependent uses will be encouraged and facilitated, the following g~idelines should be used. Competition for space -- competition for space or the potential for it, should be indicated before any given site is promoted for water dependent uses. The intent is to match water dependent uses with suitable locations and thereby reduce any conflicts between competing uses that might arise. Not just any site suitable for development should be chosen as a water dependent use area. The choice of a site should be made with some meaningful impact on the real estate market anticipated. The anticipated impact could either be one of increased protection to existing water dependent activities or else the encouragement of water dependent development. In-place facilities and services -- most water dependent uses, if they are to function effectively, will require basic public facilities and services. In selecting appropriate areae for water dependent uses, consideration should be given to the following factors: a. The availability of public sewers, public water lines and adequate power supply; b. Access to the area for trucks and rail, if heavy industry is to be accommodated; and c. Access to public transportation, if a high number of person trips to to be generated. Access to naviga~ional channels -- if commercial shipping, commercial fishing, or recreational boating are planned, the locality should consider setting aside a site, within a sheltered harbor, from which access to adequately sized navigation channels would be assured. 4e Compatibility with adjacent uses and the protection of other coastal resources -- water dependent uses should be located so that they enhance, or at least do not detract from, the surrounding community. Consideration should also be given to such factors as the protection of nearby residential areas from odors, noise and traffic. Affirmative approaches should also be employed so that water dependent uses and adjacent uses can serve to complement one another. For example, a recreation-orient:ed water dependent use area could be sited in an area 4 the reasonably foreseeable development of water de?- eh% uses State agencies will utilize appropriate existlna rograms water dependent activities. The following uses and facilities are considered a~ ~,~te~ depe'.~~ Uses which depend on the utilization of resource~ found waters (for example: f~shing, mining of sand and grave activities); 2. Recreational activities which depend or, access tc coasta~ water. example: swi~ing, fishing, boating, wildlife v.~ewing] 3. Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of goods !for exa~ple ~ loading areas, pipelines, short-term storage facliitles 4. Structures needed for navigational purposes (for exam~ie lighthouses); 5. Flood and erosion prctect~or structures ifor exam~ie ~reak~a~ ~, bulkheads!; 6. Facilities needed to store and service boats and ships marinas, boat repair, boat constructio~ yard~) Uses requiring large quantitle~ ~f water for process~n? ar~ , ~- purposes (for exa~le: hydroelec%ri~ powe~ ~ants ~.?, ~-?~ -. plants, pumped storage power plants,. So Uses that rely heavily on ths waterborne transpcr'tatlo~ ~aterials or products which are difficult tc transport making it critical that a s~te near to (for example: coal export faclllties~ cement plants, Uses which operate under such sever~ time constralnts tc shipping facilities become~ critical (fcc example perishable foods): lC,. Scientific/educational activities which, by their nature access to coastal waters (for example~ certal~ mac{. oceanographic activities~ ~ aha 11. Support facilities which are necessary for the success~u or permitted water dependent uses (for example, park~n~ bars, first aid stations, shozt-term storage facilities uses must be near the given water dependent use they ~ossible, he sited inland from the water dependen~ the shore. waterfront location should be encouraged to locate along the sho~e location, but the profitability of the use and/or the en?cymenr the users would be increased s~gn~ficantly if the use were ad~ace~~ c. The action should serve as a catalyst to private investment in the The action should improve the deteriorated condition of a site and, at a minimum must not cause further deterioration. For example, a bui14ing could not be abandoned without protecting it against vandalism and/or structural decline; The action must lead'to development which is compatible with the character of the area, with consideration given to scale, architectural style, density, and intensity of use; The action should have the ~otential to improve the existing economic base of the com~nunity, and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base. For example, waterfront development meant to serve consumer needs would be inappropriate in an area where no increased consumer demands were expected and existing development was already meeting demand; The action should improve adjacent and upland views of the water, and, at a minimum, must not affect these views in an insensitive manner; h. The action should have the potential to improve the potential for multiple uses of the site. If a State or Federal action is proposed to take place outside of a given deteriorated, underutilized urban waterfront area suitable for redevelopment, and is either within the relevant community or adjacent coastal communities, the agency proposing the action must first determine if it is feasible to take the action within the deteriorated, underutilized urban waterfront area in question. If such an action is feasible, the agency should give strong consideration to taking the action in that area. If not feasible, the agency must take the appropriate steps to ensure that the action does not cause further deterioration of that area. Policy 2 Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. Explanation of Polic~ There is a finite ~mount of waterfront space suitable for development purposes. Consequenl:ly, while the demand for any given piece of property will fluctuate in response to varying economic and social conditions, on a statewide basis the only reasonable expectation is that long-term demand for waterfront space will intensify. The traditional method of land allocation, i.e., the real estate market, with or without local land use controls, offers little assurance that uses which require waterfront sites will, in fact, have access to the State's coastal waters. To ensure that such "water dependent" uses can continue to be accommodated within the State, State agencies will avoid undertaking, funding, or approving non-water dependent uses when such uses would preempt DEVELOPMENT POLIC I E.- Policy 1 Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deter:.,~ated aha underutil&zed waterfront areas fo~ culturai~ recreational and othe~ com~atlt Explanation of Policy State and Federal agencies must ensure that the_ act~c~ revitalization of urban waterfront areas The ~ansfe~ ~ property; the construction of a new offlce building highwa~ provision of tax incentives to businesses; establishment or zones, are all examples of governmental means for spurring When any such action, or similar action is proposed, ~t must De determine if the action would contribute to ~ adverse] waterfront revitalization effort. It must be recognized that revitalization of once dynam~c waterfrc~ is one of the mos% effect~ means of encouragin~ econor_. ', State, without cons,~m~nq valuakle o~en space outside {~ ?~.~ ,~.. adjacent to the redevelopment area In responding to thls policy~ several other pclmc~es (1) Uses requiring a locatlor ak,~ttlng the waterfron' priority in any redevelopment effort (Refer to Pollc'~ effectuate this priority). (2~ As exEla~ned ~n Poi~c} : revitalizing previously dynamic waterfront areas providing basic services tc such area5 ~s frequent/}' les~ successfully simplifying per~t procedures and easi-~ (Policy 6) will be increased if a discrete area and not waterfront is the focus for th~s effort. Ir. permits should increase developers' interest tc Further, once this concentrated effort has succeeded, revitalization of surroundinc areas is mcre likely t." Dcc~: Local governments through waterfront revital~zat~a: primary responsibility for implementing this waterfront revitalization programs need not be l~m~ted local govern~,ents are urger tc ~dentify area& redevelopment, and estak!~sf ars enforce redeve!opmer~t When a Federal or State actior~ is proposed tc take plac( ~ '~rk'~- waterfront area regarded as suitable for developmer.~ .... =~ guidelines will be used: a. Priority should be giver tc uses whlch are depends' adjacent tc th~ ~ate~ bo The action should enhance existing and ant~['~pa%~ ~= example, a new highway should be designee and c¢>n~-:.~c ~. serve the potential access needs fc~ ~e~lrar~ ,~o~5 ~,.. development; No buildings, piers, wharves, or vessels shall be abandoned or otherwise left unused by a public agency or sold without making provisions for their maintenance in sound condition or for their demolition or :removal. Proposals for J~he development of new major ports will be assessed in terms of the anticipated impact on: a) existing New York State major por~s; b) existing modes of transportation; and o) the surrounding land uses and overall neighborhood character of the area in which the proposed port is to be lo~ated; and other valued coastal resources. Port development shall provide opportunities for public access insofar as these opportunities do not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the port and the port authority and its tenants do not incur unreasonable costs. Policy 4 Strengthen the economic base of ~naller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activities which have provided such areas with their unique mariti~ identi~y. Explanation of Polic~ This policy recognizes that the traditional activities occurring in and around numerous sznaller harbors throughout the State's coastal area contribute much to the economic strength and attractiveness of these harbor com~nunities. Thus, efforts of State agencies shall center on promoting such desirable activities as recreational and commercial fishing, ferry sea-vices, marinas, historic preservation, cultural pursuits, and other compatible activities which have ~ade smaller harbor areas appealing as tourist destinations and as commercial and residential areas. Particular consideration will be given to the visual appeal and social benefits of smaller harbors which, in turn, can make significant contributions to the State's tourism industry. The following guidelines shall be used in deter?~ining consistency: 1. The action shall give priority to those traditional and/or desired uses which are dependent on or enhanced by a location adjacent to the water. 2. The action will enhance or not detract from or adversely effect existing traditional and/or desired anticipated uses. The action shall not be out of character with, nor lead to development which would be out of character with, existing development in terms of the area's scale,, intensity of use, and architectural style. The action must not cause a site to deteriorate, e.g., a structure shall not be abandoned without protecting it against vandalism and/or structural declir~e. The action will not adversely affect the existir,- ~conomic sas~ ' cus~unit¥, e.g., waterfront development designee .3 promot~ ~es.~ '. development might be inappropriate in a harbor ~ea whe[~ ~ is dependent upon tourism and commercial fishln~ The action will not detract from views of the water and smaliez i~arbo~ area, particularly where the visual quality of ~ne area :~ ~: ~mp~,~'-a~ component of the area's appeal and identity. Policy 5 Encourage the location of development in areas where publl services and facilities essential tc such deve~cp~,~ adequate. Explanation of Policy By its construction, taxing, funding and requlatory powers, become a dominant force ~n shaping the course of developme. these governments a?tion~, ~e':elopment, part~culari development, in the Coastal Area w~li be encouraged tc contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing areas development where infrastructure and public services are topography, geology, and other e~viror~entai cond~t~on~ a~ and able to acco~odate development. The above policy is intended to accomplish the followlnq~ strengthen existing residential~ industrla! and co~erc~. foster an orderly pattern of growth where outwaro ~xra:s occurring; increase t_he productivity of ex~st~ng public services need to provide new public servlces in outlylng areas preserve open space in sufficient amounts; ant where desirable, foster ener%~_, conservation Dy er, rcurac_ ~ between encouraging prox~mit} between home activities. For any action that would result ~n large stake deve,opmef:% which would facilitate or serve future development, determ~na~. made as to whether the action ~s withln~ contlguous proxim/ty to an area of concentrated development where public services are adequate. The following gu~del~ne5 making that determination. Cities, built-up suburban towns and vmllages, anc coastal area are generally areas of conc~l_trate~ ~t- . ~.:~ infrastructure and public services are adequate 2. Other locations in the coastal area may also be suitable for develo~ment, if three or more of the following conditions prevail: a. Population density of the area surrounding or adjacent to the proposed site exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile; Fewer than 50% of the buildable sites (i.e., sites meeting lot area requirements under existing local zoning regulations) within one mile radius of the proposed site are vacant; c. Proposed site is served by or is near to public or private sewer and water lines; d. Public transportation service is available within one mile of the proposed site; and e. A significant concentration of comercial and/or industrial activity is within one-half mile of the proposed site. 3. The following points shall be considered in assessing the adeqn~acy of an area's infra:~tructure and public services: Streets and highways serving the proposed site can safely accommodate the peak traffic generated by the proposed develop~nent; land b. Development's water needs (consumptive and fire fighting) can be met by the existing water supply system; c. Sewage disposal syste~ can accommodate the wastes generated by the development; d. Energy needs of the proposed land development can be accommodated by existing 'utility systems; e. Stormwater ~unoff from the proposed site can be accommodated by on-site and/or off-site facilities; and Schools, pol£ce and fire protection, and health and social services are adequate to meet the needs of the population expected to live, work, shop, or conduct business in the area as a result of the development. It is recognized that certain forms of development may and/or should occur at locations which are not within or near areas of concentrated develol~nent. Thus, this coastal development policy does not apply to the following types of development projects and activities. 1. EConomic activities which depend upon sites at or near locations where natural resources are present, e.g., lumber industry, quarries. 2. Development which by its nature is enhanced by a non-urbanized setting, e.g., a resort complex, campgrounds, second home developments. 3. Develol~nent which is designed to be a self-cont6 ed activ~:~ small college, an academic or religious retreat 4. Water dependent uses with site reguarements nc compat=r~e -~' .... : policy or when alternative sites are not avaala~ Development which because of its isolated locataon and smal~-sca~e little or no potential to generate and. or ~: s~urage fur~he~ development. 6. Uses and/or activities which because of public gafet¥ :onszueua' z~ should be located away from populous areas. 7. Rehabilitation or restoration of existing structures ant ~a¢~ _~.~ 8. Development projects which are essentaa, to the constr'ac%~3 ~d a~ operation of the above uses ar.d actlv_tie~ In certain urban areas where development a~ encouragee b} ~ ?___~. .::,: condition of existing pub lac .ate~ an~ sewage ~t~rA~ur,~.._~ : necessitate i~provements. Those State and Federal agencae= cnargec .~17. allocating funds for investments ~n water and sewer facliit.es ~c~ .... high priority to the needs of such urban areas sc that full ajv=~..aj=~ 'r.~:~ taken of the rich array of their ~ther anfrastructure .o~p're' - promoting waterfront revitalizataon. Policy 6 Expedite permit procedures an order to facaa~tate ~!%= . ~ development activities at suitable locatlc:',s Explanation of Polic~ For specific types of development activities and ~n areab development, State agencies and local governments part~c_~ Waterfront Revitalization Progra/~. will make every effort tc ~_~:d synchronize existing permit procedures and regulatc~, ~rc~:~: .- the integrity of the regulations' objectives is not ]eopara~ .~: procedures and programs will be coordinated w~th~n each. efforts will be made to ensure that each agency's procedure= are synchronized with other agencaes' procedures at government. Finally, regulatory programs and ~rocedu~e: coordinated and synchronized between leve~s ~f government necessary, legislative a.nd/or progra/mnatac changes wall be When proposing new regulations, an agency will determane incorporating the regulations within exlsting procedures .~ L,~ ~ecuce~ the burden on a particular type of development and will integrity of the regulations' objectives. FISH AND WILDLIFE ]POLICIES Policy 7 Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats. Explanation of Polic~ Habitat protection is recognized as fundamental to assuring the survival of fish and wildlife ]?opulations. Certain habitats are particularly critical to the maintenance of a given population and therefore merit special protection. Such habitats exhibit one or ~ore of the following characteristics: {1) are essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population (e.g., feeding grounds, nursery areas); {2) support populations of rare and endangered species; (3) are found at a very low frequency within a coastal region; (4) support fish and wildlife populations having significant co~ercial and/or recreational value; and (5) would be difficult or impossible to replace. In order to protect and preserve a ~ignificant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions destroy or significantly impair the viability of an area as a habitat. When the action significantly reduces a vital resource (e.g., food, shelter, living space) or changes .environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism, then the action would be considered to "significantly impair" the habitat. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat may include: reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality. The range of generic activities most likely to affect significant coastal fish and wildlife h,~bitats include but are not limited to the following: 1. Draining wetlands, ponds: Cause changes in vegetation, or changes in groundwater and surface water hydrology. Filling wetlands, shallow areas of streams, lakes, bays, estuaries: May change physical character of substrate (e.g., sandy to muddy, cr smother vegetation, alter surface water hydrology). 3. Grading land: Results in vegetation removal, increased surface runoff, or increase soil erosion and downstream sedimentation. Clear cutting: May cause loss of vegetative cover, increase fluctuations in. amount of surface runoff, or increase scouring, soil erosion, sediment deposition. streambed Dredging or excavation: May cause change in substrate composition, possible release of contaminants otherwise stored in sediments, removal of aquatic vegetation, or change circulation patterns and sediment transport mechanisms. 11 Dredge spoil disposal: May induce shoaling of :torai area~ change circulation patterns. Physical alteration of shore areas through channe£~zaticn .~ construction of shore structure: May change volume and rate increased scouring, sedimentation. Introduction, storage or disposal of pollutants such as chem~ca~ petrochemical, solid wastes, nuclear wastes, to×Kc mater~a. ~,esi..- sewage effluent, urban and rural runoff, leachate o~ hazardous toxic substances stored in landfills: May cause increasedmcr.~,~.%~- ,. sublethal effects on organisms, alter their reproductive capabil~ti.e~ or reduce their value as food organisms. The range of physical, biological and chemical parameters whlcr, shoui~ be considered include but are nc~ limited ~c the folluwlng Physical parameters such as: Livlng space, clrcuiatlon, rates, tidal amplitude, tur~t/~ty, wate~ temperature littoral zone), morphology, sut3strate type~ vegeta~ ~,.r_~' erosion and sedimentation rates. Biological parameters such as: Con, unity structure, fooc relationships, species dlvers~t~ , predator ~e~ population size, mortality rates, reproductive patterns, and migratory patterns. Chemical parameters such as: Dissclved oxygen. :~ar2:t .:~ac~. > dissolved solids, nutrients, organ~cs~ salir, lt-: ~,~ .'a. '~:~ metals, toxic and hazardous materials): When a proposed action is likely to alter any o~ or chemical parameters as described in the narratlve range of the organisms occupying the habitat, the has been significantly impaired or destroyed would be inconsistent with the above policy. In cooperation with the State's Coastal Management Progra[ ".,~ ~eb=~ ~.mu~ of Environmental Conservation has developed a rating systen ~ _:~ c~. these five parameters (The Development and Evaluat&on -[ = =yshe~ ~u~ Rating Fish and wildlife Hakitats in the Coastal Zone tf New York State Final Report, January 1981, 15 pp.) To further aid Federal and State agencies in determining a proposed action with this policy, a narrative will be significant habitat which will: (i) identify the iocatlon (2) describe the community of organisms which utilize identify the biological, physical and chemical para~ete:~ considered when assessing the potential impacts habitat; (4) identify generic activities which would mo~t significant impacts on the habitat; and ~5'} prov~e t. Le used to rate the habitat. Prior tc formal designation .?.~ and wildlife habitats, copies o~ the ~ndlvid~.a~ }.abltat copies of habitat maps and completed rat. ln~ t~rrs w~ L. Federal and State agencies and the pub l~ for the Polic~ 8 Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from ~he introduction of hasardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources. F~planation of Policy Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes and are generally characterized ~s being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. More specifically, waste is defined in Environmental Conservation Law [$27-0901(3)] as "waste or combination of wastes which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious charactertics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) ~ose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or otherwise managed." A list .of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part ~66) will be adopted by DEC within 6 months after EPA for~nally adopts its list. The handling (storage, transport, treatment and disposal) of the materials included on this list is being strictly regulated in New York State to prevent their entry or introduction into the environment, particularly into the State's air, land and waters. Such controls should effectively minimize possible contamination of and bio-accumulation in the State's coastal fish and .wildlife resources at levels tha~ cause mortality or create physiological and behavioral disorders. Other pollutants a:re those conventional wastes, generated from point and non-point sources, and not identified as hazardous wastes but controlled through other States laws. Policy 9 Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplemen'~ing existing stocks, and developing new resources. Explanation of Policy Recreational uses of coastal fish and wildlife resources include consumptive uses such as fishing and hunting, and non-consumptive uses such as wildlife photography, bird watching and nature study. Any efforts to increase recreational use of these resources will be made in a manner which ensures the protection of fish and wildlife resources in marine and freshwater coastal areas and which takes into consideration other activities dependent on these resources. Also, such efforts must be done in accordance with existing State law and in keeping with sound resource management considerations. Such considerations include biology of the species, carrying capacity of the resource, public demand, costs and available technology'. 13 The following additional guidelines should De cc, r, sldered ~', ~ Federal agencies as t_hey determine the consistency t~e~r p~' ~.'_ ~:~: with the above policy Consideration should be made by Federal and State agencies whether an action will impede existing or future '~_k££zat~ State's recreational fish and wildlife resources Efforts to increase acces~ to recreational fish and wildi~fe rescur:es should not lead to overutilization of that resource or cahse tm~a~e: of the habitat. Sometimes such impalrment c~ be more actual physical damage to the habitat. For exampie~ ~ncreases presence can deter animals from using the habitat area The impacts of increasing access to recreational fish and w=ld!~e resources should be determined on a case-by-case Sas~s significant habitat narrative ~see Policy ~a trained fish and wildlife b~ologist Any public or private sector ~nitiatlves to supplement (e.g., stocking a stre~ with f~sh reared in a hatcher~ resources (e.g., creating private fee-h~:t~ng facilities) ~ust be dcne in accord with existing State Policy Further develop commerc~a! fi~f~sh, sheilflsk products, maintaining ade~aate stocks: aquaculture facillties. Explanation of Policy Commercial fishery development activltzes must oc_.~~,.._~ sound fishery management principals developed arid er.~c~ State's waters by the New York State Depar~men Conservation and the Management Plans developed by the Management Councils (Mid-Atlantic and New England) and enforces National Marine Fisheries Ser%,ice w~thin the Fisher~ ~---~-~ (The Fishery ConserVation Zone is the area of coastal waters eytendlr;~ the three mile State waters boundary to the 200 mile offshore U.S. Waters. The ConserVation Zone is authorized b~ ~n= Conservation and Management Act of 1976.) Sound resource considerations would include optimum sustained yheid levels developed specific commercial fish species, harvest restrictions ~m~tsed Federal goverr~,ents, and the econcr~c~ pol~tlcal ~sez .... technological constraints to utilizing these resc'irrei _4 The following additional guidelines should be considered by State and Federal agencies as they determine ~he consistency of their proposed action with the above policy: 1. A public agency's commercial fishing development initiative should not preempt or d~s~,lace private sector initiative. A public agency's efforts to expand existing or create new on-shore commercial fishing support facilities should be directed towards unmet development needs rather than merely displacing existing commercial fishing activities from a nearby port. This may be accomplished by taking into consideration existing State or regional co~ercial fishing development plans. Consideration should be made by State and Federal agencies whether an action will impede existing utilization or future development of the state's couu.ercial fishing resources. Commercial fishing development efforts should be made in a manner which ensures the maintenance and protection of T. he renewakle fisher%' resources. FLOODING AND EROSION POLICIES Policy 11 Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage tc property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. Explanation of Polic~ On coastal lands identified as coastal erosion hazard areas, buildings and similar structures ~hall be set back from the shoreline a distance sufficient to minimize damage from erosion unless no reasonable prudent alternative site is available as in the case of piers, docks and other structures necessary to gain access to coastal waters to be able tc function. The extent of the setback will be calculated, taking intc account the rate st which land is receding due to erosion, and the protection provided by existing erosion protection structures as well as by natural protective features such a~ beaches, sandbars, spits, shoals, barrier islands, bay barriers, nearshore areas, bluffs and wetlands. The only new structure allowed in coastal erosion hazard areas is a moveable structure as defined in Section 505.3(u) of the regulations for ECL, Article 34. Prior to its construction, an erosion hazard areas permit must be approved for the ~tructure. Existing, non-conforming structures located in coastal erosion hazard areas may be only minimally enlarged. In coastal lands identified as being s~bject to high velocity waters caused by hurricane or other storm wave wash - a coastal high hazard area - walled and roofed buildings or fuel ~torage tanks shall be sited landward of mean high tide; and no mobile home shall be sited in such area. In coastal lands identified as floodways, no mobile homes shall be sited other than in existing mobile home parks. Where human lives may be endangered by major coastal storms, all necessary emergency preparedness measures should be taken, including disaster preparedness plar. ning. 15 Policy 12 Activities or development in the coastal a:ea will be under%dh= SO as to minimize damage to natural resou£ves and p~Dpe~t~ ~ flooding and erosion by protecting natu~.~: protect_-~ ~= ... including beaches, dunes, barrier islands ~ ~ bluffs Explanation of ~olicy Beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs, and other natura. features help safeguard coasta~ lands and property ~rom damage~ reduce the danger to human life, resulting from [looding Excavation of coastal features, improperly designed str~ctures, nadequ~- site planning, or other similar actions which fa~. t¢. recognize fragile nature and high protective values, leac a~ the ~ea~ce~ destruction of those landforms. Activities or development proximity to, natural protective features must ensure that all such effects are minimized. Primary dunes will be protec~ec encroachments that could impair the ir natural protective capaci'_: Policy 13 structures shall be unaertaken ,_:..} _f the~ ~,c'= probability of controlt_ng erosion for a~ least demonstrated in deslgL a~ construction ~andard~ maintenance or replacement program, s. Explanation of Policy Erosion protection structures are widely used throughout the State area. However, because of imprope~ desig:~, ~onstruct~on standards, many fail to give the protection which the}' provide. As a result, development is sited in areas where damage or loss due to eros5o~. This policy w~iI help ensu~ of such damage or loss. Policy 14 Activities and develot~nent ~nclud~ng the construct~ reconstruction of erosion pre. reciter struc%~ia.: undertaken so that there will De no measura~_ erosion or flooding at the site oi ~_J! development, or at other 1ocatLcns. Explanation of Polic~ Erosion and flooding are processes which occur natural,y ~..w~. =. actions, man can increase the severity and adverse e~f~: .~ : processes, causing damage to, or loss of property, ~nc en~a:.~;.. ~ lives. Those actions include: the use of erosion protectL,~n =_~u .... z~:: such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks which tlc;k '. ~ :>r~ transport of sediment to ad3acent shorelands, thus ~ncreas~r.<. ~hc ~ .~%~ recession; the failure to observe proper drainage _: .ar'~ ~'-' ' ' ~ practices, thereby causing run-off and the erosion ~nd we a~eu~ ~ shorelands; and the placing of structures ~n identified f~.~odw~. 'he the base flood level is increased causing damage ~n ,~the~ise ~a~:~ ~.- areas. Policy 15 Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not signifi¢~untly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be under'taken in a manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such land. .Explanation of Polic~ Coastal processes, including t~e movement of beach materials by water, and any mining, excavation or dredging in nearshore or offshore waters which changes the supply and net flow of such materials can deprive shorelands of their natural regenerative powers. Such mining, excavation and dredging should be accomplished in a manner so as not to cause a reduction of supply, and thus an increase of erosion, to such shorelands. Offshore mining is a future alternative c~tion to land mining for sand and gravel deposits which are needed to supl>ort building and other industries. Policy 16 Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures where necessary to protect human life, and new develolmment which requires a location within or ad3acent tc an erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing development; and only where the public benefits outweigh the long term mon.~tary and other costs including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features. Explanation of Polic~ Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on the State's shorelines. This policy recognizes the public need for the protection of human life and existing investment in development or new development which requires a location in proximity to the coastal area or in adjacent waters to be able to function. However, it also recognizes the adverse impacts of such activities and development on the rate of erosion and on natural protective features and requires that careful analysis be made of such benefits and long-term costs prior to expending public funds. Policy Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible. Explanation of Polic~ This policy recognizes both the potential adverse impacts of flooding and erosion upon development and upon natural protective features in the coastal area as well as the costs of protection against those hazards which structural measures entail. 17 Non-structural ~easures" shall include, but nor be ~.~ ted to. within coastal erosion hazard areas identlfie¢ ,nder Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act ~Art~cle 34, ED Law), and subject to the permit requirements on ~. regulatec and development established under that Law, ~ the us~ setbacks as p~ovided for in Section of 34-108; a~.,' (b the of coastal landforms by the planting of appropriate vegetat,~ and bluffs, the installation of sand fencing on Junes. the reshapin¢3 bluffs to achieve an appropriate angle of repose so as %~ £educe potential for slumping and to permit the planting of stabil~zina vegetation, a~d the installation of drainage systems on bluffs runoff and internal seepage of waters which erode ~ landforms; and 2J Within identified flood hazard areas~ .a~ the avoldan¢= _[ ~, damage from flooding by the s~t~ng o~ buildings ~tsii~ .:.~ a~a~ ~ . a/~d (b) the flood-proofing of buildings or thelr eleva~.~' ~c._ .~ base flood level. This policy shall apply to the ~lann~ng, sktlng aha des~g: activities and development, including measures ~o prote.' ~ . · . · activities and development. Tc ascertain sons~stency must be determined if any one, or a comb inatkon cf. non-structure. would afford the degree of protection a~przpr_ate purpose of the activity or development anG non-structural measures are determ, ined ~c _f~er sufficient consistency with the policy would re,dire ~he use c~ ~UCF possible. In determining whether ~r not non-structural measures erosion or flooding will afford the degree of ~otec~__ analysis, and if necessary, other materials such as piar.~ activity or development, of the site and cf the alter~ measures should be prepared to allow an assessment to be GENERAL POLICY Policy 18 To safeguard the vital economic, social and interests of the State and of its citizens ~.~ -.~ actions in the coastal area must give full ccnsldera~i~% to protect valuable coastal resource areas. E~lanation of Polic~ Proposed major actions may be undertaken ~n the coastal not significantly impair valua~ ie ~oastai waters frustrating the achievement o~ the purpc, ses f ~3.. State has established to protest those water5 a~-,a actions must take into account the social, econo~!_ interests of the State and its citizens in such matter5 natural resources, water levels and fiows~ ~hcre]~,~ power generatic, n, arid recreation PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES Policy 19 Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities. Explanation of Polic~ This policy calla for achieving balance among the following factors: the level of accesa to a resourc~ or facility, the capacity of a resource or facility, and ~he protection of natural resources. The imbalance among theae factors is the moat significant in the State's urban areas. Because this is often due to accesa-related problems, priority will be given to improving physical access to existing and potential coastal recreation sites within the heavily populated urban coastal areas of the State and to increasing the ability of urban residents to get to coastal recreation areas by improved ~ublic l~rans~ortation. The particular water-related recreation resources and facilities which will receive priority for improved access are public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas and waterfront parks. In addition, because of the greater co~petition for waterfront locations within urban areas, the Coastal Management Program will encourage mixed use areas and multiple use of facilities to improve access. Specific sites requiring access improvements and the relative priority the program will accord to each will be identified in the Public Access Planning Process. The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of a proposed action with this policy: The existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to public water-related recreation resources and facilities shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access in the future from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities tc public water-related recreation resources and facilities be eliminated, unless in the latter case, estimates of future use of these resources and facilities are too low to justify maintaining or providing increased public access or unless such actions are found to be necessary or beneficial by the public body having jurisdiction over such access as the result of a reasonable justification of the need to meet systematic objecitves. The following is an explanation of the terms used in the above guidelines: a. Access - the ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands and waters. Public water-related recreation resources or facilities - all public lands or facilities that are suitable for passive or active recreation that requires either water or a waterfront location or is enhanced by a waterfront location. 19 Public lands or facilities - lands or facli~ local government in fee simple or less-than-r~, s~mple to which the public has access or could underwater lands and the foreshore. d. A reduction in the existing level of public access - includes is not l~m~ted to the following: (1) The number of ~arking spaces at recreation resource or facility is significantl,: reduceo (2) The service level of public transportat~or, water-related related recreation resource significantly reduced during peak season use cannot be reasonably justified in te~s c~ objectives. (3) Pedestrian access is diminished or elimlnatec seca-s~ hazardous crossings required at: new o~ alte:ed ~a ~ : facilities. existing special fares {not tncluding regular fare5 ~ ;' .~,~:. resource or facility, except where the pub i~ jurisdiciton over such fares deter~;nes that sue:. s~us~= .... · facility, and an analysis sho~s that such significantly reduce usage by individuals ~r fami!i~ below the State government established poverty level e. An elimination of the possibility of ~ncreasLn4 in the future includes, but zs not limited (1) Construction of public fac~l~t;es w~,lct provision, except at great expense, o.~ ccnvenier, t public water-related recreation resources and fac~ (2) Sale, lease, or other transfer of p~i~c provide public access to a public water-relateo or facility. (3} Construction of private facilities which physical,; ~. ~ provision of convenient public access Lc pubi~ ~.~ recreation resources or facilities from purls, .ands ~ ~ A~y proposed prc]ect to ~n.:rea~e pub liz access recreation resources and faC~lltles shall me following factors; The level cf access to be provided should De estimated put~llc use. if not~ the props$ed The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use which would exceed the physical capability of the resource or facility. If this were determined to be the case, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy. The State will not undertake or fund any project which increases access to a water-related resource or facility that is not open to all members of the public. In their plans and programs for increasing public access to public water-related resources and facilities, State agencies shall give priority in the following order to projects located: within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and served by public transportation; within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area but not served by public transportation; outside the defined Urban Area boundary and served by p~blic transportation; and outside the defined Urban Area boundary but not sen, ed by public =ransportation. Policy Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge ~hat are publicly owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses. Explanation of PolioX In coastal areas where there are little or no recreation facilities providing specific water-related recreational activities, access to the publicly-owned lands of the coast at large should be provided for numerous activities and pursuits which require only minimal facilities for their enjoyment. Such access would provide for walking along a beach or a city waterfront or to a vantage point from which ~o view the seashore. Similar activities requiring access would include bicycling, birdwatching, photography, nature study, beachcombing, fishing and hunting. For those activities, there are several methods of providing access which will receive priority attention of the Coastal Management Program. These include: the development of a coastal trails system; the provision of access across transportation facilities to the coast; the improvement of access to waterfronts in urban areas; and the promotion of mixed and multi-use development. While such publicly-o~ed lands referenced in the policy shall be retained in public ownership, traditional sales of easements on lands underwater to adjacent onshore property owners are consistent with this policy, provided such easements do not substantially interfere with continued public use of the public lands on which the easement is granted. Also, public use of such publicly-owned underwater lands and lands i~ediately adjacent to the shore shall be discouraged where such use would be inappropriate for reasons of public safety, military security, or the protection of fragile coastal resources. 21 The following guidelines will be used in determanl proposed action wi~h this policy: Existing access from adjacent or proximate pu~13 lands cz shall the possibility of increasang access an ~i~e future or neax~y p~blic lands or facilities to publi~ coastal ~ands waters be eliminated, unless such actions are demonstrated overriding regional or sta~ewide ~ublic oenefa~ ~r ~n the estimates of future use of these lands ana waters are toc maintaining or providing increased access. The following is an explanation of the terms used an the above guldei~nus a. (See definitions under first policy of "access", and "public or facilities'). b. A reduction in the existing level of public access is not limited tc the (1) Pedestrian acces~ ~$ dam~nished o~ e!imln=%=. 2e=a_~, hazardous crossings re~uared at new or alterec ran~po~t_= facilities, electric power transmission i~nes, c~ ~m~=~ .~. facilities. (2) Pedestraan access is d~m~n~shed ur blocked compleue_? or private development. c. An elimination of the possLbilzty of lncreasang pubi.. =.:e- the future - includes but as not 1//nlted tu ~he fo!-c~_~. (I) Construction of p~blic facilities whlch physics_.: provision, except at great expense, of convenient public water-related recreation resources and facailtle,. (2) Sale, lease, or other conveyance of publac iar~ds %.~'~' ,'..., provide public access %o puhli~ ccastal (3) Construction of pravate facilities w~cn pnysl.~-.> ~r4-.e"' ?:~ provision of convenient publac access to public coastal ~an~ .~ - ' waters from public lands and facilaties. 2. The existing level of public access w~than puJDlac coastal ~ands .: waters shall not be reduced or eliminated_ a. A reduction in the existang level of publac acces~ is not limited to t~e following: (1) Access as reduced cr eliminated because cf hai:o::f _- r.J%s~:%~ required at new or altered tra/%sportatlon facllltle5 ,=~e~'~- ~=~: transmission lines, or similar linear facliltles. (2) Access as reduced or Dlocked compietei? ~', ac~ :;~.< developments. 5o 6o Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast aha1! be provided by new land use or development, except where (a) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security, or the protection of identified fragile coastal resources; (b) adequate access exists within one-half mile; or (c) agriculture would be adversely affected. Such access shall not be required to be open to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the a¢cessway. The State will not undertake or fund any project which increases access to a water-relal:ed resource or facility that is not open to all members of the public. In their plans and programs for increasing public access, State agencies shall give priority in the following or~er to projects located: within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and served by public transportation; within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area but not served by public transportation; outside the defined Urban Area boundar%' and served by public transportation; and outside the defined Urban Area boundary but not served by public transportation. Proposals for increased public access to coastal lands and waters shall be analyzed according to the following factors: The level of access to be provided should be in accord with estimated public use. If not, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy. The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use which would exceed the physical capability of the resource coastal lands. If ~is were determined to be the case, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent w~tk the policy. RECREATION POLICIES Pclicy 21 Water dependent and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water related uses along the coast. Explanation of Policy Water-related recreation includes such obviously water-dependent activities as boating, swimming, and fishing as well as certain activities which are enhanced by a coastal location and increase the general public's access to the coast such as ~destrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal scenery. 23 Provided the development of water-related recreation ~ consistent preservation and enhancement of such important coasta, resources as wildlife habitats, aesthetically significant area~, ~stor~c ~nd resources, agriculture and significant mineral aha fossil provided demand exists, water-related recreation development increased and such uses shall have a higher priori~} than any dependent uses, including non-water-related recreation uses. ~:~ water-dependent recreation uses shall have a highe~ priorit~ :~.'e~ enhanced recreation uses. Determining a priority among coasua_ uses will require a case by case analysis. Among priority areas for increasing water-related recreation are those areas where access to the recreation opportunities can be provided by new or existing public transportation services areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted railroads, industry, or other forms of existing ~ntensive development. ~e DOS, working with the Office o~ Parks, Recreacio: Historic Presez-vation and with local governments, w~ll ide~tlf> whose use of the shore has been sc ~estrlcted and ~_h~se sltes such developments which are suitable for recreation and accessible. Priority shall De glven to recreational develcomer lands. The siting or deslgn of new public development result in a barrier to the recreat~cna! use .>~ co~unity's shore should be avoided as much as practicable Among the types of water-dependent recreation, provlslon Df adequa%= services to meet future demand ~s to be encouraged siting of boating facilities must De consistent with preserv_. enhancement of other coastal resources and with the_~ acco~odate de~k%nd. The prcvision cf new pub!~ essential ~n meeting this demand, but such competition with private boating deveicpmen% appropriate, include parking, park-like surroundings pumpout facilities. Harbors Lf Pefuge ar~ part~c_~ar!:' Erie and Lake Ontario. There is a need for a bette~ boating facilities to correct problems of overdosed improperly sited facilities. Water-related off-road recreational vehicle use is an accepr aki~ provide no adverse environmental impacLs occur wke~,~ impact will occur, mitigating measures w~£i be ~mplemen~e~ practicable to mini]nize such adverse impacts, if acceptable not practicable, prohibition cf the use by off-road recrea%. ':- " will be posted and enforced. Groundwater contam~ination presents a threat to Fire ~sland Nat..~'.ai !~eashor~ water resources. Policy 22 DeveloAmaent when located adjacent to the shore will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development. Explanation of Polici[ Many developments present practical opportunities for providing recreation facilities as an additional use of the site or facility. Therefore whenever develo~ents are located adjacent to the shore they should to the fullest extent permitted by existing law provide for some form of water-related recreation use unless there are compelling reasons why any form of such recreation would no% be compatible with the development, or a reasonable demand for public use cannot be foreseen. The types of development which can generally provide water-related recreation as a multkple use include but are not limited to: parks highways power plants utility transmission rights of way sewage treatment facilities mental health facilities* hospitals* prisons* schools, u.niversities* military facilities*, nature preserves* large residential subdivisions (50 units) shopping centers office buildings Prior to taking action relative to any development, State agencies should consult with the State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and if there is an approved local waterfront program, with the municipality in which the develolm~ent is to locate, to deteIlr, ine appropriate recreation uses. The agency should provide OPPJ{P and the municipality wit~ the opportunity to participate in project planning. Appropriate recreation uses which do not require any substantial add:tional construction shall ~ provided at the expense of the project sponsor provided the cost doe~ not exceed 2% of total project cost. In determining whether compelling reasons exist which would make inadvisable recreation as a multiple use, safety considerations should reflect a recognition that some risk is acceptable in the use of recreational facilities. Whenever a proposed development would be consistent with CM~ policies and the development could,, through the provision of recreation and other 25 multiple uses, significantly increase public use c' the shore development should be encouraged to locate ad]ace~' to ~h~ situation would generally only appI~' within the mol~ developec urban areas). The types of recreation uses likely to be compatib£e wl~-h these facilities are limited to the more passive for~, ~uch as fishing access. In some cases, land areas not dlr~-cll} needed by the facility could be used for recreation. HISTORIC RESOURCES AND VISUAL ~UALITY POLICIES Policy 23 Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts oreas sites that are of significance in the archeolog7 or culture of the state, !~s Nation. Explanation of Policy Among the most valuable of the State's man-made resources structures or areas which are .~ historic, archeologica_ significance. The protection cf these structures must ~nvolve of their importance by all agencies and the ability ~c ldentlf% ~'. them. Protection must include concern not 3ust with specific areas of significance, and with the area arcund specific sites is ncr to be construed as a passive mandate but must include efforts when appropriate to restore cr revitalize through While the progra~ is concerned with the preservation of all within the coastal boundary, it will actively promote the historic and cultural resources which have a coastal relatlons~ ~ The structures, districts, areas or sites t_kat are history, architecture, archeology or culture of the Sta~e. cr the Nation comprise the foilzwinc resources: 1. A resource which is in a Federal or State park estarl_$nen amc: ~ :the, reasons, to protect and preserve the resource. 2. A resource on, nominated tc De on, or determined ellq~ti~ -'.: :- · -~:~ National or State Registers of Historic ~lare& 3. A resource on or nominated to be on the State Nature anc u~st~F: Preserve Trust. 4. An archeological resource which is on the State Departme~- . Education's inventcQ' {~f arTnezi~giral slte~ A local landmark, park, cr locally designated klstcr~c ci~: located within the bounda~ cf an ap~rc.,'e,3 .. .~ revitalization program. All practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of signific&nce in the history, architecture, archeology or culture of the State, its communities or the Nation $hall be deemed to include the consideration and adoption of any techniques, measures, or controls to prevent a significant adverse change to such significant structures, districts, are~ or sites. A significant adverse change includes but is not llm~ted to: Alteration of or addition *o one or more of the architectural. structural orn~nental or functional features of a building, structure, or site that :is a recognized historic, cultural, or archeological resource, or component thereof. Such features are defined as encompassing the style and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure and any original or historically significant interior features including type, color and texture of building materials; entry ways and doors; fenestration; lighting fixtures; roofing, sculpture and carving; steps; rails; fencing; windows; vents and other openings; grillwork; signs; canopies; and other appurtenant fixtures and, in addition, all buildings, structures, outbuildings, walks, fences, steps, topographical features, earthworks, paving and signs located on the designated resource property. (To the extent they are relevant, the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" shall be adhered to.) Demolition or removal in full or part of a building, structure, or earthworks that is a recognized historic, cultural, or archeological resource or component thereof, to include all those features described in (a) above plus any other appurtenant fixture associated with a building structure or earthwork. All proposed actions within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property boundary of the historic, architectural, cultural, or archeological resource and all actions within an historic district that would be incompatible with the objective or preserving the quality and integrity of the resource. Primary considerations to be used in making judgement about compatibility should focus on the visual and locational relationship between the proposed action and the special character of the historic, cultural, or archeological resource. Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design material, scale, proportion, composition, mess, line, color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the proposed actions, with historic districts this would include infrastructure improvements or changes, such as, street and sidewalk paving, street fu2~iture and lighting. This policy shall not be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, or ~emolition of any building, structure, earthwork, or component t_hereof of a recognized historic, cultural or archeological resource which has been officially certified as being imr~inently dangerous to life or public health. Nor shall the policy be 27 construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, repa~ 3r props: according to the U.S. Department of Interior's Standards for and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings of an} o structttre, site or earthwork, or component thereof o: . recognlzez cultural or archeological resource which does not nvolve adverse change to the resource, as defined above. Policy 24 Prevent impairment 9f scenic resources of statewide significance. Explanation of Policy The Coastal Management Program will identify on the coastal area resources of statewide significance. A list of prel~na~ resources appears in the Appendix [to the NYS Coastal Managemer~ The following general criteria wLi/ be com~zned to determzne sk~r.i ~ ~uality. The basic elements cf design ~i.e.. two-dlmenslcn~_ three-dimensional form, texture and color% combine 5c creat{ = ...... quality landscapes. The water, landforms, and man-made coastal landscapes also exhibit anlt~ cf romponer.ts Thi~ :i..' .- Islands where the mix of water, land, vegetative and man-mad~ components creates satisfying hnit~ Often, high quality landscapes contain striking contrasts ~.et~ee: . ~: forms, textures and colors. Example: A waterfall where s:::~' .. ~ - vertical lines and smooth and turbulent textures mae .; .~ juxtaposition. Finally, high quallty landscapes are general_'~ [%~ .-. ; n~ features, such structures or other elements wh~c~: ~re : .~' . . terms of siting, form, scale, and/or materials ~niqueness. The uniqueness of high qua!zty landscapes .~ ~et.a...r=c : . the frequency of occurence of s~mllar resources ~n a reg2:~, ; '~ : -~'~ or beyond. Public Accessibility. A sce:,~c resource o; si~n~fxca~, ou~' ..* visually a~.d, where appropriate physically' accessible ~ ' .: Public Recognition. Widespread recognition of a scenic resource a characteristic intrinsic tc the resource demonstrate people's appreciation of the well as evocative, qualities. Public recognltlOr~ ser'.=:~ ~'.r · analytic conclusions about the s~gnif~cance cf a resourc.~ When considering a proposed action, agencies shall first determine whether the action could affect a scenic resource of ststewide significance. This determination would involve: (a) a review of the coastal area map to ascertain if it shows an identified scenic resource which could be affected by the proposed ac,:ion, and (b} a review of the types of activities proposed to determine if they would be likely to impair the scenic beauty of an identified resource. The following siting and facility-related guidelines are to be used to achieve this policy, recognizing that each development situation is unique and that the guidelines will have to be applied accordingly. Guidelines include: siting structures and other develolmnent such as highways, power lines, and signs, back from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline and to retain views to and from the shore; -- clustering or orienting structures to retain views, save open space and provide visual organization to a development; -- incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic buildings) into the overall development scheme; -- removing de~:eriorated and/or degrading elements; -- maintaining or restoring the original land form, except when changes screen unattractive elements and/or add appropriate interest; maintaining or adding vegetation to provide interest, encourage the presence of wildlife, blend structures into the site, and obscure unattractive elements, except when selective clearing removes unsightly, .aiseaaed or hazardous vegetation and when selective clearing creates views of coastal waters; -- using appro~.riate materials, in addition to vegetation, to screen unattractive elements; using appropriate scales, forms and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the landsoape. 29 Policy 25 Protect, re store or enhance natural and ma: -made resources are not identified as being of statewids .:lgnlfican.ce contribute to the overall scenic quality the coasta Explanation of Policy When consi~ering a proposed action, which would not affect a of statewide significance, agencies shall undertake action would be undertaken so %s to protect, restore or enhance scenic quality of the coastal area. Act~vzt~es which c~ui~ further degrade scenic quality are the same as nhose cited previous policy, i.e., modification o~ natural landforms~ vegetation, etc. However, the effects of these ~lvl~zes considered as serious for the general coastal area as for slgnlf~t~:~ The siting and design guideI~nem listed under the previous considered for proposed actions ir. the general coasta~ area may need to be placed on remcv=l o~ existinc eiemeat~. which degrade, and on addition of new elements or other enhance. Removal of vegetation at key points to bmprove u~sua. coastal waters is one such change which might be expected quality. AGRICULTURAL LANDS POLICY Policy 26 Conserve and prctect agricultural lands ~r. the StaLe coastal area. Explanation of Policy The first step in conserving agrlcultura, lands _~ tt~e ~' such lands. The Department of State is mapping al! import3' : : . lands within the State's coastal area The following 'r..e~_.. . ~- used to prepare the maps, and the mapped ln~orma%~:. -i. 2~ . ;... the New York State Coastal Resources Inventory and on the i.oast=. ~re- ~' Land meeting any of the following criteria is being mappea I. Land which meet the definition of the U.S. Oepartmenu being pri~e farmland, unique farmland~ importance. Prime farmland is define~ Dy USDA So~i Conser';a%lc.. #7 Agriculture Part 65~.5(a), January. 19-9 associations that meet th~s definltio~ ha5 beer coastal county.2 Unique fax~land is defined by UCDASCS in CPS %7 Agriculture Part 657.5(b). In the coastal area of New York all fruit and vegetable farming meets the terms of the definition. Farmland cf Ctatewide /mportance is defined by UCDASCS in CRF ~7 Agricultttre Part 656.5(c). Lists of soil associations which constitute farmland of Statewide importance have been prepared for each coastal county. Active farmland within Agricultural Districts. The maps of each Agricultural District shows land committed by farmers. This is the land that will be mapped as active farmland. The district boundary will also be shown. Areas identified as having high economic viability for farming. Any farm not identified under i and/or 2 above and which is located in an area identified as having "high viability" on the map entitled "Economic Viability of Fa:~m Areas" prepared by the Office of Planning Coordination in May, 1969. This would be the basis for initial identification of areas having high economic viability for farming. Areas will be added and/or deleted based on comments from the agricultural community. Areas adjacent to land identified under 1 above if these areas are being farmed and are part of a far,r, with identified important agricultural lands. Prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of Ctatewide si.cr, ificance will not be identified as important agricultural land whenever it occurs as parcels of land less than 25 acres in size and these s~ll parcels are not within a mile of areas of active fanning. Given the Program's application to a narrow strip of land, implementing a policy of promoting agricultural use of land must, to be practical, concentrate on controlling the replacement of agricultural land uses with non-agricultural lan~ use as the result of some public action. The many other factors such as markets, taxes, and regulations, which influence the viability of agriculture in a given area, can only be addressed on a $tatewide or national basis. The Program policy requires a concern for the loss of any important agricultural land. }{owever, the primary concern must be with :he loss of agricultural land when that loss would have e significant effect cn an agricultural area's ability to continue to exist, tc prosper, and even to expand. A series of determinations are necessary to establish whether a public action is consistent with the conservation and protection of agricultural lands or whether it is likely to be harmful to the health cf an agricultural area. In brief these determinations are as follows: First, it must be determined whether a proposed public action would result in the loss of i~portant agricultural lands as mapped on the Coastal Inventory. If it would not result, either directly or indirectly, in the loss of identified important agricultural lands, then the action is consistent with the policy on agriculture. If it is determined that the 31 action would result in a loss of identified importan ~grlcultura_ that loss would not have an adverse effect on the _~bllity in the surrounding area, then the action may also ~e cons!s~e agriculture policy. However, in that case the actic.~, must be ~ndel a manner that would minimize the loss of important ~ar~iand~ is de%ermined to result in a significant loss o~ ~mportant agr~c~. land, that is if the loss is to a degree suff~cie;'t tc adversell surrounding agriculture's viability, - its ability %~ continue prosper, and even to expand -. then the action is a=.~ consistent agriculture policy. The following guidelines define more fully what mus~ me consiaerec _' ~:~ .. the above determinations: A public action would be likely to significantly Lmpalr the ~za~l~_~ of a~ agricultural area in which identified impertant ag~ .~?'~ra are located if: would: a. consume more than 10% cf the lane cf an active farm~ such identlfle~ impc rt3tt acrlc~itural lands b. consume a total of lOC acres or more of identified tmpcrta, agricultural land, or c. divide an active farm wi~_~, lde~t~fied ~mpc3rtant the action would result in enviror~nentaI changes the productivity or adversely affect the gua!~t% any identified important agricultural land~ the action would create real estate marker -.3nd~t~s:%~ ,.. tall.: the conversion of large areas of ~dent~fled ~mpor~a~' ~. .. land to non-agricultural uses. Such c~nd~ons ma~ ~ .[e~[,~ transportation improvements, except for malntenan.e J~ afc safety improvements to, existing facill=les~ that or non-farm related development c. major non-agribusiness commercial development ad*a'e-~ identified agricultural lands d. major public institutions e. residential uses other than farm dwellings any change in land hse regulations appiylng t:~ agr~-'.~%~:~, The following tYl~eS of facilities and activities should not be construe~ as having adverse effects on ~he preservation of agricultural land: Farm dwellings, barns, silos, and other accessory uses and structures incidental ~o agricultural production or necessary farm family supplemental income for Agribusiness development which includes the entire structure of local support services and co~ercial enterprises necessary to maintain an agricultural operation, e.g., milk hauler, grain dealer, farm machinery dealer, veterinarian, foo~ processing plants In determining whether an action that would result in the loss of farmland is of overriding regional or Statewide benefit, the following factors should be considered: For an action to be considered overriding it must be shown to provide significantly greater benefits to the region or State than are provided by the affected agricultural area (not merely the land directly affected by the action). In determining the benefits of the affected agricultural to the region or State, consideration must be given to its social and cultural value, its economic availability, its environmental benefits, its existing and potential contribution to food or fiber product/on in the State and any State food policy., as well as its direct econom/c benefits. ac An agricultural area is an area predominantly in farming and in which the farms produce similar products and/or rely om the same agribusiness support services and are to be significant degree economically inter-dependent. At a minimum, this area should consist cf at least 500 acres of identified i~portant agriculture land. For the purpose of analyzing impacts of any action on agriculture, the boundaz-y of such area need not be restricted to land within the coastal boundary. If the affected agricultural lands lie within an agricultural district then, at a minimur~, the agricultural area should include the entire agricultural district. In determining the benefits of an agricultural area, its relationship to agricultural lands outside the area should also be considered. c. The estimate of the economic viability of the affected agricultural area should be based on an assessment of: i. soil resources, topography, conditions of climate and water resources; ~i. availability of agribusiness and other support services, and the level and condition of investments in farm real estate, livestock and ec~ipment; iii. the level of farming skills as evidenced by income obtained, yield estimates for crops, and costs being experienced with t_he present types and conditions of buildings, equipment, and cropland; 33 iv. use Of new technology and the rates a: adopted; v. co~petition from s%Lbstltute products an~ the'- and trends in %otaI demand for given product~, vi. patterns of farm ownership for their and the likelihood that farms will remain in d. The estimate of the social and cultural value ,~r farm'_~a ~ -r. area should be based om an analysis ~f~ i. the history of farming i~. the area; ii. the length of time farms have remained in one faml,~, iii. the degree to which farmers in the area share <..it.~ ~ ethnic heritage; iv. the extent to which products are scld and consu~eC .ocai~! v. the degree to which a specific cropIs~ has become ~aent~f2{..~ · a community. e. An estunate of the envlror~ental benefits cf the af~ect~z agriculture should be basec 2n analys~ c~ i. the extent to which the affected agriculture practiced provides a habitat c: ~ouc tor wlidi~fe~ ii. the extent to which a fart ,andszape adds of an area; i~i. a~y regional or local open space plans, and degree open space contributes to a~[ ~v. the degree to which the affected agrzcu,ture contribute to the estatlishmen~ of a clear edge Det~e~ urban development. is permitted to substantially hinder the achzevement according to DOS regulation~ Part 6C' or as a result. - ~ ~ - .: .-- of an EIS, then the reqh~red minzm~zaticn sho_~c me .~ ~,~ . following manner: The proposed action shall, to the extent pracu~cab£e: o~ ~,,t~., any land not identifIed as ~mportant agricultural sited on identified Lmpcrtant agr~3ultura_ _~:.s classes of agricultural land according tc the fcilz~w~na a. prime farmland in archards ar '::neyards b. unique farmland in orchard or vineyards c. other prime farmland ~n active farmlng e. farmland of Statewide importance in actlve ~armL~ f. active farmland identified as havzng h~gh ==cn~:,. g. prime farmland net bring farmed h. farmland of Statewide ~mportance not being [arme~ 34 To the extent practicable, agricultural use of identified important agricultktral land not directly necessary for the operation of ~he proposed non-agricultural action should be provided for through such means as lease arrangemente with farmers, direct undertaking of agriculture,, or sale of surplus land to farmers. Agricultural use of such land shall have priority over any other proposed multiple use of ~he ]'and. 1 3 After mapping according to this definition was substantially completed, the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets completed development of a new agricultural land classification eystem. As soon as is practical the following definition will be the basis for revising the maps of coastal agricultural l~nd. Important agricultural land shall include all land within an agricultural district or subject to an eight-year co~nitment which has been farmed within at least two of the last five years, or any land farmed within at least two of the last five years in soil groups 1-4 as classified by the Land Classification System established by the NYS Department of Agriculture and ¥~rkets, or any land farmed within at least two of the last five years which is influenced by climate conditions which support the growth of high value corps. Additionally, agricultural land not meeting the above criteria but located adjacent to any such land and forming part of an on-going agricultural enterprise shall be considered important agricultural land. For the purposes of this map the urban areas which are to be excluded are all cities, the counties of Nassau, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Erie, and any built up area (this applies to c. also). A farm is defined as an area of at least 10 acres devoted to agricultural production as defined in the Agricultural District Law and from which agricultural products have yielded gross receipts of $10,000 in the past year. ENERGY AND ICE MANAGEME~ POLICIES Policy 27 Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location. E~lanation of Polic~ Demand for energy in New York will increase, although at a rate slower than previously predicted.. The State expects ~o meet these energy demands through a combination of conservation measures; ~raditional and alternative technologies; and use of various fuels including coal in greater proportion. A determination of public need for energy is the first step in the process for citing any new facilities. The directives for determining this need are contained primarily in Article 5 of the New York State Energy Law. That 35 Article requires the preparation of a State Enez~ Master respect to tran~ssion lines and steam electric ..~neratln9 fa Articles VII and VIII of the State's Public Ser~,ice ~w require forecasts and establish the basis for determining th~ ~mpatlbl~t~ facilities with the environment and the necessity for ~ shorefront The policies derived fro~ the siting regulations ~der these Artacle~ entirely consistent with the general coastal zone policies der~'e. other laws, particularly the regulations promulgated pursuar.. Waterfront Revitalization and ~oastal Resources Act That Ac' the purposes of ensuring consistency with the Coastal Managemen~ The Department of State will cogent on the State Energy Maste~ present testimony for the record during relevant certification proceed~ ~ under Articles VII and VIII of the PSL; and use ,abe State regulations to ensure that decisions on other proposed energ~ fac~_%~ (other than transmission facilities and steam electric generat~nc which would impact the coastal area are made consisten~ policies. Policy 28 Ice management practice5 shall not ~nterfere wlt~ tnt ~r,3u.._ of hydroelectric power, d~mage significant fish and ,~c~ their h~kltat$, cr increase shoreline erosion or f~:c~ Explanation of Policy Prior to u~dertakin? actions required for lce management, a~ =s~e~5~,- be made of the potential effects of such actions upon the hydroelectric power, f~sh and w~ldlife and the~[ habltat~ identified in the Coastal Area Maps, flo~ ieveis and damag~ shoreline erosion damage, and upon natural protective features Following such a_n examination, adequate methods of avoidance of such potential effects must be utilized ~f the proposed implemented. Policy 29 Encourage the development of energy resources ,bn ~ne ._~ Continental ~helf, in Lake Erie and ir~ ether wa~e~ .... ensure the environmental safety of such actlvitle~ Explanation of Policy The State recognizes the need tc develop new indigenous energy also recognizes that such development may endanger the the various energy sources being examined are those which may the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or in Lake Erze. ~e encouraging the wise development of both. Matters pertaining tc tke OCS are the responsib~i~ty ui Environmental Conservation. In 1977, the Department, in regional and local agencies, completed a study which ~den%~f~ea sites along the marine coast for on-shore OCS facilities sites have not I~en developed for this purpose. The Department, also, actively participates in ~he OCS planning process by reviewing and voicing the State's concerns about federal OCS oil and gas lease sale.~ and plans. In its review of t~ese proposed sales and plans, the Department considers a number of factors such as ~he effects upon navigational safety in the established traffic: lanes leading into and from New York Harbor; the imloacts upon important finfish, shellfish and wildlife populations and their spawning areas; economic and other effects upon con=flercial and recreational fishing activities; impacts, upon public recreational resources and opportnnities along the marine coast; the potential for hazards; impacts upon biological communities; and water ~uality. The Depar~_ment of Environmental Conservation has also examined the potential impacts of Lake Erie gas drilling and is instituting reasonable guidelines so that activities can proceed without dAm~ge to public water supplies and other valuable coastal resources. State law prohibits develol~nent of wells nearer than one-half m/la from the shoreline, two ~/les from public water supply intakes, ~nd one thousand feet from any other structure or installation in or on Lake Erie. Further, State law prohibits production of liquid hydrocarbons in Lake Erie, either alone or in association with natural gas. The ]Department has not, however, reached a decision as to whether or not the .lands under Lake Erie will be leased for gas exploration purposes. WATER AND AIR RESOURCES POLICIES Policy 30 Municipal, industrial, and co~ercial discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to State and National water quality standards. ~x~lanation of Polic~ Municipal, industrial and commercial discharges include not only "end-of-the pipe" discharges into surface and groundwater but also plant site runoff, leaching, spillages, sludge and other waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage sites. Also, the regulated industrial discharges are both those which directly empty into receiving coastal waters and those which pass through municipal treatment systems before reaching the State's waterways. Policy 31 State coastal area policies and management objectives of approved local Waterfront Revitalization Progr~uns will be considered while reviewing ooastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; however, those waters already overburdened with contaminants will be recognized as being a development constraint.. Explanation of Polic~ Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217 the State has classified its coastal and other waters in accordance with considerations of best usage in the interest of the public and has adopted water quality 37 standards for each class of waters. These classiflca_~ons and standard= reviewable at least every three years for possible .evasion ~3,~ amen/me:.' Local Waterfront 9evitalization Programs and St~ ~ coasta. policies shall be factored into the review prcca~ for ss~st~ However, such consideration shall not affect any ~a:er pol~ requirement esta]Dlish~ent by the State pursuant tc ~'ne Federa~ iiea~ Act. The State has identified cer*ain stream segments as being quality limiting" or "effluent limiting." Waters not standards and which would not be expected to meet these standards eve:. applying "best practicable treatment" to effluent discharges ~:~ as "water quality limiting." Those segments meeting standards expected to meet them after application of "best practicable %rea~ment classified as "effluent Ii~iting," and all new waste discharges must "best practicable treatment." However, along stream segments "water quality limiting, waste treatment beyond "best pract2caa~.~ treatment" would be required, and costs of applying ~_~- treatment may be prohibitive for new develop~ent~ Policy 32 Encourage the use of alternative or innovative systems ~n small comm,~t~es where the ~osr~ facilities are unreasona~i>' h~gh g~ve: :.ne tax base of these Explanation of Policy Alternative systems include individual sep~lr tanks anz disposal systems, dual systems, small systems serving ciustel~ or commercial users, and pressuie o: vacuu~ sewers These are often more cost effective in smaller less dense~j, ~opu±a and for which conventional facilities are toc expensiva Policy 33 Best management practice~ will be used 5~ ensure stormwater runoff and combined sewe~ .,e~:'- *~ coastal waters. Explanation of Policy Best management practices include both structural ,nc of preventing or mitigating pollution caused b~ runoff and combined sewer overflows. At present, structural controlling stormwater runoff (e.g., construction of combined sewer overflows (e.g., replacement cf combined sanitary and stormwater collection systems) are not Proposed a~endments to the Clean Water Act. however, to address conjoined sewer overflows ~n areas where quality impacts. Untll funding for such non-structural approaches (e.g., unproved street road salt) will be encouraged. Policy 34 Dischar~;e of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels subject to State jurisdiction will be 1/m/ted so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas. Explanation of Polic_~ The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other solid and liquid materials from watercraft and marinas into the S~ate's waters is regulated. Priority will be given to the enforcement of this Law in areas such as shellfish beds and other significant habitats, beaches, and public water supply intakes, which need protection from contamination by vessel wastes. Also, specific effluent standards for marine toilets have been promulgated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (6 NYCRR, Part 657). Policy 35 Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters wall be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands. Explanation of Policlz Dredging often proves to be essential for waterfront revitalization and development, maintaining navigation channels at sufficient depths, pollutant removal and meeting other coastal management needs, such dredging projects, however, may adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands and other important coastal resources. Often these adverse effects can be minimized t-hrough careful design and timing of the dredging operation and proper siting of the dredge spoil disposal site. Dredging permits will be granted if it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that these anticipated adverse effects have been reduced to levels which satisfy $~ats dredging permit standards set forth in regulations developed pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law, (Articles 15, 24, 25 and 34), and are consistent with policies pertaining to the protection of coastal resources (State Coastal Management policies 7, 24, 15, 26 and 44). Policy 36 Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or at least minimize spills into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur. Explanation of Polic~ See Policy 39 for definition of hazardous materials. 39 Policy 37 Best management practices will be utll~zed ~ minim~z~ '. non-point discharge of excess nutrients ~rgan~ soils into coastal waters. Explanation of Po~ic~ Best management practices used to reduce these sources include but are not limited to, encouraging organic management principles, soil erosion control practices ant control techniques. Policy 38 The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwate~ supplies, will be conserved and protected~ such waters constitute the primary or supply. Explanation of Polic~ Surface and groundwater are the ~r~nclple ~carces ct dr~nK~r.- -=' State, and therefore must be prctected~ S~nce Lcn~ ~s~and - ~ !.~ · supply has been designated a "primary source aquifer." ai~ az%~b ~-.. reviewed relative to their ~mpac t~ 7r~ Long [siand's ~roundwase~ =q%~.~ Policy 39 The transport, stcra§e, treatment and disposal zf particularly hazardous wastes, w~thin coas~a~ conducted an such a manner sc as tc protect surface water supplies, s~gni, flcant fish an~ recreation areas, important agricultural resources. Explanation of Policy The definitions of terms "soi~d wastes' and "sc!id facilities" are taken from ~ew York's Soi~d wast~ (Environmental Conservation Law, Artlcle 27%. SOllC waste= from air or water pollution control faciiltzes, demci_'~t . debris and ~ndustrial and commercial wastes. Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacture:.% generally characterized as being flammable, corroslve~ More specifically, waste is defined in Enviror~enta_ (Section 27-0901 (3)) as "waste or cor~bination of wastes its quantity, concentration, ~.? physical, chemica~ characteristics may~ (li cause~ ~ s~gn~f~cantly contr~b~ in mortality or an increase ~n serious ~rreversible, reversible illness; or ~2] pose a substantial present e~ hi, man health or the envir~rumen% which improper.,~ transported or otherwise managed" A !~s~ of hazardo'ia 366 will be adopted by DEC wlt~n 6 months after EP~ list. Examples of solid waste management facilities include resource recovery facilities, sanitary landfills and solid waste reduction facilities. Although a fundamental problem associated with the disposal and treatment of so. lid wastes is the contamination of water resources, other related problems may include: fill. lng of wetlands and littoral areas, atmospheric loading, and degradation of scenic resources. Policy 40 Effluenc discharged from major steam electric generating and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform to State water quality standards. Explanation of Polic~ The State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment must consider a number of factors when reviewing a proposed site for facility construction. One of these factors is that the facility "not discharge any effluent that will be unduly injurious to the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife, the industrial develol~ment of the State, the public health, ar~ public enjoyment of the receiving waters." The effects of thermal discharges on water quality and aquatic organisms will be considered by the siting boar(! when evaluating an applicant's request to construct a new steam electric generating facility. Policy 41 Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause National or State air quality standards to be violated. Ex~l&nation of Polic~ New York's Coastal Management Program incorporates the air quality policies and programs developed for the State by the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the Clean Air Act and State Laws on air quality. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are the minimum air quality control requirements applicable within the coastal area. To the extent possible, the State Implementation Plan will be consistent with coastal lands and water use policies. Conversely, coastal management. guidelines and program decisions with regard to land and water use and any reco~nendations with regard to specific sites for major new or expanded industrial, energy, transportation, or commercial facilities will reflect an assessment of their compliance with the air quality requirements of the State Implementation Plan. The Department of J~nvironmental Conservation will allocate substantial resources to develop a regulatory and management program to identify and eliminate toxic discharges into the atmosphere. The State's Coastal Management Program will assist in coordinating major toxic control prograr~ing efforts in the coastal regions and in supporting research on the multi-media nature of toxics and their economic and environmental effects on coastal resources. 41 Policy 42 Coastal Management policies will be consla,~red ~f 5he Stet.% reclassifies land areas pursuant to the ~'~ention ;~ si~n:-'. deterioration regulations of the Federal -~an AiL ~%. Explanation of Policy The policies of the State and local coastal maqagement program, s _unJe~, ..~ proposed land and water uses and the protection and ~reseruat~ ,~ =~e3~s management areas will be take~ into account p~ior ~ an~ ac~...~ -a_..~ prevention of significant deterioration land class&ficat~ona ~. ~==~_ regions or adjacent areas. In addition, the Department c: ~ta~ -:~ provide the Department of Environmental Conservation with recommen~a~;~ for proposed prevention of significant deterioration land class~ficatl.~' designations based upon State and local coastal management prc,~rams Policy 43 Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause generation of significant a/~ounts of the acid nitrates and sulfates. Explanation of Pol~ci The New York Coastal Management Program ~ncorporates the State = ~u ~, ~.== acid rain. As such, the Coastal ~tanagement F'ro~ram w~L -~=~.~ State's efforts tc control acid ra~r.. ~'nese efforts tc -~:' ::_. ~ .... will e~,ance the continued ,'iakkl-5'. ~ ccas~ : ~lsher..:: ~ ~, agricultural, scenic and water resources. Policy 44 greserve and protect t~dal 5r.d freshwater wetia~;d? ~: : :: the benefits derived fror ~nese area~ Explanation cf Policy Tidal wetlands include the foliowlng ecoloqlcal zone5 coast.~ intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, sara and flats; ~isto~a~ or salt meadow; ar, d formerly connected tidal wetlands These areas are officially delineated cn tnf 2~e~ar~me' Conservation's Tidal Wetlands Inventory Map. Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and ~_a%~ scpp,_f~i · a~atic and semi-aquatic vegetation and other wetlands ac defz:.ed ~ N.Y.$. Freshwater Wetlands Act and the N.Y.$. Protection ~f .'ate:s ~ The benefits derived from the preservation of tidal and ~reshwate, include but are not l~mited tc~ -- habitat for wildlife and fish, lncludzng a substa[%t~a, f.~:~_~ the State's commercial f~n and shellfish varieties. ~:,,: ,~:' r:.;3%~* to associated aquatic food chains; -- erosion, flood and storm contrcl~ -- natural pollution treatment: -- groundwater protection; ~- recreational opportunities; -- educational and scientific opportunities3 ant MAR 2 6 1986 THOMAS A TWOMEY JR. STEPHEN B LATHAM JOHN F SHEA. III CHRISTOPHER D KELLEY AMY B tURNER LAWRENCE m STORM- MAUREEN T LICCIONE · ALSO ADMITTED iN CONNECTICUT AND FLORIDA ATIORNEYS AT LAW WEST SECOND STREET P 0 BOX 398 March 26, 1986 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum of Southport Development Dear Ms. Terry: On behalf of Henry %~eismann and Frank Flynn, enclose herewith an original and five copies of their comments on the T)EIS Addendum of Southport Development for the Town Board and Town planners review and consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Kelley CK/mp encs. cc: Supervisor' Murphy David Emilita F()Wlq BOARD OF FHE FOW!q OP SOU'F-IOLO In the r~aLter of th~ '\pplic~tion of S 7)IFF~I P D ~('f DEVI~LOPMENF TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or-- the Application of $OUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS ON THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR $OUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn reside on Tarpon Drive, in Southold, in close proximity to the proposed ~outhport Development project in the Town of Southold. On their behalf, we submitted comments on the original ~raft environmental impact statement submitted by Southport Development including technical analyses by land-use planner, Frederick Reuter and environmental analyst, Laurence Penny. We have reviewed the addendum to the draft enviromental impact statement and enclose our comments herein. In general the responses of the applicant in the addendum do not suffice to adequatels, answer the questions of Szepatowski Associates, Inc., the Town Board's planning consultant, as they purport ~o, nor do they in any way attempt to respond to the to comments their experts. original DEIS defective and and questions raised by the intervenors and The analysis, overall, between the and the addendum, remains faulty, insufficient as a matter of law on the enumerated points. This conclusion is supported by the comments of Frederick Reuter, landuse planner and Laurence Penny, envirnonment analyst submitted herewith. It is apparent that the applicant enviromental review later stages of the from a review of the DEIS addendum is attempting to postpone on particular critical issues to process. However, SEQRA requires that these issues must be addressed at the earliest possible time. Applicant will undoubtedly argue at the site plan and special permit stages of review that an additional DEIS is not required. This reasoning is circular in nature, if he is not required to give a full a~]alysis of his project at this early stage. A review of the addendum reveals that the applicant has still failed to adequately address several major issues raised by this project. A b~ief discussion of these issues fo[[lows. First, the applicant ]las ignored or avoided the serious questions raised about the legality and prudence of allowing three intensive uses of a very small site --2-- based on a doub;Le and triple counting of the area of uplands available for development. The calculations used to determine the density of the motel and the area available for parking are far out of touch with reality. The overriding issue this development presents, as set forth in the comments of the intervenors on the original DEIS and again at the hamlet meeting on the proposed master plal] for the Town of Southold, is that: this proposed development is not consistent with the character of the surrounding community and would constitdte a spot zoning. It is of a type and intensit~ ,Df use odt of character with the surrounding residential and open space qualities of this area of Southold. In addition, the site is severely constrained by the dnigue environmental features of the small but fertile and relatively pristine embayment, which it abuts. A marina, motel and restaurant of the size proposed caneot be absorbed by such a small area and are more appropriate for a site on an area with greater tidal flushing and with neighboring related colmnercial uses. Second, as stated in the original comments on the [)ELS, the alternatives section of the DEIS, what should be the document's "heart and sodl" is woefully weak and inadequate to withstand judicial scrutiny. --3-- Third, the economic justification for this project is based on a study of tourism in the Nappa Valley in California. %~hether or not such a study is relevant is subject to question. But assuming, arguendo, that it is, the assumptions used by the applicant in applying his economic analysis seem remote and far fetched. At page 68 of the addendum, the applicant argues that the motel will generate $2,000,000.00 in revenue for lodging per year, which will generate $8,000,000.00 in spending in Southold in a given year. The $2,000,000.00, figure according to the analysis provided, does not include restaurant, entertainment, retail purchases, gas or automobile serv!~ces but is limited to lodging. If we take this $2,000,000.00 figure and divide it by 82 units it means that each unit would have to produce $24,390.24 in income per year. To provide that type of income, each unit would have to be filled 365 days per year (a 100% occupancy rate) and rented at a rate of $66.83 per night. Given the seasonal economy and the motel rates in the area this would seem highly unlikely. Thus,. the projection of $8,000,000.00 in spending is grossly exaggerated. Fourth, this project is seriously limited by the lack of adequate access to the site as pointed out by Szepatowski Associates, Inc. and the various experts --4-- FREDERICK H. RIEUTER, AICP P!anmng and Zoning Consultant 1030 Forest H,II Rc~ad Henderson'~lle N C 287,39 (704', 692-7104 CO~.IE[~IS ~ PiE ADDEN[~J~I ~llD THE ~r E~JIRO~.fENTAL IMPACT STATE4ENT FOR SOLrfHPORT EL~%~LOP~IENT ~?ED FEBRUARY 17, 1986 No~e: All referenc'~ uade herein to "Reuter Study" are to cc~nts I submitted dated January 14, 1986 on the original DEIS. In general, the addendum supplied by the applicant does little to remedy the insufficiencies of the original DEIS and my original co.eats on ~hat document remain applicable and pertinent. Datei: Mar-~h 25, 1986 SECTIOr; - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Comment Ns. 1 - Ra Zoning There is no legitimate basis for requesting a use variance to permit a restaurant in the General ~Iultiple Residence District. The ~Iaster Plan Update Summary statement referred to is incomplete. As reported in the Reu~er Study, the last phrase ¢,f the sentence quoted is" . where they do not negatively impact on resi- dential neishborhoods or the natural environment." The Router Study also notes that Harine Recreation areas are ". . recommended for locations along creeks that have suitable harbors, but less tidal flushing than is possi~ie in bavfront or Sound front locations." (Emphasis supplied) This clearly indicates that not all harbor's along creeks are ~uita~ie for such intensive develop~ena and that ~idal flushing is a matter of particular concern. Southport harbor is no~ ". .in fact, on Southold Bay" and the~e is no indication that the harScr site does, in fact, have "extensive tidal flushing." in general this supplementary statement flip-flops between ~arine Recreation and Marine Commercial designations. Whether the subject site clearly meets the criteria of either category is still no~ substantiated. As pointe~ out in cne Router Study neither category is consistent winh the goals and findings of the Haster Plan Update as they relate tc the ,ioakling Peninsula. All this aside, in may ~e true that the site is to be changed to the propose~ ~'!arine Recreation designation. Hotel anJ restaurant uses would t~en become special exception uses subject ~oth to certain specific criteria ann 7o the purposes of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and environmental re~-iew. As examined by the Router Study there is every eviJence of th]s site being over developeJ. This new information ,Joes not indicate the assignment of site areas to the x~orious use elements. The DEIS still is without a satisfactory detailed description of the proposed u~e or an adequate site plan as noted by the Router Study. - 2 - SECTION - SU~K'IARY Comment No. 3 - Se Fresh Water Since the fresh water resource question is a dynamic one, it would seem advisable to verify the resolution of nearly one year ago. This question does not answer the issue of the private well pumping proposed cn the subject site raised in the Reuter Study. Comment No. 4 - Re Boatyard Use It should be noted that the proposed district does not permit boatyards or storage yard in the ~Iarine Recreation areas presumably as a result of ooncern for adjacent property Dwners use in adjacent disaricts. Does the response with reference to winter storage mean that the marina will not be in operation over the winter? Comment No. 5 - Rs Sanitary Effluent This response does not deal with the comment's point about the system removing only 30 percent of the nitrogen from the effluent. It also assumes that the Suffolk County Department of Health will find the site suitable and issue such a permit. As the Reuter Study notes there is no information on subsoil conditions or the depth to ground water as these factors might be related to sewage disposal. The very limite~ information on Exhibit C d~es little to clarify the c~nditions surrounding the rudimentary indisa5ion of the sewage disposel systems elements. - 3- SECTION - PUBLIC ]']EED FOR THE PROJECT Comment Ns. 6 - Re Public ~eed The response in this instance relies heavily on verbal communica- tions rather than written statements. It also falls to respond to a request for a municipal cost impact analysis. With referen<~e to the Router Scudy's questions, the response does not describe the sponsor's objectives J_n tel/ns of ~¢hat distribution of boat sizes he intends to serve or ~o what degree he will provide berths for seasonal boaters as contrasted with transient boaters. Will there be a b(~at launching ramp service? Further, no proof' is offered as to the need for the restaurant and motel as an accessory use no ~he marina facility. Could they be located somewhere else ~vhere there was more recto, better r~ad access and a less sensitive environment? In what way does this serve local residents? The reference to boat and marine sales seems irrelevant unless tg]e sponsor proposes to operate a ships .chandlery, a boat and marine engine repair and sales facili%y or a boatyard on the site. Is this the case? With referenc, e to Exhioic L, it is noted that the inquiry tc the Police Department aTparently only concerned mctel use of the siLe. - 4 - SECTION - LOCATIC~ Comment No. 7 - Be Sage Boulevard Although this response answers Comment No. 7, it leaves unanswered questions raised in the Reuter Study with reference to the details surrounding the traffic counts, the trip generation data aha the uses data on which it was based, some confusion about the site's driveways, and she overriding question of the impact of commercial traffic on a local residential street. With reference to this latter point, there still is no description of the oharacter of the vehicles involved (e.g. boat trailers, etc.). The question of marine access and traffic volumes is also un- answered in this response. Comment No. 8 - Re Spills of Industrial Com~.ounds This response suggests that there will be no boatyard activity or any boat and marine engine repair or sales facility on site. Despite this the response to Comment No. 4 indicates that there will be pr~vision for "e~ergency repairs" and tha~ the"existing travel-lift will be utilized for potential winter storage and the occurances requiring emergenoy haulage." Are there ~o be no industrial compounds associated with these activities? -5 - SECTiO~ - MARINE CONSTRUCTION Comment No. 9 - Re Dredge Spoil The response in this case seems to answer the comment. There is still no map information as to bhe looation of the channel. Apparently the sponsor still proposes to remove 7,000 s.f. of HH and IM areas with a '.'er)' doubtful potential for creating any new marsh from the grey clay found on the harbor bottom. The use of grey clay fcr re,fading the site, assuming no contaminants, does not inJ[cate a very beneficial condition wibh respect to surface water drainage. Comment [~o. 10 - ]Re Bo~t Slips, ets. The question of how small a small boat is still remains. If a survey where made of the state registrations of Doats by boat length, this couli be demonstrated. As fsr meeting the market, it may well prove true that those wicn 32 foot boats can afford more than those with 22 lost boats. The response .Joes not lceate the fuel facility or the pump-out facility as requested. - 6 - SECTIO~ - UPLA[ID DEVELOP~-IENT Comment No. 1] - Re Parvious Haterial In this instance the response is essentially a repeat of t~le question as an answer. ~o site plan wizh all drainage patterns, etc. has been provided. As the Reuter Study points out the DEIS provides no information to substantiate the concept of a pervious material on a pervious soil. Pending on the site suggests that the soils ma)' not be pervious. The lazk of graphics in general is not in accordance with the SEQR re- quirements. In this case there is net topographic information avail- able as well as no drainage pattern or plan. Exhibit A is illegible. The nature of the ccmmen s%2rm water management system questioned in the Reuter Study is szill unknown. Comment No. 12 - Re Adequate Parking The response to this comment indicates double counting of ~e land area available for the various uses. The only upland area sev aside for the marina is one acre of parking, nothing else. No land area is set aside for the restaurant or its parking. As a result ~he motel site becomes 33~,364 square feet in area and a unit yield .Df 84.59 units is achieved. As the Reuter Study indicates the sponsor has not provide d land azea for the three distinct pr~lcipal C2mmen5 l,[o. ~3 - Re Peak Water Use for the first time this response reveals that the motel will nave efficiency units. Are these 5o be year-round units? Will they be condominiumized? We also learn for zhe first time that the restauranL will include a ]0 seat bar area. Will this be open year-round? Did the traffic generation analysis take these same numbers into account? If so, where are the computations? - 7- SECTION - CONSTRUCTIO~ A~D OPERATIOI~ Comment No. 14 - Re Subsoil Testing The response to this comment indicates that the upland test bor- ing results have been included with a map showing the sites of the borings. Although the mappin~ is relatively legible the log of the borings is complstely illegible. Reuter Study findings with reference to soil conditions are still applicable. SECTION - ENVIRC~,~_~TAL SE'ITING, NAq~/RAL RESOURCES, SOIL~ Comment ~o. 15 - Soil Borings See finding with reference to Comment No. 14 on borings and soils. For any evaluation of this entire site of Made Land more borings are going to be needed. Reuter Stud',' findings are still applioable. - 9 - SECTION - GROUNDWATER Comment ~o. 16 - lie t"~issing Words Response pro~,~ides the words. - 10- SECTION - SUR?ACE WATERS Comment No. 17 - Water Qualit'r Evidence Needed definition or ma~,ping 6ut refers to the velocities produced by the "constrictior encountered by tidal waters between Conklings Point and Jennin~is Point (Shelter Island)." Such a statement does not disclose much if anything about the conditions in the harbor area of t~e subje,~t site an~ its surfsce water quality. Reuter Study questions related to surface water quality remain unanswered. -11- SECTION - WILDLIFE AND VEGETATIO~I Comment No. 18 - Representative Species List The response to this comment is to be reviewed by others. - 12- SECTION - %q~GET~tTION - WI7.DLIFE Ccn~oen~t No. 19 - The respon~e to this ccr~nent is to be reviews'ed bl, others. - 13 - SECTION - HUHA?,~ RESOURCES - TRANSPORTAION C,omment No, 20 - USACE ~,Iaintenance Db'edging Psrtsit The response in this case is a non-answer. Yurther the per'mit papers do not inleude any mapping. Similar questions raised in the Reuter Sbu,fly also remain un- - 14- SECTION - SIGNIFIi]A~.fT ENViRO?~'[.IENTAL IHPACTS Comment No. 23 - Significant Environmental Impacts Section Needs to be Rewritzen Response wi~h reference to sails is not substantiated bY ti~e soils info~ma~ion presente~. Beneficial impact of toposraphy is not substanviated b~' t~e soils information presented. Adverse impact relazed to groundwater does ncc recognize residual nitro,eh question by Emil!ts whish went unanswered. The beneficial impost re~ardin$ future potential for industrial Jischarge is a "straw man" since any use which prsduceJ sueh a discharge would be subject to a critical review. In t~e case cf surfare waters the answer 50 the potential for 5iJal flushing is still open to question. AmonS %he beneficial impacts ~he potential for wetlanJ biological filtration s3'stem action seems very doubtful since wetlands are to be removed and %he creation cf new we~lands wiCh dredse material appears to doubtful as well. The findings with reference to weal~nds above applies t~ response on vegetation as well. The temporary removal depends .creating new wetlands which is doubtful. in terms of transportation, the prospect cf mixed commercial and resiJential traffis on a local residential street must be considered an aJ~;erse impa~5 winh respect to t~]e qualio3~ of the new residential Zoning 5n~ Laal Use a~verse impacts have been ]ezaJled in the Reu%er Stud~'. There sro no beneficial impacts related to the Con,ling Pein5 peninsul= which is a low density residential shoreline ~ommuniey. In the abstract the project would provide marina facilities and motel accommodations. With reference to the Coastal ~lanagement Program it may be noted that the site is in the most fragile Land Capability Units III and IV over much of its area and the harbor is in Water Capability Unit I. The Land Use Plan - 1995 shows no expansion of the existing use area or about half the subject site area. Response with respec5 to community services is confused with tax base discussion and other irrelvevant comments. SE'iTIO~ - qITIGATiON MEAASURES Cs.-..ment No. 24 - Specific Hitigation Meas,~res During the csurse of this review the prastieallity of sose of the mi~iEation measures ia ?estioned. The Reute~ Study ~'i~,dings ape still app~ ieabla. C,~ment No. a5 - Re Re~radin~ .Plan Czm~eav [Jo. 26 - ~a WithOUt mappLng chis ~espcr~se n=s li~ale uean~f. Whese does Cc~ent ~o. k~ - 2.~ Wetland C~eatio~ C~mment Nc. 26 - Re ~.ict!e Demand SE,:YiO~ - ADVExSE ENViRDP~i,IENTAL EFFECYS THaT CAtLUOT RE AVOIDED Comment No. 29 - Re AJverse Impacts This answer is ncr responsive. -17- SECTION - NO AC~C~ON Cc~nent No. 30 - Docu, nent Econc~nic Infeasibility The response in this ease provides a pro forma statement on the feasibility of ~-~e ~ina as a st~nd-alone facility. It finds that, with so~ value plac~ ,~ the land, the annual net return ~uld ~ n~ative. This ~s not t~e into account depuecia~lion on the investment ou interest on the loan of funds ~Jcr.~eJ. The res~nse then process to suggest that it nee~ the apDlicants t~ other principal uses t~ ,~ke a reasonable return. He ~es not, however, est~ate the net inco~ ~nd wh~t the resultant uetuml on invest~nt would ~. Instead, he provides an estLmate of the l~neficial economic impact on the Town. The Reuter 5tudy finds that the entire discussion alternatives is ~bviously inada~ate a~J inco~lete in te~s of the requirements cf COI'INE['~TS O~l THE ABDEIiDdI'I OF THE SOUTHPORT DEIS FOR DEVELOP[NG SAGE COVE PARCEL II~ SOUTHOLD TOWN Authored B]~ Larr? Penny, Environmental Consultant, 450 Sag Harbor, N. March 25, 1986 (P.5,25-27} The fu'ilowing cotangents address the concerns raised in the Er_Is for the proposed Southport Developmen: change-of-zone pro~ect at Sages Cove, Soutnold, in ligt~t of the m.~terials contained in the "Addendum" of February ~, 1986 and otheP f~1e materials received on th{s matte~ subsequent to the pre',ious hearing. 1. Master Plan Update Summar~. With ~espe,zt to compatible use, r,~me]y "water enhanced uses"..."for properties that front on ba}.'s M~ere there is. extensive tidal flushing," th~s project fronts on a small cove or bas{n which does not have good flushingl the cove stands to be greatly ~mpacted should the project be approved. 2. Water Use. The 11,82b gpd is st~ll a low estimate of the actual water use for this project. It does not in,slude water piped to boats ~t berths, s,..~ill~mi~lg pool fi 1 ] i ng ~nd make-up, and underestimates unit use ~especial]), inas[Nuch as these un~ts ~re likely' to beco[T~e condc- min~uni or cooperative units) and accessor2' uses[accessory lavatories, ~rnigation, etc.). Nevertheless, the estimate provided by the con- su]Lants suggests hook-up to the Greenport Sewage Treatment District or tneatment by a tertiary package treatment plant,as the water use and design flo~-~ will cle=rly exceed 15,000 9pd. Whereas the Greenport Water Authority is on record as having ..~a~er available for this project, you will note that the Authority's ~..,ater supplies are alread:, quality and quantity stressed as h~s been well advertised. It may be possible to provide potable water ~o this project amcunting to well more than 16,000 gpd during peak, but we are nocail convinced that such would be in the interests of sound planning aha ~ccording to a rational program of water resource :re n a,}emen t. 3. Water Treatment Effluents. The f]o~.., of effluent toward the cove has been overlooked. The materials made paPt of the file to date cate that the~e may be mo~e conductivity rowe[ds the cove than towards the bay. The mounding effect {'of 20,000 gpd o~ mo~e dur{ng peak)of effluent has not been considered; there are no test wells for elevat{ons of groundwater and gradient determination. Because of high groundwater · Southport DEll ,dderidLml .... 'F'ennv-2~ (P. (P.17-19~ conditions there nLa~ have to be a pump-up system which would further con;pi irate the fir, al design of the denitrification system proposed. The fate of virus particles and most chemicals that are sotnble in 'water or of very small molecule size and ,..,'pi,-,ht, other than nitrogen products, is not elaborated. Such a syste,~ is not designed to treat these. Ironicall?, the very springs ¥,,hich now er, rich the coves tidal waters with freshwater and thereby ser,/e to erlhance flushing and cont~['i- inant dilution[ while inhibiting shellfish predators and creatina optimal sslinities for the reproduction of shellfish) ~,~ill serve to entrain contaminated effluent and shunt ic ~nto the cove. Access. The elaboration of Sage Boulevard and the road to ~he s~te is necessar2 to this project and a pending subdivision psrtiall. surrounding this project's site. This elaboration ~,~ill require the fillirq of wetlands at several points in the R.O.W. of the road to be improved. These wetlands will be grestly dinlinished in value as will those ones connected to then'. Commercial Uses Vs. ~,larina Complex Uses. The applicants continue to "raise the flag" chat their project is inherently less chemically polluting compared to possible con~mercial uses for the site. However, the use of boat chemicals ~e.g. tributyl tin, rCA, etc.), restaurant chemicals (bleaches, degre~sers, pesticidesl, swi,~ming pool chemicals (chlorinate salts~ buffers, cle~ners, algicides), motel chemicals (cleaners. pess~cides, preservaCives) and laundry chemicals (bleaches, detergents} are sure to present as ranch in zhe w~y of potentially harmful cqe~(:als ~o the basin and say en/ironment as many a well-designed, well-mitigates colnmercial use would. Dredge'Dredge Spoil. The suitability of the cove's spoil for site enrichment and stabilization is not at all demonstrated by the inform pro,'ided based on bottom samples (J but[om grabs). The material is ~p~arently '~er7 sil~y and clayey (although we are yet to be provided a particle size breakdowni and the sediment is relatively rich in to~ic metals (on the order of 5 ~o lO times greater in concentration than founa in bottom sediments of busy marina basins in Lake Montauk- It is neigh.er '3}uthf:,or~. DEl: ,Jdeqdu,x CorPents. F~ (?. 22-25) (P.29-33) (p.34) appFopriate fo,' marsh building, nor constFuctiorl base, nor' landscaping, nor leaching snbs[raCe, nor ocher site use. In all probability the only safe depoqition of said mater~al will be a~ the landfill or otheF upland locus off site. The dredgin~ propo~;ed (n~,~ cut ~ I,alf in vol~) will nc, t n(~es~ril,/ increase flushing thr'oughout the basin. Now it will effect bottom flow, benthic water gualicy (dead spots, debris accumulation) has not been addressed. The dredging of the channel area to conveniently fall outside the bounds of the parcel (and thus outside of the bounds of the expanded marina facilities] ~la/ not be best for c~annel maintenance and cove water quality. Marina Uses. The placement of a fuel dispensing facility so close to the channel ( and main surface flo,.,~ vector) would be foolhardy. The accumulated pdmp-ouC s~ation waste may not be compatible witk the scavengeF wasCe treatment plant design requirements (it may kill the culsuresl). Upland. The site will be overdeveloped from the point of view of runoff and associated coverage-dependent imp}cts (e.g. lighting, sound, odors, etc.). These noxious impacts are not addressed. Soils'Subsoils. E~isting soil and subsoil evidence based on ~w~ cores and mapped county soil units indicates more permeable soils located dovmgradient from leach field site. TheFe is a strong indication of perched water on site which could play haNoc with drainage and efflL, ent le}ching (see, for e~ample, the elevations of groundwater in the two soil borings presented). The freshwater wetlands [o the nerth are apparently perched (see elevations on pending subdivision map~,. GFoundwater. Ho empirical grounds for statement re direction of groundwater flow are presented. Quality of groundwater has not been tested. Surface Water. Although a few coliform tests are provided (March 20, 1986, submissionl they indicate off-season impacts, but do provide an interesting baseline for comparing on-season inputs when they become available. The site's surface waters will no doubt reflect much greater "wettime" and "drytime" coliform values should the project be developed as envisioned. The peak season impacts could be felt well seaward of the cove. No ~ests of waters outside the cove in the bay have been (37 plus) pr3,.,ided. (tlofil hearsay cc, rxr~ent} attributable to Rednlan of DEL' page 35. ) Wildlife And Fisheries. Tile stlellfish Survey is entirely specious.. ~ was done at the wc, rs~ possible t~me of year, the methodology ~s suspect, and the ~"esults ev,]~ more so. Obviously, no blue-claw cra~s would be found at this time of yea,', if only 3 hard clams were found, how is i~ that Southold hal/men regu]acly remove hard dams from the cove? The anal!sis of benthic vegetation should also be disqualified on the sane grounds. Of co[~rse only small amounts would be found at this time of year. The wildlife accounts are also flimsy, In hi) casual observations dates) I found several species of waterfowl (e.g. greater soaup, red- breasted mergaqser, canvasback, etc. i not found in tile addendum. The co'.e'; wildlife value has h~en seriously ~qderest~ted. I~ is ha~d to see hz'.,,' will be enhanced,as claimed by its proponeqts, bi,' this very large pr'ojecl. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK AUGUST 1986 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COVER SHEET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT: LEAD AGENCY & CONTACT: PREPARER: DATE OF PREPARATION: AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: Southold Suffolk County New York Southport Development Corp. P.O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Town of Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Judith Terry (516) 765-1801 Henderson and Bodwell Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 Steven L. Samet, P.E. (516) 935-8870 August, 1986 This document represents a Final Enviromental Impact Statement (FEIS). Copies are available for public review and comment at the office ,Df the Lead Agency. Comments on the Final EIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~UL?ING ENGINEERS A combination of this document and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Land Use Company, N. Country Road, P.O. River, New York 11792, dated September 26, the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Development, Southold, New York the applicant by Box 361, Wading 1985 constitute for Southport iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. o Notice of Receipt of Draft Environmental Statement. Town of Southold, Town Clerk, November 19, 1985. Letter from T.C. Hoffman Regional Traffice Engineer. N.Y.S. Department of Transportation December 6, 1985. Notice of Extension of Public Cogent Town of Southold, Town Clerk December 17, 1985. Letter from William F. Barton Coastal Resources Specialist N.Y.S. Department of State December 27, 1985. Notice of Hearing Town of Southold, Town Clerk January 7, 1986. Letter from Christopher Twomey, Latham & Shea January 17, 1986. Kelley Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Submitted on behalf of Intervenors Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn January 17, 1986. Review and Analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Fredrick H. Reuter, AICP January 14, 1986 iv PAGE S-1 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-6 ]-7 ]-8 -24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED An analysis of the DEIS for a zoning change for Southport Development Larry Penny, Environmental Analyst January 15, 1986. Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Szepatowski Associates, Inc. January 20, 1986 Comments of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Southport Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council February 4, 1986. Transcript of Public Hearing, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development February 4, 1986. Letter from Anthony T. Conforti Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn February 4, 1986. Letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. February 12, 1986. Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley February 21, 1986. II. ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr. P.E. February 19, 1986. Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Land Use Company February 17, 1986. PAGE 1-46 1-71 1-76 1-78 1-85 ].-90 1-92 2-1 2-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. 0 0 0 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONINUED COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE SUBSEQUENT TO SUBMISSION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Receipt Of Addendum to Draft EIS Southport Development, Extension for Public Comment Town of Southold, Town Clerk February 25, 1986. Transcript of Reconvened Public Hearing Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development February 25, 1986. Letter Chief, March from Paul Quarty Greenport Fire Department 3, 1986. Letter from Dr. Martin H. Garrell Chairman, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council March 5, 1986. Letter from F.M. Flynn March 12, 1986. Letter from Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner, Suffolk County Dept. of Planning March 17, 1986. Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley March 26, 1986. Comments on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, submitted on behalf of Interw~nors Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn March 25, 1986. vi PAGE 3-1 3-2 3-4 3-5 3-7 3-11 3-12 3-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED o o Comments of the Addendum of the Southport DEIS for developing Sage Cove Parcel in Southold Town Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant March 25, 1986. Comments on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Dated February 17, 1986 Fredrick H. Reuter, AICP March 25, 1986. Letter from William F. Barton Coastal Resources Specialist N.Y.S. Department of State March 25, 1986. Letter from Judith T. Southold Town Clerk March 26, 1986. Terry Dredge Spoil Analysis Southport Development The Land Use Company. Letter from Larry Enoch Environmental Analyst Coastal Management Program N.Y.S. Department of State April 1, 1986. Letter from Elizabeth A. Deputy Town Clerk, Town of Southold April 8, 1986. Neville Letter from Howard H. Zehner Young's E. oatyard & Marina April 8, 1986. Transcript of Reconvened Public Hearing Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. April 8, 1986. vii PAGE 3-19 3-24 3--42 3-44 3-45 3-59 3-61 3-62 3-65 I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I IV. o o o o o o HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Letter fcom Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley April 11, 1986. Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley April 11, 1986. Review of Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development Szepatowski Assoicates, Inc. April 15, 1986. Letter from Peter Wenczel President, Southold Town Baymen's Assn., Inc. April 15, 1986. Letter from James H. Redman Marine Resources Specialist III N.Y.S. Dept of Environmental Conservation April 22, 1986. Resolution and determination of significance Southport Development Southold Town Board April 22, 1986. Letter from Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk April 23, 1986. DETERMINATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Geology and Soils Topography Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology Air Quality Vegetation viii PAGE 3-87 3-91 3-93 3-100 3-101 3-102 3-104 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-5 4-12 4-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Traffic Land Use and Zoning Community Services Water Supply Sewage Disposal Solid Waste Disposal Electric Power Visual Resources Bistoric and Archaeological Resources Demography Noise Mitigating Measures Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources Effects on the use and conservation of energy Development alternatives Growth inducing aspects Jx PAGE 4-12 4-14 4-14 4-15 4-23 4-24 4-24 4-26 4-27 4-28 4-29 4-29 4-29 4-30 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-32 I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I ! I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED APPENDICES A. Flushing Observation Study and Supplement.. B. Soil Boring Logs C. Technical Design of Stormwater Disposal System D. Assessment of the Natural Resources of the Southport Motel & Marina Site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIST OF EXHBITS TITLE SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN SOIL PROFILE SECTION STORM DRAINAGE PLAN STORM DRAINAGE DISPOSAL DETAIL SITE PLAN SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL PLAN ×i PAGE 4-3 4-4 4-8 4-9 4-16 4-25 I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This repoct represents a Final Envrionmental Impact Statement (F.E.I.S.) for the proposed action described in the Draft Environmental Statement (D.E.I.S.) for Southport Development Southold, New York, prepared by the Land Use Company - Wading River, New York, which is to be considered part of this document. Section 1 contains comments and correspondance regarding the D.E.I.S., Section 2 contains the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, while Section 3 contains comments and correspondance subsequent to submission of the Addendum to the D.E.I.S. Section 4 of the F.E.I.S., entitled Determination and Recommendations includes discussion of all expected impacts of the proposed action, both significant and non-significant. potential significant impacts which seem to have caused the most concern and have been address in detail in the F.E.I.S, include the Storm Water Disposal System, Sanitary Sewer Disposal System, the Land Use and Zoning, the Flushing of the Basin as it relates to the marine resources therein, and the Visual Resources. The report demonstrates how these impacts can be mitigated to the extent possible and makes certain recommendations to be initiated prior to or during later stages in the approval process. The Appendices of this report contain supplemental studies and technical information that relate to the potential impacts of most concern. A Flushing Observation Study was performed to determine the existing conditions in the basin in terms of water exchange due to tidal action, and to predict what effects, if any, the proposed project will have on the flushing conditions in the Basin. A supplemental study on the vegetation, wildlife, and wetland aspects of the site was also undertaken in order to more accurately assess the impacts to these natural resources. In addition, soil boring logs have been provided for the additional subsurface I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS soil testing and groundwater elevation investigation, as well as a technicial discussion of the proposed Stormwater Disposal System. These sections of the F.E.I.S. all conclude that while the proposed action does in fact have numerous impacts on the site and surrounding area, these impacts can be mitigated satisfactorily to the point where no significant detrimental effects will result. 5-2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION I COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDANCE REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OFFICE OFTHE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOL"t'ROLD To~n Hall, 53095 ~l.im Road PO Box 728 Southold. New York I 1971 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 19, 1985 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Southpor t Development P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence Di.';trict, Petition No. 269. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.q61 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft enviro~mental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. 5EQR LEAD AGEN,~'Y: Southold Town Board. ABAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC CO~.I.*.IENT: The draft environmental impact statment may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December ?, 12~s. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 1-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~SULT~NG ENGINEERS STATE. OF NEW YORK Regional Tr~f[tc Eagtneer 1-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public comment period has been extended to q:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, with respect to the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement submitted by Southport Development to the Southold Town Board with reference to their petition for a change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" Ceneral Multiple Reside~3ce District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.q61 acres. SEQR Lead Acjenc¥ is the 5outhold Town Board. Availability for' Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental impact Statement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York It971. Dated: December 17. 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold '['own Planf~ing Board Southold 1'own Building Department Town Cler'k's Bulletin Board Charles Ha,milton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissio,.er Williams. DEC. Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State Southpor t Development :1-3 m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I mo m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS December 27, 198S Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk To~n of Soutnold To~n Hall Main R~ad Sousnulu, ii'F 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: The Depa~nt of State, as the State's coastal mnage~nt agency, appre- ciated t~e opportunity ~o ~view the Draft Environ~ntal I~act State.hr for the Southoort ~velo~qt prepared by The Land Use Co~any. The Department is ;ntereste~ ~n tn~s penuin~ action by ~e To~ of Sou~old, for the zoning ~ange described in ~e DEiS would affect over 12 acres of )and which front on and lie benea~ ~e waters of Southo)d Bay. Although the proposed rezoning would facilitate the siting and operation of water dependent and water enhanced uses in the State's coasta) area. ~e planned deveIop~nt does raise a f~ concerns about the utilization and pro- tection of coastal ~sources. Our counts on these concerns are as follows: 1. Since the marina will provide )20+ noting spaces for seasonal and transient ese, specia) efforts should be taken ~ protect the quality of t~ 8a~'s watem from po))ution caused by the discharge of vessel wascei. Therefore. putout facilities should ~ provided for the safe disposal of such wastes. Further, signs shou)d be posted advis- ing boat ownem to use the available p~out facilities and not to discharge v,~ssel wastes into coastal waters. 2. To minimize the impacts that the ~rina activities ~y have u~on ~dj~- cent property ~ners, all ~oats, pie~, etc. s~ould be se~ b~ck a reasonable distance from the seaward extensions of the site's propert~ lines. A setback distance of 15 feet ts frequently used to reduce the effects of adjacent boat ~oring activities. Due to the enclosed con- figuration af the water area and the proximity of the l~nd are~ to the nort~ of the marina, h~ever, additional setbacks or realiqnrent of the proposed piers may be warranted. 3. The need to dredge the ~rina basin to ~ depth of lO feet bel~ Neon Low Water is not fully de~nstrated in the DEIS. ~his need is further complicated by the fact that the existing channel whlcn would serve 1-4 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Hs. Judith Terry December 27, lgJ.~, Page 2 the marina has an authorized depth of -6 ML;J. This item requires addi- tional explanation. 4o The adequacy of Sage Boulevard as a safe and convenient service road for toe metal/restaurant/marina comPlex, existing uses and other planned developments seer, s questionalbe. For examPle, it is doubtfu) that two trucks (ueliver~ng supplies to the motel/rnarin~ comblex) could pass each other in opposite directions without one of the vehicles going off the paved surface. If other developments are planned along Sage Boulevard, this may be the appropriate tine to consider the improvements necessary for this roadway. The DEIS Identifies a number of State coastal policies that would be applicable to the proposed action and s ubseque~t developnent. Hov,ever, this section of the document does not adequately describe how the action would be consistent with those policies. The FEIS should contain further discussiolq on these coastal policy concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to coment on this DEIS. Should you or the preparer have any questions on the above coranents, please contact me or Mr. Aram Terchunian at (51t)) 474-3642. '~illi~m F. Bar~an Coastal Resources Specialist I/FB:dlb cc: A. Terchunian K. Cross 1-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOT[CE IS HEREBY TIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.kl., Tuesday, February q, 1986. at the South,)Id Town Hall, Main Road, So~Jthold. New York, on the Drafi: Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" Ceneral Multiple Red,dance District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.q61 acres. Petitioner 15 desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a mote[ complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspectln during regular business hours. DATED: January 7, 1985. J{JDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TO~'/N CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE. JANUARY 16, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE [1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, 5OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 1197~. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town B3ard Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees ~uthpor t Development 1-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS January 17, 1986 MS. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of SoUthold Town R.~ll Main Roa~ Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Of $outhport Development. Dear Ms. Terry: This firm represents Renry Weisman and Frank Flynn who live in close proximity to the $outhport Development project. Enclose~ please find an orioinal and five copies of their comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatemeDt of Southport Development for review consideration. In light of the gross inadequacies of the DEIS and its facial legal inadequacy, ~y clients would request that the public hearing on the DEIS be adjourned from February 4, 1Q8R until such time as the Draft is amended to correct the incorrect information found thereim and to sumply the necessary material that has been omitted. The enclosed comments set forth in detail the legal problems with the DEIS. Sincerely, Christopher Kelley CK/lcd Encls. Town Elanner, David Emillta 1-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS · :~;-~-~.'- ~WN ~ARD OF THE' ~WN OF 'SOUTHOLD '.~ ' ':-._- '_..-,- . -~.. · · -- . ~' . ~ .... .~ ": -:'~..' : '; 'v':"V . . 1-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1o I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (i] a canctse description of the proposed action, its purpose and need; (2) a concise description of the environmental setting of the areas to be effected, sufficient to understand the effects of the p~oposed action and (3) a statement of the important environmental impacts of the proposed action, including short- and long-term effects and typical associated (4) an identification and brief discussion of any avoided i~ the proposed action is implemented; same o~ similar objectives. (The description and evaluation should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comporable assessment of the (6) an identification of any irreversible and irretrievible commitments of resources which would De associated with the proposed action should it De implemented; (7)a description Of mitigation measures to minimize (8) a description of any growth inducing aspects of the proposed actions, where applicable aad significant; (9) a dis=ussion of the effects of the proposed appiicabl,~ and significant; (10) . . . (ll) a list of any underlying studies, reports and other information obtained and considered is As noted in the ~EQ~% handbook it i~ encumbent upon the i,ead ag,~ncf, in thi~ ca~e the /own Board, to determine the ~dequacf and co.pier,ness ota proposed draft E[$ and to ensure that all ~elevant information is presented and analyized' (Page B-]6). -2- 1-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS is totally inadequate cot public review at thi~ time. As ~ne SE~A Handbook states, the dra[t E[5 is to in the DEIS. Applicants and agencies are hoc pe-~mitted time, compile the necessaF! information in a final on a DEI$ if, intended to insur~ that all ~3centia[ agenc? cannot legally withhold (or ~at[ to p~epa~ation of the final EIS, thereby shielding it from 1-11 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUL'rING ENGINEERS 1-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS variances a::e not easily obtained fr~m the Zoning Boa~ 1-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS motel units would only be 32. This would ~e the density the Board, ;~onin~ BoarJ o~ Appeals, and planning Board would have to start with before reducinG it based on apparent [rom the whole appi~cat~oa is that this is a constraint~ th~{ may place on this pr~3ect. or the ecom¢,mic impacts of the pro3ect is set forth. The proposed Southport Development Project has been designed to fill a Growing demand for recreational facilities on Long Island's North Fork. (Page 6.) sapGort the underlying presumption that the Town and the mot~[ is needed bf the community the nature o~ the 1-16 I I I I I I I I I I i ! I I I I ! HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5. P)rhaps the mos% qla~ing inadaguacy of the DEIS is the lack cf discussion or analysis of potential alternatives tO the prsposal, eit~ec undes the existing oc the pffoposed zoning. [t has already been estaolished ts get either under the existing or th~ pcoposed zoninG. What then can they get undec the existinG o[' proposed 1-17 I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS de,ail sufficient to permit the must be discussed and evaluated. (6 NYCRR S617.~4 (F)5. AS stab:ed by the Court of Appeals ~n ~ebster Associates v. Town ot Webster, 57 N.Y. 2d 22'3, 464 N.Y.S. 2d 4)t (1983). than the proposed action. The degree detail with which each alternative must be discussed will, of course, var! with the 464 N.Y.S. 2d at 434. See also E.D.F. v. F!acke, 96 A.D. 2d 862. 465 N.Y.S. 2d 759 consz~ered acceptable. Coalition Aqains[ ~incoln Wes~ v. Clt~ o~ New Yo~k, 94 A.D. 2d 483, 463 N.Y.S. 2d 170 (lst Dep't. 1983) at 176. Rathe~ the rule N.Y.C.R.R. 6i7.14 (~) 5- In adci~ion, the assessment of the akternativ.~s mus~ be "analytical# £.D.F.. SupS% 465 N.Y.$. 2d at 763. So long as otticia[~ amd a~encie$ 1-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS formulation stage of agency decision making. pcoposed action generally is the "linchpin" of ignored or unnecessarily foreclosed by project projec~ at ail, the "no action" alternative, Quarterly (1982) at 264. 1-19 I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS rejected as incomplete and inadequate. 1-21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 10 I I HENIDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUl. TING ENGINEERS CONLUS[ON The on~.'f conclusion t~a~ can b~ reached a~er Respectfully Submitted, Twomey, ~a~ham, Shea & Kelley Addsess and Pos~ Office Address P.O. Box 398 Rlverhead, New Yosk 1190[ Pn.: (516) 727-2!~0 -15- 1-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS January 14, 1986 Prepared by FREDERIC~ H. REUTE~ AZC2 Plannin~ and Zonin~ Consultan~ 1-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1--25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i mS I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The $outhpcrt 0evelo~ment Scoping Session occurred on August 5,1985. It resulted in am outline of the neces~ar7 ele~ent~ of tae DEiS for the contemplated action. The ¢c?-~ents and ~ue~tion~ ?ai~ed in this report are prepared in the context of that outline, The SE{~ Handbook and the 1-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Iii. D~SSRIPTiCN OF TEE PRi?CSED ACTiCN pKoposed project? and what kind of facility is needed;any quantification of the demand -Z- 1-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -3- 1-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Io I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -4- 1-29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i0 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-30 I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWEI. L CONSULTING ENGINEERS -6- 1-31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS wcu~d include it~ 5,5CS square foot building coverage plus an equal The ~!nimum parklng spaze area standard in the existing zonin~ regula- tion is 350 square feet. This indicates that the minimum parkin~ area without acccuntin& for any site plan specifics wcu!~ total 2.13 acres, -7- 1-32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS When the initial construction generally describei in the conceptual site .B - 1-33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -9- 1- 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS With reference t.o the trip generation a~aly$is, it would be heipful to 1-36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS In analyzin~ dire=tional distribution two of the guidelines ~-e derived f~cm the traffic counts. ~'.at wa~ the anticipated origin and de~tina~io Despite these =ore deta:led questions, there is one overriding question, - 12- 1-37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 13- 1-38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS #~-aintain and improve vate~ S~L-face qua],it~. 1-39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL cONSUL. TING ENGINEERS 1-40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-41 I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 17- 1-42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN RESOURCES 1-43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULtiNG ENGINEERS Any discussion ,~£ the 3tate's q~ CZM policies and of area market de.and can only provide a very ~eneral background when dealin~ with a specif£~ local CZM poli¢! as ~et nor any other adopted local plan. 1-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS It should be recorded here that the ccmmunity will also face further 1-45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEIS FOR A ZONING CHANGE FOR $OIJTHPORT DEVELOPMENT, $CUTHOLD BAY, SOUTHQLO TOWN, NEW yORK E [.ONM-NTAL IMPACTS pcepare~: by: January 15, 1986 450 Noyac Road 1-46 -,. I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I HENOERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS [ have reviewed the proposed facility - motel, re~ta~rant, marina, and boat mat~tenance Complex - and carefully read and e./alua~ed the Draft Environmental project and z~ning cha~ge. My focus in this evaluation pollution, etc.), but I have chose to treat only those imminently impacted by the proposed action. The outstanding deficiency in the DEIS is its complete lack of critical infDrmation, or data base, on those stocks, habitat types, and the likel, existing and to be applied, bl, which the magnitude of the impact~ can be taken separately, could substantlally degrade the meaningful and practical mitigation, they represent a 1-47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS grave threat. Certainly, it can not at ail be said, Lastly, the zoning change will remove the potential threat of environmental pollution and improve the visual characteristics of the site, as will be pointed out in the sections that follow. S~TE TOPOGRAPHY/STRATIGRAPhY A. Topography. The site is essentially an island, water off of which drains down slope ali around into adjacent surface waters and wetlands. Greater attention to topography is needed in light of coverage and runoff surface increases to be part and parcel of this project. This is particularly true because of severe site limitations (high water' table, questionable soils and subsoils) as far as handling stormwater. Inasmuch as only a fraction (ca. 1000 Cubic yards) Of the projected 17,000 cubic yards of dredre materials can be incorporated (at most) into the smai! marsh rebuilding project, it is presumed that the remainder will need to be used on site. This I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS amounts to a ptle of spoil 125 yar~s by 125 yards which would ~aise ]7% Of the upland pOCtion of the Site by one yard in elevation, oc the entire site by mo se than one foot (not co~ntlng upland excavation materials to be added to thi~ volume]. We need to see how the topography Of the site will be so changed. Elevating this site in relation to others around the basin wili effect flooding potential during stosm tide conditions On lower lyinG sites. B. Strat~gsaphy. The specific nature of the made (Ma) land and cut-and-fill soils and subsoils on the site must be elucidated before decisions on the appcopuiateness Of this site los the pcoposed comple~ can be wisely made. There a~e no soil borings or soil and subsoil composition breakdowns p~ovided. We have no depth to groundwater data (it has been estimated) available. The site's present substrates will be used to structurally and functionally interact with spoils to serve a variety Of very impostant purposes (effluent pe$colatio~, stosm d~ainage, vegetation management and the like), yet we know almost nothing about them. -3- 1-49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 13,]00 gallons per day (gpd) during peak. Using Greenpocc Water Distr~ct ~igures {see Suffolk County (D~aft;, Appendi~ E.) of 110.8 gal. per. capita per day the Greenpo~t W&cer District, the projected water use conservative figure) fop the p$oposed complex will be -4- 1-50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Io I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -5- 1- 51 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS C. Effluents. The nature and volume of the effluent to be generated by thi~ project and the kinds and amounts of ocher liquid wastes to be produced (pool wastes, boat wastes) has not been evaluated. The potential impacts elsewhere in this report are very great. We need to ~ater produ¢:t~. The outstanding contribution to liquid the p$oject. We need to know more about how effective the proposed dentrification system will De in treatin~ -6- 1-52 ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS p~a~ volu~es anticipated will clearly exceed those projecte,~ in the DEIS. It may well be that the denitrLfication system except for so~e nitrate removal, will be unable to adequately t~eat these volumes and te~%lary treatment plant) will be needed, It would be t~eatment faciltty is undersized, if it is not proper in this situati,3n and is placed near the ~atmr table where its products co-m~ngle with the ground'~ate~. The inefficient and only partial treatment of wastewater effluent will lead to the destruction Of the fisheries resources in the v~cinity of the project. ~his kind Of impact from poorly treated effluents has already been realized in several s~rface waters of Long Island and has been of ~;reat harm to recreational and commercial fisheries located therein. FISHERIES ~EbOURCES THe fisheries resources of the subject basin and SoutnolJ Bay ~tand to be impacteJ ~i~nificantly by the proposcd motel-restaurant-marina comple~ in a number Of ways, none of which have bee~ satisfactgrily addressed -7- 1-53 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS by the applicant. A. Chellfi~.b Cont3mination The generation of wastewater will add considerably to contamination of the surface waters of the basin and Southold Bay OVer present levels. Water use will probably exceed 25,000 gallons per day du~ing the summer peak period. On%y a fraction of this water will be generated on ~ite. It is a well know~ fact that boat wastes from commercial and/or residential vessels are responsible for extensive surface wate~ contamination. The increased contamination from operation of the complex is of two sources, microbial and chemical. 1. Microbial. Active marinas are always likely candidates for high levels of surface water microbes attributable to human causes. Coliform counts in large-boat macinn waters so often exceed USFDA standards that the soon forthcoming manual on shellfish sanitation, governing c$iteria upon which surface waters will be certified or decertified with ~espect to shellfish taking, will recommend decertifying many marina waters. Attached to this report, fo:' example, are 1985 summer readings loc marinas in Thcee Mile Harbor, East Hampton Town, which -8- 1-54 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS that harbor to shellfishing. In practice the provision for pump-out Stations has not led to the effective Moreover, the microbes from such hot spots Of contamination can spread to peripheral waters leading result of chronically high coliform levels generated by a Str~ng of coastal nodes, a long stretch of they are decer:ified. This is precisely what has happened in Three Mile Harbor recently and in Great South Bay and numerous other Long Island waters in the recertified; the long-term trend is evident, on long Island and elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, more and mo~e coastal waters are closed to shellfishing. Certainly, not all of the enhanced microbial levels in the subject coastal waters will be attributable to boat wastas. There is a gathering body of evidence that runoff and septic outflow will also contribute considerably to these levels. In terms of effluent contributions, the proposed project -9- 1-55 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS will generate more than 20,000 gpd of effluent durinq the peak summer months. Because of the questionable t~e D~oximity of the upland uses of the site to microbes into basin waters and Southold Bay war,rs is viral oarticles, which are considerably smaller than The mitioatio- ~easurem to be mr~vided in th~ form (e.g. recreation of wetlands) will not necessarily The runoff system is dependent on the availability of pr~per soils and subsoils - to date we hove no at this p~int in time. Catchment capacity so close to the surfecm waters of Southold Bay is a very big l._~ thin an,~ to{~ sloced to be of ~uch ~se in fi!terimg out 1-56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS rains and irrigation. The d.nitri~ica"ion system proposed may remove nitrates, but it is ~ot des[aned to kill or re~ove vir,,se~ and many bacteria. ~be effecti,,ene~s of pump-out stations in limitimq boat such an amb[t.ious oroject that will Generate motel grounds, s,~imming pool, cestau~ant and boat maintenance [aciiities. Of the chmmical contaminants to be Generated by such a mix of diverse activities amd uses, some may be partinll¥ co~tained by the so-called storm drainaoe system, the denitrificaticn As the storm drain system and percolating soil~ load up they will leach more and more of these temporarily impounded chemicals into adjacent surface w~ters. The ~eDitrification syste~ will not only pass throuoh several chemicals but will add sulphurous and other chemicals associated with the denitrificatioe restaurant chemicals (cleanin~ ag~nt~, pesticides, 1-57 -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -12- 1-58 m I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS and subsoils with respect to dcainage and subsurface is totally inadequate in this regard and attempts to cover up this inadequacy with the offering of mitigation schemes many of which won't work here or are untested in such situations. I think we would find that any one of the proposed uses, practised intensely (as projected) is capable of serious degrad~n~ of the envirDnment with respect to fisheries resources. The effective mitigation Of one may be possible, of all, highly unlikely. B. Habitat 1. ~)red,~ing. The dredging of the subject basin to accomodate the expanded macina will surely have Certainly the comment (No. 4) made on page 37 of the No significant effects are anticipated for local finfish and shellfish ~ay increase is direct proportion to the the availability of more berths loc said -13- 1-59 I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS la~ge project, which will remove habLtat, deepen anoxia inimical to shellfish and finfish stemming Of a 'da:-k zone' inhibiting submerged aquatic vegetation because of turbidity, shading from boats p$oposed p~oject along these lines of investigation -14- 1-60 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENOERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~reater de':ail. The location of plies end docks, especially with respect to basin circulation is of marina and human activity is the highest. SnRF~CE WAT59S The DEIc pr~,ides no basellme data or resorts on the surface water quality in the basin. We need to know what the pt'~seDt ouality is, particul~rly, l~ terms of microbes. It is stated that the waters Of adjacent Southol~ Ba? are *satisfactory" for the takin~ of shellfish. We need to see the DEC data upon which this -15- 1-61 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENIDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS able to project the probable degree and time course of f~rther de=~radatton, to result ~ain~¥ from this project, but also f'rom the development of adjacent upland areas. ~e are ese,pcial!~ concerned here with iflcreases in fecal deGrada%io,n vis-a-vis chemical inputs from effluents and runoff (sa~ FISii~RIES RESOURCES section, above, for ALTERNATIVES. development under the 'C Light Industrial' zoning, presented in the DE[S, the only other alternative givea concerns itself with single-family residential use, which alternative is preempto~ily dismissed as being economically unviable. Certainly this last finding, without evidence, is dubious. In terms of satisfying SEQRA provisions with respect to providing meaningful alt~rnativgs, this section is wholly inadequate. -16- 1-62 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS the zor[ng change will remove the ~ctential threat Of emvlronmemtal poilutiom and improve smaliec potential threat of environmental pollution and imsacts. needed to pc-operly evaluate them. Th~s aaalysis should pay close attention to the critical envirDnmental f~sher~es resources, wildlife, flooding, basin bottom, draioace and umderfiow, a~d site topography and Strat~qrap~[. The DEIS has not demonstrated that a well amd effioent flow generated by the subject proposal is -[7- 1-63 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CONCLUSION. The D~[S as submitted does not provide adequate [nfo~atioq upon which can be based informed decisions on the environmental signiftcance of ~h[s p~oject, The DE[S shou[~ be ~etu~ne~ to the applicant for correction and inclusio~ Of the data heretofore omitted. -18- 1-64 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Bacteriological Water quality Three Mile Harbor Shellfish Land Number 15 Ig~S Oata Prepared: Septeqber IgB5 State of New York Oe~artqent of Environmeqtal Consem~at!cn Building Number 40, State University of New York Campus Stony Brook, New York 11794 1-65 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS quality in Three Mile Harbor. 1-66 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-67 ! ! HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~" ' 1-68 I I I I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I ! HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1-69 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS _~ :I I .~ ~1 I --I I ~'1 ~1 1-70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SZEPATO%¥SKI ASSOCIATES I~C. [N~.~RO%MI:',.TA~ CONSULTANTS TC: Southold Town Board $outhport Development ~anuary 20, ~9~6 Xmpac: Statement for $outhport Development, Southold, ~ prepared by Land Use Company, Wading R&ver, ~, the following oonce,ns and Proposed Development conflicts with: Change of zone requested and the proposed zone on To,Jo Zoning Map. 2. Sage Boulevard is not a public road, therefore, possible p=ob!e= with accessw load width, and improvements are apparent. There a~e problems with the Marina expansion, specifically what is to be done with Dear pump out; suitability of dredge £.~cil fy intended purpo£es; and providing boar slips for "less thin lu::u_ boats (.lesa than 30 f~.). LaCK of Sche:nar~c sketch plan to demonstrate -Location of Hotel, Resuaurant -Environmental 1mpacsu -~:ltigatlon measures -Adverse impacts A meeting sas held on January 13 to discuss toe aoove concerns and t follcuing de,ailed co;.imen=s. The proposed response has been The change of zone requested (General Eulc~plo Reszdence!, alien. for doc&lng facilities for non-cOmmercial boatz ano hotel£, morels DG~ wlth special exception by r~e Zoning Boaro. 1-71 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page I .- t:o regard for fresh uater use ir, pact on Gceenport it can provide pea;: flo'~. Page 2-] - Boatyard (repair) facihtlea see proposed. Uo~aever, the use is not permitteo In the zone requested. The zoning allow ~otels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has Page 3 - Sanitary effluent will be sub]eat to deni:rification system. This elzminarss only 30L of nitrogen frou effluent. Where will effluen: De discharged? It is not clear from the report, Put was revealed at the ~eetlng to be to a grave] bed c the sys:cm. Pa~e 4 - A pu¢l!c need fo[ one projec: 1: referred to, but surveys or o:n~, eVlOenc£ ic no% o£fercd. An lnten:~on t.o &eru fac: as the propotal ~ ~evelope~. Tae statement is made tka~ there ~111 be no zncrea&ed demand for public service:, yec purl would De helpfuL. 1-72 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 9 - Dredge spot1 an&lys[s must be dona to determ.[ne suz:abilzcy of spo~l for p[opoced u~es [%;e[l~nds cre&~:icn). [: concam[n&nts are foun~ %;hat %:zi] ~e eone %~t:h spoil so not ~o c£ea=e a public health 4azcrd? ~pland gradznq as s%&ted ~n DEI$ would nec be po&s[Dle. Dredqing method, upland de%:&=er[n~, and runoff control mecitod trust all be addresse~. 10. Page l0 - Concern with [egards to boat slip lengtn. Ali are over 32' in length. T~lS does nec allo[~ fo~ "less t4an /uxur[ beats." ;;hac is the public need tn the a[ea fo[ 'elite boat[hq?" Emai1Do&t[nq needs tc be adcre[scd. The fuel ll. Page 11 - l'.]ac iJ perviou~ n:ator[cl u~ed for 2~8 spac~-' ~cr::snr plan wish all drainac_J paC[cLnJ, grading plan~, holdin? pond£ 12. 13. 1-73 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL co,su,~t,= 15. Page 15 - Soil boeing:, since they will be n~ctc~a~:, ~ni,w¢l,, ~houl~ be included in th~ DEI£. ~n~no~.,n subsu:fcce conoi~ions 17. Page 17 - Undocu~ented 'Agency cb~ervaEion:" are heid :o subject. This stace~enc ne~ds conciusory cv~oence, 19. suppo:ed co be Gn inventory. 20. 1-74 I I I I I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUL?lNG ENGINEERS 23. ~=~:~-~len t~ ~et~onctrarc De~orc and &~=ec condlt[on~,. 24. 25. 27. be made a part of a proposed pro]ecs. Specific mitigation should be identified aa being an integral pert Of the PaGe 31 - ~hat is the dcsign of catch basins, as described, which will contain £torm water runoff and where will they occur consioerlng ;lo~e on mire lc to~-ard water. A a:te gracing plan is needed. pac. e 33 - Uhy will the phragmires be remove~ and wily 2~. 29. drec~gcd. 33. 1-75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SOUTHOLD TO~'N CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CO~L~{EN=I'S ON DRAFT E.N~IRONI~N~I'AL I}IPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) $OL~HPORT By The Southold Towu Conservation Advisory Council Dr. {{artln H. Garrell, Chairman Hearing at Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York February 4, 1996 1-76 I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Let's see a deta!, a description of holding t_ak facilities for There are no maps submitted with the plan which adequately illustrate the areas for turf and parking. I believe &ny sketches would betray · project which ~ses up an extraordinary ~mount of land relative to the site. Why do you insist on talking about 12.35 A? The actual size is only 8.63 acres, or do you intend to reconstruct &tlantl$ under,rater? OTHER COMMENTS p. 4 Public need for a marina never Justified ecenomically. p.13 Do you really believe you ca~ get the apprcvals from these agencies in 2 years? p.14-17 Where are maps showing land use, soil s u~ples, vegetation types? p.19 That are "limited popularitIes of upland wildlife spectes"? The species ~ith most limited popularity are not the animals at all! p. 2,3 p.33 p.34 p.36 Is the LIRR really the only means of public transportation, to NYC daily" ~'here are you planning to dredge? Show th~s and discu=s effects on Bay, effects on shellfish, please. How is wildlife habitat for nesting and shelter comFatibte ilow will a zoning change "remote thc potential tht'euc" environmental pollution? ~hlt will 5ou do to ~he arum if you p.37 No szgniflcamt effects anttc:pated f,or shellfish p,,F, ulations~ Better m~p out (ire~e areas and n¢at'Ey sh,:llftah b.c= first' p 41 1-77 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February ~,, 1986 I:O0 P.M. IN THE MATTER O1: THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANCE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO "M-l" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, CREENPORT. Present; Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councllman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It is now 8:00 o'clock and we have a scheduled public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement by Southport Development. Counc[Iman Schondebare will do the official reading. COUNCILMAN SCHC)NDEBARE: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board ol~ the Town of Southc, ld will hold a public hearing at 8:0(] P.M., Tuesday, February II, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southolct, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to General Multiple Res~der~ce, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, ont he westerly side of Sage Boulevard. Greenport, New York. conslsbng of 12.461 acres. Petlt~oner is desirous of havln~ the zoning status cf the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southo[d. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Tc, wr, Hall, Mare Road, Southold, Ne~. York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. [~ated: January 7, 1986. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit of publication of that notice on the Town Clerk's Bulletin ~,oard by the Towr, Clerk Judith Terry. I have an affidavit of publication of the said notice in The Long Island Traveler-Watchman, and an affidavit of publication of said notice in The Suffolk Times. I have in the file a copy of the Draft En~iron- menal Impact Statement for Southport Development. Soutnold, New York. I haYe in the fiJe comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement January 17, 1986 submitted on behalf of the inter,~entor~, Henry Weismann and Fr~,nk 1-78 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Pacje 2 - Southport 13 tlc .nent DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Maybe just the comment, Jay, about the time they need to reply. COUNC[I~IAN SCHONOEBARE: They would like two weeks f~om today to reply. Have you seen this? Mr. Flynn, cio you know anything about it? MR. FRANK FLYNN: No. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I'm going to read it to you then. 'Dear Members of the Board:# Unless we make copies. Do you want me to read it now? If I made copies and gave it to you now. rather than my reading it here. Maybe you won't catch something that I'm saying? MR. FLYNN: I should like to have ample time to study this five page letter rather than have it read to me and Pd like ample t~me to respond to the letter if necessary. I consider this a bi~: of an ambush to present this letter at this time when all comments were supposed to have come in approximately two weeks ago. COUNCILM^N SCHONDEBARE: I think, speaking to the Supervisor. and with the c~3nsent of the other Board members, what we will do, is recess the public hearing after the public comment tonight and then reconvene it for comments at a later c~ate. That way youql have a chance to look at it and see it. ktR. FLYNN: That will not preclude me from making comments this evening? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: No. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We'll probably recess to our next Town Board meeting three weeks, and it's an afternoon meeting, MR. FLYNN: I defer to advice of counsel. /~R, HEb;RY WEISMANN: R'e'll have an opportunity to respond to any suppremental S~'PERVISOR MURPHY: And the Town Clerk will make this available for you. COLIb;CILMAN 5CHONDEI3ARE: The remainder in the fife pertains to the change of zone and not the SEQR process which is what we're discussing here tonight. SLIPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. we've heard the official reading of the notice of to represent the apl~licant? A%THONY COb;FORTI. Pm the author of that letter. I'm from the firm of Confort~. Gordon, Reale and Shenn. I ha~e to look at the [etler because we've just formed o:;r firm very recently. Pm not ga,rig to cji~e a presentation ton~ht. The purpose yr~ are doing. It is o~-r i~lt~nt,on to respond lo the det,)iled requests made by the 1-79 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS · 3 - Southport De -~, .aent DEIS SUPERVtSOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else here would llke to speak on behalf of the applicant? {No response.) Anyone like to speak in opposition to the apphcant? S~r. HENRy WEISMANN. I would just like to know that after the petitioner submits their fina], or their corrected and completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement that interested citizens will have the opportunity thereafter to submit comments directed toward it, as provided by the SEQR procedures? Is that the purpose of the adjourn- merit ? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, as long as we keep the public hearing---as ~ong es we don't close this public hearing. &tR. WEISMANN: You will give us an opportunity after the filing of the corrected and completed impact statement, to have our people submit comments with regard to SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Our Town Attorney is sick tonight, so I can't give you a legal interpretation. Dave, can you comment on that? DAVID EMIL]TA, Town Planning Consultant: On the question of the submissloq of additional data, I think the gaps in the data are sufficient enough to render the add;tional submission as a supplement to the draft, rather than as a final impact statement. MR. WEISMANN: That obviously leaves us in a position where we can comment or~ it after the supplement. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mr. Flynn? MR. FRANK M. FLYNN, Tarpon Drive, Sou[hold: I'd like to make some statements ~ith respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submltted by Southpcrt Development and although they may be rather blunt, I think they may be of assistance to the Board, certaint) of interest to the Board, and posslb[y may save some taxpayers money. What we have here, if I may consult my notes---we have had what was supposedly a Draft Environmental Study submitted on the part of Southport Develop merit, which apparenLly is going to be surplanted by an ant;rely new organlzatJon, Thcs doesn't surprise me. The original statement submitted is, in my op[n[en, a and m;s;nform. I have a point by point rebuttar of the original Draft Environmer, tal Impact Stuoy in my bag. I shan't take the time or the To~,n Board to go down it po;nt by point, because in a way Mr. Emil;ta has at least partially done so alreaOy. In the statement every basic premise is incorrect and I'm prepared to provide it from the public record, but I would llke to say also that this is not my personal o~,n,on. Th,s is not my unsupported opinion. If the public and the media were dls:~nguished Plan,~er Mr. Fred Reuter and a Naturalist Lawrence Penny, on file sa~, belated report, filed v,,tb the Town by Szepato~sk: Associates, identified as 1-80 I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page ~ - Southport C ,4oF.nent DEIS Is sufficient of a re.port llke this is trifling with the time of the Town Board and the taxpayer's money, laut to go further, there is support to a particular aspect of Mr. Emilita's report that I don't think anybody has called to the attention of the Town Board, n<~tably, that there has been a recent serious oil spill in the area of this property and it is certainly dilaterious to the environment. There has been no mention made of that. Didn't I not know better I would consider the arrogance and the smug complacency of Southport in submitting such a cursory and legally inadequate statement as evidence that could possibly lead one to believe that the applicant was assured that the DE~S was a proforma thing and that the approval of his application was certain. This, of course, ! can't believe in the Town of Southold because it will be a denial of due process or deny the public the right to comment in detail on this sort of thing. However, the smug assurance with which th~s report, this this charade was projected to the Town Board certainly gives rise to questions that should be answered. Now, I believe and I am prepared to c=te the evidence for it, that the basic premise all the way through of South[3ort's report, as presented by Mr. Bowman, is incorrected. My examination of the public records in Riverhead, my examination of the records in Town Hail, and my queries of Town Hall lead me to believe that the existing marina, in large part, is an iliad_al operation. I'm prepared to recite chapter and verse and provide you with any deed transaction on this property, the chronology of the whole thing. Now, should this be the case, any petition or application such as this, and any application to maintenanc~ dredge an area that is illegal to begin with, is really futiIe. Now, I request the constituted authorities of this Town to investigate this as a very serious question. Now, other than that we have other things of interest. Even were this not the case Mr. Bowman stated on Page 9 of his report, which is available to everybody, and I would encourage anybody interested in this to consult it, that the existing marina operation encompasses the majority of the site. Now, the existing marina operation is reputed to have 91 slips. If the indefinite expansion referred to i~ d~fferent numbers on different pages were to be in the vicinity of 130 slips, it would be an approximate 50*0 increase in the marina operation, and consequently from my knowledge of marina operations, would require the entire upland even were it legal. Now, to presume that it is possible to fill 82 motel unlt5 on excess land over and above that required for the marina operation, when by definition the entire upland is required for the marina operation, i5 cot, tempt of me, it's contempt of the citizenry of this town and certainly it's contempt as far as the To~n Board is cor,.cerned. I wo,Jld Say that if the Town Board really desires to treat this matter raised as to the sub:ability of the s~te for the purposes for which appl~catlon ~a~ mace and which would also be inclbded in the Master Plan, ~ny action on the Plan tot this area De deferred until the serious q~estlons he~eln raised are ans~,ered. What you have on the part of Bowman. and what you ha~e on the part of Emillta are an indictment of the background studies done for the Master Plan. The Master Plan is inadequate. The Master Plan has not considered the serious affect on the environment 2nd the economy arising from this pro~,o$c-d ~Jse, and were this thing t~ be stampeded throu_gh--and when I say this thing I refer to the Master P'an-- of an area. At th~s point I think I've said sufficient to g,',e you some food for thoug~,t. Thank yo~ very much. 1-81 I I I I I I I I ! I I I i ! I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS .4e 5 - Southport C =.op.nent DEIS solver, if you will, s consultant at Brookhaven Lab I do this kind of thing for · living and I've worked for a long time with environmental impact statements, both EIS's that I~v,e written and EIS's that I~ve read, so I~ve sort of been on both e~ds of it. I'm loc, king at this time. I had · number of general comments and I had specific comme~qts, but since I'm going to submit these in writing anyway through 1;nd· Cooper, I'll j~ust give you some general thoughts on this and then leave it with Judy. My general comments were as follows: I really reit the serious flaws and omissions in this Drat't Environmental Impact Statement render it inadequate and possibly illegal. In fact, it resembles · lot of the rarnbJing and general impact state- ~eents which were often rejected by the courts in the t970's at the beginning o1' the Natlona[ Environmental Policy Act. The suits of the Enviror~mental Defense Fund lot of such impact statements. The disclosures in this particular impact statement at best sketchy, and the document needs to be completed and resubmitted. P~actically all of the information was general and not site specific, maps were poor. Cataloguing of the impacts was ragged and the treatment of soils, plant and animal llfe was given ver~- short shrift. Alternatives were not suitably addressed and the economic justification, which is important for a project like 5outhport certainly was almost comments were that the loadings to the Bay from such a development shoutd be calculated c~refully end compared with current loadings. Fish and shellfish are un- doubtedly affected, as well as wildlife habitat. And you can estimate the fertilization 1-82 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS P-~ge 6 - Southport ! ~lopment DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Henry! TOWN TRUSTEE PRE:SIDENT HENRY SMITH: I'm just going tO make comments on the Trustee portions and the problems the Trustees had. The only thing '*e would like to have something definitely '*ould be holding tanks in the marina if it is built, end boats that '*ould be moored there permanently. I don't mean transient boats. Boats that '*ould be moored there permanently would have holding tanks in them. That '*ould have to be something we'd put in the covenants or what have yo~. And the only other thing we have is the navigation. There will be no restriction of navigation to the people behind to get in and out of the creek. We do recognize the Town does need marina space. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Henry. Is there anyone else? Ruth? RUTH OLiVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: We read the Draft Environmental impact Statement and we would agree with the Conservation Advisory Council. We found it wholly inadequate. We felt there should be soil cores taker, instead of just taking it from a map. Taken by the Suffolk County Soll and Water Conservation people, to show both the gravel area, the composition of it where they propose to put their de-qitrification system, and also in the day area where they propose to put some sort of drainage system for runoff. We just don't feel that they can meet these runoff standards with this enormous clay layer underneath, that it is going to run out into the Bay. There was no benthic study as far as the bottom of the proposed inlet, both for the dredging and the placement of spoil. We would like to see that. They had some sort of a wildlife summer-/ which we found was totally inadequate. It was done in the fall. People that have lived in the area say there are nesting wildfowl in the area, We would like to see a study done this spring of that. We would like to know the affect on the extension or additional amounts of water from the Greenport Water System, '*hat affect it would have on that. We would like to see a letter of recommendation, not approval, but from the Suffolk County Board of Health that this denitrification system which ru~,s a sulphur limestone b(~ works. We found there were no viable alternatives, just residentiai housing. There was nothing to just enlarge the marina, to have the mar,no plus the mote~, or the marina plus a restaurant. Also we found the traffic study to me was totally inadequate. They did it at a t;me of year that there is not much traffic. We would like to see it done say in the summertime when there is a tremendous amount of traf~c on Route 25. Also I do not see how a 16 ft. right-of- way is going to carry what they propose 2qo0 trips a day down to the marina, let alone down to the proposed cluster housing in the Sage development. Thank you. ~',e hope that this would be completely rewritten. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would llke to address the Town Board? (No response.} Anyone llke to make any comments at all? Sir? MR. CONFORTI: Very briefly. &lt. Supervisor. The comments that I've heard ton,ght in opposltion, though in earr, est and var) meaning_fei, I think are misplaced. 1-83 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS de 7 - Southport D, ~..sent DEIS ve~f, very detailed study encompassing much of the material Sought or suggested tonight by people in opposition. I would like to again remind the Board,as I have pointed out in this letter, of what your true function is and aga{n of the limited scope of this hearing. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the T~wn Board? (Nc, response.) Any Town Board members like to make a comment at this time? (No response.] If not I would like to make a motion to recess this public hearing until 3:30 P.M. on February 25th~-Tuesday. February 25th. MR. FLYNN: Mr. Supervisor. may I make a comment? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes. MR. FLYNN: is it not possible to hold that in the evening rather than the afterr~oon so that more people interested in this may attend? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It's unfortunate on the time. You want to move along. This is a three week spread because of this Association of Towns meeting. MR. FLYNN: I'm ruer,ely saying that it precludes the attendance of a lot of interested par:;es if you hold it in the afternoon. COUNCILMAN SCHONCIEBARE: Well we're here now. This is the evening. Are there any interested parties that are here now that can't come back, as far as interested parties? [s there someone who can't come back? MR. FLYNN: I prefer not to. It's rather costly for me. It's costly for my wife to come back in the mid-afternoon at the convenience of the applicant, really. COUNCH~IAN SCHONL'~EBARE: No, it's the convenience of the Town Board. That's when we have the meeting. Everyone can come back. Moved by Supervisor Murphy, seconded by Councilman Schondebare, it was RESOLVED that this public hearing be recessed to 3:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 25, 1956, SouthoJd Town Hall, Main Road. Southold, New York. Vote of the Town 13oard: Ayes: Counc;lman Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council- man Schondebare, Councilman S[outenburgh, Justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy. This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. c~- ~Judlth T. Terry ~ Southola To*n Clerk 1-84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS F4FORTI, GORDON, REALE & (516) 727-3107 February 4, ~986 To~n of Southold M~ln Road $outhold, New York 11971 Dear Me~)erG of the Board: This office i$ counsel to Joseph Flschetti, Jr., doing business as Southport Development, contract purchaser of Young'$ Marina on Sage Boulevard, $outhold. pending before this Boalrd is Southport's application for a change of zone of that 12.35 acre site from the current "C Light Industrial District" to an "M-1 General Multiple-Residence District". Ton:Lght the Board will conduct a public hearing on the Draft £nvlronmenta! lmpact Statement ("DEIS"J submitted by Southport et the To~'n's request. As part of the statutory process outlined in the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), the Town, through its environmental consult- ant met with the applicant on January 13 and issued 1%s comments on the DEI$ on January 20. By agreement between Southport and the environmental consultant, those co~unents ~ill be addressed by the applicant within the next two weeks so that ]Doth the comments and the responses can be include~ in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS') as requlred by SEQRA law and regulation. Desk. ire assertions to the contrary, this procedure ~s entlrely within the letter and inten~ of the environmental review process as mandated by SEQRA. There are essentlally f~ve steps to the SEQRA process. The first three the question of whether SEQRA applies to the ac%lon, the designa- tion of a lead agency, and the classlflcatlon of the actloa as Type I, II or Unlisted - have been completed for tn~s pro~ec%. The Town Beard's review of the Southport project 1~ 1-85 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~SU~T~NG ENGiNEErS ~ the D£IS. The fifth and final step is, of course, the preps- zatlon of a £1nal ~nvironmental Impact Statement ('FEIS') with full identification of the impacts and their possible mitigation. In reviewin9 the requirements for the DEIS and the FEIS, it is &pparent why this environmental review is universally referred tc. as a 'process'. After the applicant has prepared the DEIS following the guidelines itemized in 6NYCRR $617.14 (d) through (f), the draft must be submitted for public com- ment as required by $617.10. The SEQ~A Bandbook, prepared by the New Yock State Department of Environmental Conservation (the agency that promulgated the SEQRA regulations) states: "Commenting on the Draft ElS is a valuable way for agencies and the public to have direct input into the decision-making process. Public input is particularly helpful in determining whether the impacts Of co--unity cervices and human resources have been adequately addressed .... · (SEQP~. Handbook page B-36). Obviously, to assert that the public hearing, which is part. of the publlc comment process, should be adjourned because a DEIS is allegedly inadequate defeats the stated purpose of the public comment phase of the process and makes clear that: such a suggestIon ks made solely for the purpose of delay. Although the applicant welcomes the public hearing as an aid tc refining its final plan, it should be understood that the public is invited to the hearing at the discretion of the lead agency, such public hearings not being required by SEQ~% [$EQ~A Manf~ook, page B-47). Let us turn from the mechanics of a public hearing to the content of the DE1S. Southport has made application this Board merely for a change of zone that anticipates the change in use proposed for this site by the recently complet- ed Town Master Plan. Since, by definition, the Master Plan indicates the community's intentions for the pro3ect site and the surrounding area, it "ellminates the need to develop extensive data in the ElS process'. (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SEQRA Handbook, Page B-30). It is of cr&tical impcrtance to note that a master plan is the cornerstone of all zoning. Our courts have required that municipal gouerning bodies zone in accordance with a land use policy which is In the interest of the overall I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS community. Z~ fact, this is the basis upon which the United States Supreme Court originally sustained the validity of zoning in general. (Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 US 365 [1926]). This requirement is so fundamental that it has been co~ified in New York State (NY Town Law S263}. Therefore, the comprehensive etudies conducted by the Town's planning consultant fn preparing bhe Master Plan Update obviates the ~eed for extensive data in this particular process since the proposed project is consistent with the. intent of the Master Plan. For example, if the North Carolina planning consultant who criticized the DEIS had been sent the Master Plan Update. Background Studies, most of the questions he has raised would have been answered. In the Background Studies ~randa, the Town's planning consultant has done extensive analysis of the. land use needs and patterns of the Town of Southold. The Master Plan Update makes specific f~ndings that tourism and recreation is a "major component of Southold's economic base" and that "in spite of the number of marinas, there are current shortages of boat slips, docking spaces and moorings, particularly for large boats". Moreover, SEQRA provides that an ElS "should not contain more detai]L than is appropriate considering the nature and magnitude of the proposed action." (N.Y. Environ. Cons. Lam, S8-0109 [2]). This section also provides that "agencies. shall make their o~rn independent judgment of the scope, con-. tents and adequacy of the BIS' (~8-010913]). Clearly, as the only issue currently before the Town Board is a request for a change of ~:one, the BIS need not approach encyclopedic pro- portions. In fact, the authoritative SEQRA Handbook prepared by the DEC takes the position that a broadly-focused "Generic Environmental Impact Statement would be appropriate" in con- nectlon w~th a local government rezoning of land at the request of an appllcant (SEQRA Handbook, page B-45) . In fu:ther discussion on this issue, the SEQRA Bandbook suggests that this option should be considered "when a subse- quent site-specif~c project involves one or more discretion- ary approvals". (Handbook, p. B-46). As the Board is aware, the Southport Development proposal must be reviewed by a Town Planning Board having broad discretion in approving and placing conditions upon the f~nal plan. In addition, If the zone change ls approved, the applicant must me£t all of the proposed for this pro3ect before obtainzng Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the proposed uses. 1-87 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS It ia; submitted that the Town's ~aster Plan alone is sufficient to make the environmentsl determination necessary to decide the issue now before the Hoard. Quite clearly, the Master Plan taken together with the DHI$ public comments and responses is ample information 'considering the nature and magnitude ,of the proposed action'. Although most of the comments received from the Town's environmental consultant will be responded to by the appli- cant withil~ the next two weeks, some of these items need not, nor indeed can they be, addressed until ~any of the specific engineering details of the project are formulated. As a contract purchaser of the property, the applicant has already gone to considerable expense in pursuit of the necessary approvals. Since, if the zone change is approved, thl~ project will be subject to close scrutiny and possibly ~any changes, At is unnecessary and unreasonable to require such detail at this time. Again, the DEC, through the SEQ~[ Handbook, has taken the ~osition that where an 'applicant i~ unable or unwilling to risk the financial outlays for project which requires rezoning unless the rezoning question is resolve{]' a broad Generic HIS is sufficient environmental review (SE{iRA ~andbook, page B-45). A rea.sonable reading of the SEQRA law and regulations makes it clear that the DEIS ~s ~ntended to be concise and carefully analytic and not an encyclopedia Of the flora fauna of the region. The SEQRA statute provides that: 'the purpose of the draft environmental state~ent is to relate environmental considerations to the tion cf the planning process, to inform the public and other public agencies as early as possible about pro- posed actions that may significantly affect the quality of the environment and to solici[ comment~ which will assist the agency in the decision making process...'~.Y. Envlron. Cons. [ Thus, the purpose of preparing a ~raft HIS Is to circulate the document and to invite agency and public comment so that this input can be considered, addressed and lncluded in the Final ElS upon which the Hoard shall base /ts determination. The applicant has, thus far, complied wath ever}' reguirement of SEQ~A. If, in the Town Board's judgment, public co=z~en~ raises issues that must be addressed, the S~QRA 'process' provides a mechanism for inclusion of the public come.ants and ~esponses thereto ~n the Final ElS. (6 1-88 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~ULTING ENGINEEI~$ N.Y.C.R.R. S61~.14[h]). There is no reason or requirement tha~ the public hearing on th~s D£IS should be postponed or that the environmental review process be unnecessarily delayed. ATC/bah ANTHONY ~/ CONFORT! 1-89 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS February. 12, 1986 Southold T~n Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Master plan - Marine Business and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members: This letter, ! hope, will clarify an inconsistency between ~he intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient motels in genera] and Young's Marina ($outhport Development) in particular. ~rnen Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft Pro~sed Toning Re~ulatzons, ~ated ?prll, [985, prepared by Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weaner. At that tire, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowe~ transient motels and restaurants. The planning Board was in favor of the proDect and reco~ended the zoning change to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the £nviromettal Impact State- ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us that ~r. Tasker, the Town ~ttorney, was ma~e possible revisions to the Zoning (lode at the Town Board's request, and that we should contact him to inquire whetter South~ort ~evelopment 1-90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I® I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS $outholc! ?~ ,Board Page 2 We then con/acted the Planning Board, through Mr. £milita, and were advised of the changes in the Code. Zt was our understanding that the Zoning Faps were being revised to reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and that the To~m Board, in support of the F:aster Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, however, that the maps were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Bgypt and Youn~'~ Marina, but would allow motels in Marine Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of Hobart Road in Southold. Z therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning Maps to ~how ¥oung's Marina in the Marine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of the Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and the Planl%ing Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. Very truly yours, Joseph Fischetti, Jr., H.P. JF:mdh cc: $outhold Town Planning Board bcc; }]o,~'a~c 2e~ner ]-91 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS F£B 2 419a5 Town of :Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Southport Development -- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board: I write this letter on behalf of Henry Weirmann and Frank Fly~n in response to certain stasements made by the attorney for Joseph F[shettl, Jr., in his [ette~ to you of February 4, 1986. At [)age 2, counsel states that Sodthport has ma~e application to the Board "merely for a cha~§e Of zone that anticipates the change in use p$opDsed for this site by the recently completed town master plan". Be concludes that given the contents of the proposed ~$ter plan the need for the applicant to develop extensive data in the EIS process is eliminated. Thls conclusion is wrong for several reasons. First, the master plan proposal to date uno as presented at the Hamlet Meetln~ would naue the propore,~ Southport site de$l~nated for m~r~ne bus,ness use. This use does not include motels or hotels as either a pointed Out by the Town's plannzn3 consJltant in his 1-92 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Town Board Town of Bouthold Pebruary 21, 1986 Page Two existing in the current zoning code nor the proposed zoning fDr the siLe under the new master plan. Therefore, contrary to counsel's opinion, it cannot be said that the master plan data supports this proposal eliminating the need for the applicant to provioe such extensive data in the DEIS. Second, even assuming, ar~uendo, that the Southpoct proposal was permitted by the existing or proposed zoning, the applicant would not be relieved from justifying the proposal from an environmental and economic point of view in the DEIS. Our consultants, Frederick Reuter and Larry Penny, have concluded that there are serious flaws with the DEIS, in fact so serious, that to allow the DEIS to proceed through public comments to the FEIS without being rewritten and substantially revised, would substantially undermine the SEQRA process. The same conclusion is reached by the Town's Conservation Advisory Counsel, which in its February 4, 1986 memo to the Town Board states 'the serious [laws and ommissions in the DEIS render it inadequate and possibly illegal". separately. Then it is useful [o consider the necessary for the project. 1-93 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Town Board Town of Southold February 21, 1986 inte~ive uses on a single site. He knows specifically how many motel units, how large a restaurant anO how many boat slips he wishes for his new facility. Under $£QRA, a generic impact statement is simply not appropriate. At [)age 3 of his letter, counsel quotes page B45 of the SEQ~ handbook in support of his argument that a generic statement would be appropriate. However, counsel fails to quote the circumstances favoring such treatment.. The number one circumstance listed which would favor such treatment is when "the applicant has no specific project planned" (SEQRA Handbook page B45). Mere, that is simply not the case and a generic statement is insufficient. At page 3 of his letter, counsel states, referring to intervenors' consultant, Frederick Reuter, 'if the North Carolina planning consultant who critisized the DEIS had been sent the master plan update background studies, ~s= of the questions he has raised would have been answered." In the first instance, Mr. Reuter had before him the b~ckground studies, the proposed ~ter plan, and the proposed zoning code. All his comments were made in the cootext of those documents. Further, as can be seen from a review of Mr. Reuter's comments on the master plan and proposed zoning for the site that were submitted to the Hoard at the Hamlet meeting on February 14, 1986, the background studies and master plan do not ~up~ort the subject proposal being located in a low density residential area on such a small embayment wi~h significant environmental constraints. Perhaps counsel should review those background studies again himself. SecDnd, to the extent that counsel i~plle~ that Mr. Reuter is not familiar w~th Long Island and in particular east end zoning, plannlng and env[rDnmental would find that Mr. Reuter has be~n invulve~ in 1-'34 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Town Eoa£d Town of Southold February ~l, 1986 Page Fou~ has worked to devolop planning analyes, master plans, zoninG codes, subdivision regulations and other studies for the LonG Island municipalities of Ouog~e, Rsverhead, Garden City, Huntington, [slsp, Lindenhurst Village, Village of Port Washington, Town of East Hampton, and in fact, he w~$ the drafter of the original master plan for the Town o~ Southamptom, where counsel resides. The applicant's late attempts to rationalize the inadequacies of the D£IS submitted must not be accepted by this Board. If, as the applicant suggests, he will not be responding to certain comments on the DEIS, he runs the risk as does this Board of any subsequent zoning action be tnG litigated for failure to comply with the requirements of SEQk~. This would certainly not be in the Board's, the community's, or the applicant's best interests. Intervenors would prefer and would submit that it would be irt the Board's best interest to have a full and complete erlvironmental review of the project at thls early date, so that all issues with regard to this project can be aired simultaneously wi:h the review of the proposed zgnin~ and master plan for the community. Sincerely, Christ~pter Ke 1 ie~, CK/rap 1-95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ! HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION II ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUCTmG ENGINEEI~ February 19, 1986 Town of Southold Town Mall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: $outhport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: We are transmitting herewith the Addendum to the Draft Environmental ImFact Statement for Southport Development, requested by the Town Board at the public hearing on February 4, 1986. 15 copies of said document are enclosed. This Addend=T contains answers to questions developed by Szepatowsk~ Associates, Inc., consultants to the Town Board, in their memorandum dated January 20, 1986. We hope this additional information will be helpful to the Town Board in making an affirmative decision on this lT~tter at our meeting of February 25, 1984. If there are any additional questions, please do not hesitate to cuntact this office. J~e[h Flschetti, Jr., P.E. 2-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SOUTKPYFT DE'.?LCPMrNT 2-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ADDENDUM TO DKAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOB SOUTBPORT DEVELOPMENT TO~ OF SOUTHOLD - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YOR¥ This addendum document has been prepared for submission to the lea~ agency, the Town of Southold. Said agency has re-. quested additional information, data analysis and clarification of sections contained withl~ the Draft Envlrenmental Impact Statement submitted on November 19, 1985. Th~s document seeks to answer the co~ent$ received from the Town Board through Sze~atowski Associates, /nc. by way of a memcrandu~ dated January 20, 1986. It shoJld be noted that Sze~atowski Associates, Inc. has been retained by the Town of to review the subject D~aft Envircn~ent~l I~act statement. This su~frission is being prcvided for the Town Board's revzew at its meeting of February 25, 1986, which is a continuation of the ~lic hearing held On Februa~' 4, 1986. North Country ~oad - Bcx wading River, N.Y. 11792 2-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIST OF £XHIBITS A - Topographic' Map Showing Fxisting Site. B - Site Plan of Prop~se~ Motel and Marina. C - Site Plan Locating Sewage Treatment System D - Suffolk County Department of Health Services Specifications and Details for Denitrification Sewage Treatment System. E - Resolution by Village of Greenport Showin? Allocation of Water for Young's Marina Project, F - i) Corps of Engineers - Maintenance Permit for Youn~'s Marina 2) Corps of Engineers o Maintenance Permit for Soutkold Shores/Tarpon Drive. H - Shellfish Survey Map. J - Test Boring Map and Analysis. K - Suffolk County Department of Bealth Services - ~ - ~tter from SDutkold Police DeE, artment. Town Board. O - Letter fro~ Szepato~ski Associates, Inc. to $cuthold Town I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 'The change of xone requested (General Multiple Residence) allows for docking facilities for non-¢o~nercial boats and hotels, and ~tels bowl with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning (Marine Business) on town zoning maps allows for marinas, fuel sale, swi~ing pools, tennis court~, and boat yard (storage) all under permitter uses. Restaurants are permitted by special exception. Motels are not listed under this zone. As just pointed out, the propots~ development conflicts with both the change of zone reqdested and tke propose~ ~one on the Town 2¢nlng Map. The iPlannlng Board has recoT~end&d ~ar:ne- Recreation for tkis site and the applicant has agreed to com~ly witk tkat District. The proposed ~oning Pap needs to ~e amerd£~.' Tke ~FFl~cgnt fully ur,~erstan~s the perritted uses and those by special exre~ticr, within t?*e existing General Pultl~le Penitence District. -1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HE. NDERSON AND 00DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Further, the applicant recognizes that in order to secure a restaurant use as part of the program, it must apply for a use variance to the Town of $outhold Zoning Board of Appeals. Concerning Southport Development's requested zoning change being consistent with the Proposed Zoning Crdlnance, it should be note~ that the applicant was, at the time the apFlicatien was maze, June 6, 1985, consistent with the Scuthold Town Planning Proposed Zoning Ordinance, date~ April, 1985. At that time, bo~, the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts permitte~ ~arinas, transient mctels, restaurants and su~.~crting facilities. Further, the ~ianninq ~oard, in respcnse to the Town Board's request, reviewed the Southport Development a~llcation and recom.men~e~ it~ approval by resolution date~ 3uly 29, 1985. During the Tc~n 5Da~d's sco~inc session with the applicant, the Board regus~tef the aT~ll- cerning prcEosed mc~if~cat2on~ within the marine -2- 2-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HEiNDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport Development application and a modified Proposed Zoning Ordinance. We were accordingly advised by the Town Attorney that transient motels would be permitted only within the Marine Recreation district. It was our understanding that the Town Board intends to transfer certain properties, now within the Marine Business district, including the $outhport Development property, to the Marine Recreation district in order to permit the introduction of motels and restaurants in support of the Master plan. The applicant wishes to note, from the Master Plan Update Su~va~', Town of Southold, dated April, 1925: 'Marine related water dependent uses are encourager at appropriate creeks and bays ... Marlne Coi~ercial areas could aisc include sore water e.n~.anced uses and marine oriented retail stcres or museurs. This catagcry is generally use~ for proF6rtie~ -3- 2-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS extensive tidal flushing, as noted within other sections of this Addendum. Further, the Master Plan Update Summary states, "Proposed sites for marine comm~ercial uses primarily reflect sites that are currentl~ utilized for boat mooring and marine commercial propertie~. In addition, marine-related areas in the wacinity of Dud's Pond and Sa?e Bculevard have been proposed for expansion to help in meeting future ~ater-relatef needs.' (Emphasis ad~ed.) As noted from thc afore inforK~tion, it is clear that Southp~rt Development is full}' consistent with the Master Plan marine district goals, please refer to the letter from Joseph F~schetti, Jr., to the Southcld Town Beard, dater Fet ruary 14, 19Bf, contained -4- 2-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I$ I I RESPONSE: HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULT.~G ENGINEERS SECTION - SUMMARY "No {egard for fresh water use impact on Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify if it can prouide peak flo~'.# The project spcnsor has contacted the Greenport Water Authority in order to ascertain the avail- ak i!ity of public water supply. Said Authority, ky resc!ution dater AFril 13, 1985, allocatef sufficient reserves to serve the subject de- velopment and authorized same to begin negot:a- tlons with the applicant. A coFy of said resolution is includef in the supplemental exkit~ts. -5- 2-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS NO. 4: 'Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. Boweyer, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, "Marine Business", does not allow motels as currently ~rafted. The planning Board has recoKu~,ended "Marine-Pecreation" (M-RetI as appropriate for this site, but this zone d~es not permit boat yards. A resolution of these conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not moored at the marina.' The propose~ marina facility will incorporate only provislcns for emergency re~air situations. Ko beatyar~ operations are anticipated. An existin~ travel-lift will be utllizeJ for requiring erer~ency haulage. 2-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS NO. 5: 'Sanitary effluent will be subject to deni~rification system. This eliminates only 30% of nitrogen from effluent. Wher~ will effluent be discharged? It is not clear from the report, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs tc show the system." The anticipated co~.ercial sanitary effluent wilt be recharged to the groundwater ¥ia a Suffolk County Department of Heal~. Services approved subsurface denitrification syster located at the northern section of the s~ject property. This installation will ~li~inate the present standard leaching pccl5 which currently handle approximately 3,500 gallons per da}' without denitrification treatment. A complete set of Suffolk County Department of Health Services criteria are contained in the supple- mental addenda. These specifications are to be utilizied when the SuffoLk Court~' Sanitary Code Article V-£, Section ~[c) , 15 ewce~Je~ and the total ~rcject design fic~ !5 15,006 gallons Fer d=y cr les~. Actual CCtStr.cticr -7- 2-11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS designs must be submitted to said &gency prior to project initiation. These approvals will be obtained during the site plan review process and are not & function Of a rezoning application. However, proposed effluent generated is calculated as follows: Motel - 56 units x lOO gpd/unit - 26 efficiency units x 150 gpd/unit 5,600 gp~. 3,900 gpf. Restaurant, including lavatories: 125 seats x 30 gpd/seat Bar - 10 seats x 15 gpd/seat Pool - 5 gpd per ca~ita x 100 Service Building - 2 lavatories x 150 gpd Laund~' facilities - 2 washing machines x 400 gpd. 3,750 gpd. 150 gpf. 560 g~d. 300 gpd. 800 Spd~_. 15,000 gpd. NOTF: Said ~inimur design flow criteria are provided by the Suffolk Count}' Department of Health Services (copy included in suFplerental h£1cw th~ existing New York State standard 2-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMF~E NT NO. 6: HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S£C'TION - PL~LIC NEED FOR PROJECT "A public need for the project is referred to, but surveys or other evidence is not offered. ;tn intention to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translated into fact as the proposal is developed. The state- ment is made that there will be no increased demand for puklic services, yet public water is needed, police and fire protection are al~o needed. A statement fro~ the V~llage is needed on water supply and from the Police and Fire Departments a~ well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful." The growing de~.and for recreational facilities witkin the Town of Southold has been ackno~le~ge~ by the I o~n of Sou tho!d ~lanninq Consultant~, Rayr~nd, Parrish, Pine and Welner, Inc. The.:. that, 'There is a recognized future neef for -9- 2-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS supported in the Same document: 'A recent University of Rhode Island study determined that'for every $1.00 in boat and marine sales, another $1.20 is 9snerated elsewhere." The project sponsors' analysis of the marine market demand also is supported by said con- sultants: 'In spite of the number of marinas, there are current shortages of boat slips, docking spaces and moorings, ~articularl¥ for lares boats.' (Emphasis added.) Increased demand for public services will be limited to an augmentation of the peak water supply quantities provided by the Greenport Water District. Said increase is estimated at 13,500 gallons per day over the existing draw of 3,500 gallons per day. As mentione~ previously, reserves have already geen allocated by th~ Water District for this as well as many other proposed projects. (See resolution of Greenport Water Authority.) A letter contained within the supplemental addenda of this document confirms that no addltional police proterticn is requlred and a recent con%'~rsation with the Greenport Fire Chief indicatef that no 2-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS additional ~quipment or manpower would be needed as a result of the project development. It should also be noted that the Town of Southold Assessors' Office has estimated that the project, as proposed, will generate approximately $60,000.00 additional tax dollars over those provided by the current use. that during the s~ring, su~er and fall seasons within the general area of Southold, there is a major influx Cf tourists. To further confirm Behr, a director of the GreenFort-Southold Chamber of Cor~.erce, to discuss this matter more fully. Mr. Behr ccnfirmed that the Cna~,er of Cormerce has monitored tourism in general an~, ~cre s~ecifically, the need ]t was noted, for instance, that there ha5 not been a transient motel built in this area within the last 20 years. F~rth~r, and more importantly, during the su~er season, not away by lack of accor~Ddations. 2-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS It is clear that, from s public need point of view, the Southold area would be greatly e~anced by having more transient motel accom~odations since the tourist who is staying overnight statistically spends considerably more of his discretionary income on items such as restaurants, tourist attractions, gasoline and automobile service. Further evidence of this is outlined in more detail in the last respons~ section of this report, entitled 'Section - No Action.' It should he noted that the economic impact describe~ later in th~s report a~,ounts to something in excess of $8,000,000. 2-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S~CTION - LOCATION COMMENT NO. 7: "Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with /ts abuttors having some control over access and 'improvements' thereon. Since improvements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the appli- cants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This is essential for project approval since existing access is not satisfactory for the proposed project to be approved. The question of maintaining 5ag~ Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be imEroved jointly. An agreement on same will k.e neces- sary for site plan approval." RESPONSE: The aE~licant has closely studied the existing 16' right-of-way anf, further, has retaine~ the services of Dunn Engineering, PC, a pro- fessional trafic engineering fir~, to evaluate Current conditions at Sage 5culevard. To sUr~Tarize Dunn Engineering'~. findlngs: Wi~% t~£ proposed i~rovements c%irrent!y within the jurisdiction of $cuthpor5 Development, namely re~av~ng, est akli~ktng roa~ center lines, -13- 2-17 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I Io I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS adequately and safely serve Southport Development as well as the adjacent o~ners using this right-of-way. In addition, the applicant agrees to fully cooperate with the municipality in the planning and further improvements of Sage Boulevard in conjunction with the owners of the property that control Sage Boulevard. It should be noted that these owners currently have an application before the Planning Boar~. Tc s~marize the Southpcr% Development position, the current Sage Boulevard will adequately serve Southpcrt Development with minor improvements, and, in addition, South~ort Development pledges to tko municipality to take part in additional i~rovements of Sage Boulevard as required by the munlciEality of the current owners of Sage Boulevard. -14- 2-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1o I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COM.HENT NO. 8: 'A supposition is mdc as to potential negative impacts from spills of industrial compounds which might be used by industries under the current zoning. ~t appears that an impression is trying to be created that ~omehow this would not be possible under the proposed use. However, it is a known fact that even the existing use has such compounds on site and that there already exists a threat to the environ~,ent. This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned.' ~ESPONS5: It should be noted that the proposed marine facilities will not include boat repair operations. Therefore, the statement in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is supported that said propcsat will ellminate the potential ha2ards currently existing for iKdustrial/co~erclal pollution causeJ by comFounds utili~e~ in the current ag well a~ the ~ermitte~ us~s of th~ site. As the present operation5 include repair and ~aintenance uses, site inspection reveals potentially ha2ardcus materials cordon to a boatyard facili[y. The~e corpoun~s include, -15- 2-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS among others, paints, varnish, resins, solvents an~ degreasing agents. 2-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - MARINA CONSTRUCTION COMMENT NO. 9 "Dredge spoil analysis must be done to determine suitability of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands creation). If contaminants are found, what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland grading as stated in DE~S would not be possible. Dredging method, time, upland dewatering, and runoff contrcl must all be addressed." Project revisions have resulte~ in a request to maintenance dredge the hoar basin area in order to provide a depth of 6 feet at mean low water. This depth will conform to the existing USDOA per. it de~th covering the channel entrance as well as the permits issued for the private canal locate~ at Tarpon Drive. A copy of said permits are included in the supplemental addenda. This redJCtlOn in ~ropcse~ de~th will result in apErcxi~ately 9,000 cukic yar~s of material being re~%'eJ during the dredging operation. SaiF o~eraticn will be sc~eJc!e/ to occur hot.eon Fcve-~er 1st ami ~rl i 1st in order -I7- 2-21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGSNEE.S to reduce impacts to the surrounding waterways. ,Core samples were taken within the proposed dredge area and sent to ECO-Test Labs, Inc. for analysis to determine if said material =ontains any hazardous or toxic materials. The results of said analysis will be for- warded to the lead agency upon their receipt. A map indicating the sample locations is included in the supplemental addenda. The said cores revealed that · the majority of the kasin bctton, is comprised ,Df grey clay wit~. a 6 inch to 1 foot silt/sand covering. Construction delris (bricks) were found throughout the area and were also docu- mented during the shellfish survey condu~te~ .in the basin vacinity. If contaminants are found within the spoil material, the dredgin~ proposal will be eliminated fro~ the project development, altkcugh none is expected. hydraulic dredge or crane with dra~iine, S~oil will be Flaced behind u~land earthen 2-22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS blankets. Once dry, material will be utilized in site grading operations, trucked to an off-site disposal area, or used ~n the wetlands creating program. -!9- 2-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENG{NEERS "Concern with regards to boat slip length. All are over 32' in length. This does not allo~ for 'less than luxury boats." What is the public need in the area for 'elite boating?" Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method.' This berthing schedule is based on the project sponsor's survey of area marinas and is su~porte~ ky the Master Plan Back- grour:d Stud}, previously mentione~. It should be noted that 32' vessels are not considered to be "elite" or 'lu×ury" boats. In fact, der~nf for larger s!ip~ is directly ~elated to the ku}'ln~ trenls of rerreat[cnal boaters. Tkls trend of "tradin~ u~" has resulted in an increase in larger vessels withl5 the s~all boat market. AS the present project incorporates the use of float dcck£, tkeir conflgcraticn can easily ke chan~e5 decrease in ~oat s~e. A~ proF©~ef, t~e fuel dock facility ~ill be locste~ at o~e of the outkcard docks anf s~r'.'icef vla t~e e>:istin~ 2-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2,000 gallon underground tank. Said facility will conform to all applicable state and county regulations relating to marine fueling. Tank construction, line placement and auto- matic shutoff systems will all be detailed in the site plan approval phase. Additionally, a pump-out facility will also be added to the expanded marina infra-structure. This installa- tion will utilize a holding tank with collected effluent to be transported to the Greenport Sewage Treatment plant for processing. Said pump-out facility will be located away fro~ the fuel dock in order to limit con3estion. Construction details will also be outlined in the site plan approval phase. A letter from A. P. Foster, President of Custom Cesspools, /nc., indicates sufficient capacity to service said station during its peak use. -21- 2-25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMiMI~NT NO. lh "What is pervious material used for 288 space parking lot? Inconsistency on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be 'pervious' or 'impervious', or 'semi-pervious'. A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. must be shown along with drainage calculations. A "0' runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. RESPONSE: It is intended that the parking facilities incorporate~ in the development plan be con- structed of a pervious material such as crushed stone in order to reduce stor~ water runoff. As stated ~reviously, all runoff will be con- trolled via a con,,on stor~ watE~r management system designed to eliminate ar;~, possible impacts to ground or surface waters. Details of said syster will be provide! during the site plan approval pkase. ~o~'~,.'er, it should be noted that "C' runoff wll! ke ~aintained as -22- 2-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS to the policies suggested by the New York Statement Department of ~nvironmental Conservation under their administration of Article 25 and Article 15 of the ~nviron- mental Conservation Law. 2-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT NO. 12: RESPONSE: 'Since no site plan has been included in the D£IS, it cannot be commented upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity end no mention is made of employee parking. Un- substantiated statements are made regarding 'satisfying zoning requirements', runoff generated from impervious to semi-pervious surfaces. This section needs to be supplemented.' A conceptual site plan is included in the supplemental addenda as well as a topographic survey showing existing site conditions. Motel yield was calculated as follows: Total upland a~zeage = p. er parking space (per Town Code): Total acreage availakle for motel: 3~£,713 sq. ft. 33~,3£4 sq. ft. -24- 2-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS according to current Southold Town Code t.o include employee parking as well as Motel - 82 units x 1 space/unit: Employees - 20 x 1 space/eK~loyee: Farina - 121 slips x 1 space./sll~: ~estaurant - 125 seats x 1 space/5 Bar - 10 seats x 1 space/5 seats: 82 spaces 20 spaces 121 spaces 25 spaces 2 spaces -25- 2-29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COF~LENT NO. 13: RFEPONSH: "No calculations of peak water use and sewage flows are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation without going saline during peak season? If not, Greenport must be made aware amd utility acknowledgement is needed." Computations of peak water usage are as follows: Hotel - 56 units x 160 gpd 26 efficiency, units x 150 gpd. Bestaurant, includin? lavatories 125 seats x 30 gpd/seat Bar - 10 seats x 15 g~d./seat Accesso~, lavatories - 4 x 150 gpd. Laundry facilitzes - 2 x 430 gpd. Boat washzng - 121 slips x 25% use factor x 100 gallons/hour x I hour usage: Pr-AY DAILY (ComEutations based cn £uffclk Cc. unty Degartment cf Health 5,E00 gpd. 3,900 gpd. 3,750 gpd. 150 gpd. E00 gpd. 800 gpd. 2-30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS As stated previously, allocaticns for this project have been approved by the Greenport Water Authority. Boat washing requirements may be ~erved by an on-site shallow well in order to lessen Water District demands. Said u£e will be dependent on test well results and, ~herefore, at this point in the development process, we will assume that water demands wlll be satisfied solely through the Greenpcrt Water ALthcrity. 2-31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND 8ODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - CONSTRUCTION AND OFEP~.T!ON 'wkat is meant by the statement, "Subsoil testing will be conducted to determine" etc. and "If such material ...' and 'proper design criteria ...' and 'proper erosion contract ... This is a draft environmental impact statement and this info r~.aticm is heeled to properly evaluate the i~&cts and tc clarify the va~ue s~atements made. Su~lerental information is At the tame the Draf% fn'.zrcnre:tal Btste-~nt was ~re~are~, res_!%s frcr u~!and test ~crings had not yet been receiv6J from Biacke Test Boring, Inc.. SalJ results now inc!ude~ in tke sL~ieTental afdenJa as well as locations cf the tcr:n~ samples. 2-32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - ENVIRONMEntAL SETTING, NATURAI RESOURCES~ SOILS COM~£NT NO, 15: RESPONSE: "Soil borings, since they will be necessary any- way, should be included in the DEIS. Unkno%,n subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts." Actual soil data am well as information ex- tracted from the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" would indicate t~at the majority of the property falls under the "Ma" (Made Land] and "Cu' (Cut and Fill) soil classifications. A complete review of said findings are as This is maJe up cf areas that have alteref such as housing development~, shopping centers, or as in this case an old brick factor)'. The initial grading generally conslste~ of cutting 2-33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUL7~O ENGinEERS contain deep cuts in or near the sandy sub- stream of the soil or sandy fills of 2B" or more. With this the cuts are usually so dee~ er fills so thick that identification of soils by series is not possible. The following is a breakdown of the soil material that is found in the upper 40" of this unit: ~h,-elve inches of sandy loaf, loam or silt loam, w~th the retaining 28" of loamy fine sand or coarser textured matdrial. Cut and fill land is generally associ=te~ with Carver and Piyrocth fertilit}, as can be seen on the enclosed 2-34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS sloping areas that have beer, cut and filled for non-farm uses. The slopes in this type of area range from ]. percent to B percent, and because of final grading are usually complex, approximately ?5 percent of cut and fill soils. The texture is dominantly loamy fine sand or coarser textured material. ~he remaini~ 25 percent conslsts of soils of Carver, Maven, Plymouth, 'this lan-2 has fe~, if an'.' l~itaticn-~ to 2-35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS other non-soil materials. Some areas are found On the surface of the original soil, others in large holes dug for disposal purposes, and still others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. Upon examination of the upland and the bottom of the boat bas~n, it can clearly be seen that bricks from the old brick factory plus amounts cf site. IncludeJ with this unit during maF~in~ case ~t the ~ro~ose~ site. Ca~akility unit 2-36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS with coarse to fine light brown sand and gravel b~lo~' the clay layer. 2-37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMENT NO. 16: HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING SECTION - GRCUKDWATER "The last sentence is missing at least two wc~rds $o that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded." G~ounJ~ater analysis as stated in the Draft towards tke ~asin area and Southold ~a5 . -]4- 2-38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SUPYACE WATERS COMMENT NO. 17: RFSPCNSE: 'Undocumented 'Agency observations' are held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to the subject. This statement needs conclu$ory evidence.' Statements made in the Draft Enviro~ental Department of Environmental Conservation 2-39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Point (Shelter Island). This constriction &ug~.ents the ebb and flood of tidal waters into. and out of the subject basin, thus preventing the concentration of pollutants such as coliform and nitrates. As no alteration of the existing channel entrance is anticipated, this high rate of tidal exchange will continue after project com- pletion and will assure satisfactory water quality within the basin. 2-40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS "D~es the 'representational s~ecies list' represent actual observation? If so, why call it 'representation'? No shellfish survey cf any kind was done or citer. A study cf this kind should be done in this area mc potential impact can be dlscussef~ alcng with any mitigation measures." A vegetation inventory of the site was con- oucted and those species observed were listed in the Draft Envirc~mental Impact Statement. As state~, most are herbacio,~s roadside we=! species able to withstand poor site ccndlt~sns. It shoul~ be noted that vegetational cover presently exists on only 10 perzent of the subject property. At the request of the lead agency, a shellfish survey was undertaken i~ order to determine the composition and extent of the shellfish populatioms w~thin the project boundaries. Sai~ survey wam conducted on February 1, 19~6 by Land Use Company staff. The location of sample points are shown on a map includef in -37- 2-41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENIDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGtNEERS SHELLFISH area, the rake continually fllle~ ~ with this -38- 2-42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The following equipment was employed during the shellfish survey: Clam rake, 28-inch opening, tooth length 2-1/2 inches; Tongs, 18-inch opening, tooth length 2 inches: Scallop dredge: 14-foot were:oat, 25 horsepower mc, tor. Hermit Crak - facurus Pollicari~ - An extremely com~on specie5 which prefers shallower water. They use shells of Periwinkles, Mudsnails, Whelks and Moons as their 'homes." None found durin~ either survey or inspection. InhaJ~its muddy shcres and is cor~ncn in bays and mouths of estuaries. Move into deeper water in winter. Although no living or dead specimens were found, this species is surely ,an i rd',abitant of the area. Calico Crab - Ovali~es ocellatus - Prefers sandy bottor~. None found during inspection or survey. ~'iddler Ct ak ~ Uca Pu~nax - Prefers the dryer parts of sand-:' beaches and salt marshes. Feeds -39- 2-43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS on organic material in the sand. None found during ins~ecticn. Absence is prohakly due to the topogra~hlc characteristics of the site. $~.ider Craks - Likinia Dubia - Prefer kelp and tidal pools. NO dead or living mer~ers of the species found at site. Blood Ark - AnaJara Ovalis - A specle$ native to the re~ion, co~nly found on shallow sand3. bottoms. They are regularly cauqht by baymen as an incidental catch. None found in Uro~ect area. Blue Mussel - Mytilu5 Ydulis - A very local species, found attached to rocks and pilings. It is highly valued as ta~lefare. Durin~ the shellfish survey, a sr~il pop~Iaticn was fcund existing on pillngs in the dock area. Atlantic Ribbed Mussel - Modiolus Derissus - Another species common to the region, it is not edible but ~ometimes utilize~ as bait or chum. Pound in the marsh banks within the intertidal zone. Topographic characteristics of the site li~t the population of thi~ species. -40- 2-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I$ HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS among be~s of Codzmm (C3~ium Fraoi!~) or -41- 2-45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Topographic characteristics of th9 site attribute to their absence. Channeled Welk - Bus~,con Canaliculatum - This is a much sought-after species by both commercial baymen and people gathering them for their own consumption. This species is usua~!v found cn harder sandy tottoms. They are carnivores and scavengers, usually feeding on bivalves. None were found during the inspection or survey. Eastern O~ster - Crassostiea Vir~inica - This s~ecies is founf attarhed to rocks, roots and shells. They aye highly value~ as ta~lefare. During the shellfish survey, one adult oyster was found. Upon a site inspection along the e×lsting rock "dock' area, a small adult po~ulaticn was observed. During both the shellfish survey and the site inspection, the aksesce of any appreciable amounts of oyster shells would indicate that in recent times there has been no sizable standing crop Pf adult oysters. -42- ~-46 .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I$ I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Hard-shell Clam - Mercenaria Mercenaria - This species is found in different habitats: One is in shallow muddy areas near the iow tide mark in estuaries, etc.; another is i~ the sandy stations found in oFen, deeper bays or ocean bottom. They are highly Yalued as taklefare. On first thought, when inspecting the site, it sppeared that this s~ecies would be ab undent; however, cn actual inspection of the flats by boat, wading and walking, it was evident that the minute amount of dead shells indicates that in recent times there has been no standing crop of adult-sized men, ers of this sperie~ This ccnrlusicn is supported by the results of the shelifl$~ survey, which showed only three hard clams caught within the survey area. -43- 2-47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - VEGETATION - WILZLiFE 'Why aren't the bird an~ fish species actually cited named? On what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory." The following represents a list of waterfowl actually okserve~ on Februa~' 1, 198~. Thls list is s utmitted in addition to the representational species list contained within the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement. Co~on Mallard - Arias Platyrhynchos Platvrhvnchos By population, this ~s the foremest duck in the United States. 15 to 20 were ckserveJ in the area of the boat launching ramp and were not wary of humans. It is believe.~ that they are used to bein~ fed at the site. Mallards are catholic in their selection cf nest sites. They prefer upland to marsh, b'Jt the distance from the water varies greatly with the habitat. Sites on levees, small islands, or where potholes are numerous often limit maximum distances from water to a few feet or a few yards. Most studies indicate that nests are located within 100 yards of water (Bellrose, 1980). -44- 2-48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Black Duck -Ana$ Ru~ri~es - Begarded by sportsmen as one of the most prized mer~ers of their bag due to this species' wariness. Black ducks nest in a variety of habitats, depending upon the cover available. On the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, 65 percent nested in upland areas, 17 percent in marshes and 19 percent in old duck bl~nds. Most of the nests in the upland areas were in wooded tracts (Bellrose, 1980~. Three members of this species were noted. Mute Swan - Cronus C. lor- Pour members of this species were fccnd. They are ttc~.t to be permanent residents of the site. Olds~uaw - Clan~ula Hvemalis - Th~s prefers open, deep waters. They do not nest locally. One me~er of this ssecie~ observed. FIKFISB A more detailed representational I~.~ of finfish resources in the area is as follows: -45- 2-49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Winter Flounder - pseudo~leurnoecte~ ~ericanus - Protab ly found in some of the deeper, muddier areas. None were found during the shellfish survey even though they are commonly caught while shellfishing. They prefer a soft, muddy bottom (co,only where there are patches of eel grassl to a ~derately hard One. Note: d~ring shellfish survey, no eel grass was found. Hog chocker - Trinectes Maculatus - This species is probably found in the area, even though none were found during shellfish survey. From past ex~erlence, they are com~cr!y ca~g~t in clar rakes and scallop dreJges, prefer i~3e~iate vicinity of the coast, an~ are r~ost co~J~on in bays and estuaries, where water is more cr less brackish. They soretime~ run into wholly fresh waters. They are of no comrercial value due tc their small size, but are said to be a delicious-tasting fish. Windowpane Flounder or sundail - Sco~hthalmus Acu~sus - None were found during the shellfish survey. Again, this is & specie~ often caught 2-50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS acczdently wh~le shel!fishing. Prefers a shallow water area or a sandy bottom. Fluke or Sur3er Flounder - Paralichthys Dentatus - Mertioned as a ~rehahle inhabitant of the area. In reality, they are usually cau9ht at 10 to 18 fathoms by conurercial draggers. This s~ec~es comes into shallower and tends to actively feed in movzng waters where they will actually chase Dait. They might stray into the hcat basin on occasion but not in an area where an angler would seek then. winter Skate - Paja Ocellata - Cor~cnly found while amgling for ~inter founder. It is tkcucht to confine itself to sandy or gravelly tottoms in shoal water. None are actually believed to inhabit subject area. American Eel - Ansui!la Rcstiata - Definitely thought to inhakit the sut. ject area, since this species is found over muddy bottoms and wherever food can be found. 2-51 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS American Sha~ - AZosa Sa~idissima - This species might enter the subject area cn rare occasions. Andrcmcus, they enter fresh water only to spawn. Frequently found at or near surface, they are plankton fee~ers. They may be driven into the subject area by feeding blueflsh, weakfzsh or striped bass. Oyster Toadfish - O~sanus Tau - This species could possibly be found in t~e subject area. The}, prefer s~ca! water, usually over sandy or mu~y b~ttcm where they hide among eel gra~s or stones waiting for prey. Mu~-ickc~ - Fundulus Heteroclitus - Fcun~ chiefly in shallow brackish water an~ fresh- water, they prefer muddy bottoms. This species can ~robakly be found in the subject area. species is Frobably found in the subject area, as they prefer coastal areas, living i~ brackish waters. -CB- 2-52 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Shiner or Tide','ater Sllverside- Fenidia Beryllina - They are surely found in the s ukject area, and are most ccm~n in brackish water. Northern Pipefish - S~-n~nathus Fuscus - This species is prokeJrly found in the subject area. The}' are found more often over smooth hard {rounds than over mud or rocks. Stri~ed Searobin - Prionc. tus Evolans - They are prckakly found in the s~bject area. Icnrhorn Sculpin - Mvoxocephalus Octodecems~i~c~us Tkis species is found in the s uklect area. They i nkabit Coastal waters, roving into deeper water in colder weather ~hen returning in spring. ~T~te perch - ~crene Americana ~ They are found most frequently in brackish waters and are generally close to shore in saltwater, rarely in deep water. If found in the subject area, they are surely only a rare visitor. 2-53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Otri~e~ tass - Monroe $axatilus - They are not thought to te nc rma!ly found in subject area, but may stray into it while chasing bait fish. Bluefish - Pcratcmus Sa!tatrix - The young bluefish, cor~orly kLown as sna~Fers, are definitely to be found in the s'~]ect area during the late sum~er. Sou? or Por~' - Otenctomus Chrysc~5 - Probably none would ever be found in the subject area. They prefer, in sum,mer, fairly shallow waters over £~coth kott~ms. Weakfish - Cvnoscian Penalis - They might o~ occasion be fcdnf in o utject area while cha~ing baitfish. They ~refer wa r~ water and are sensitive to sc~en cooling. Blarkfish or Tauto~ - Tauto~a Onitis - They are probakly not found in sub3ect area even though they i~habit Peconic and Southold Bays. This species is normally found very close to the shorelime, usually among rocky shores, breakwaters, piers and docks. -50- 2-54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS A~erican Sandlaunce or San~ee! % Anu~oydytes Arerlcanus - This species might oc~asiona!i} be found in s'~bject area after being chased by predators. The}, prefer sandy kottoms. Ncrthern Puffer. Bal!ocr Fish cr Blowfish - S~aeroi~e$ Maculatus - They might on occasion be found in sukject area, anJ they are almost always found close to shore in relatively shallow water. -51- 2-55 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS NO. 20: dredginq pe~it. Is it in force or pending? A cody shc~!d be included in the DEIS. A low water de~th of 6' is mentioned, while On Pa~e 9 Who hclCs the ~er~lt and who will de the channel maintenance ~re~qing (a~ide from basin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrate~ in the DEIS. If this de~th of dre~qing is deeper than the entrance channel, the reason for doing any needed as well am more detail and a soundings plan." RESPONSE: As stated in the Craft Envircamental Impact Statement, the channel entrance to the ~asin is currently subject to a 10-year maintenance dredging pe.-mit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Said permit is in effect and a copy is include~ in the su~[le~entaI exhibits. -52- 2-56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Additionally, the prelect sponsor has indicated that the basin de~th will be maintained at the same mean lo~ water de~th cf 6 feet as is allo~eJ under the aforementioned permit. -53- 2-57 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC~-MENT NO. 23: "The significant envircmme~tal impacts discussion on soils, topography, ground~'ater, surface waters, vegetatlon, wildlife, and wetlands cannot ~e comrented u~cn without a more detailed eDvironmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan to demonstrate before and after conditions. The imparts llsteJ are conjectural and not conclusc~.- based on evidence ccntaine~ in the LrfS. This section needs to be rewritten." P. ESPONSE: A detailed environrental inventory has been s'~mitte~ as a part of this Craft Fnv~rcnrentsl Impart Statement Addenlum. Therefore, the a~verse and beneficial ir;acts caused ky the proposed action can ke expasde~ upon as follows: Soils Topography Adverse Impact None -54- Beneficial Im?act Improvement of existing soil conditions through placement of top sill and dune eP~ance~e~t Frogram. Creation of aesthetically pleasing land forms construction of a run-off storm wate~ management syste~. 2-58 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tien HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS cation syste~. 5a~d system will not include wzll he rerove~ durlng site de'.,e!opcent. 2-59 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Adverse Beneficial Im~a=t Tran$- None None pc rtaticn Zcnlng & Loss of futare Land industrial deve!oFment Use potential AdJ%erence to Town cf Scuthold Mas=er Plan, Propcsed Zoning f, rd[nance and N.Y,S, Coastal Zone Policies. Loss of industrial tax base Increased demand on Greenport Water Dls%rict sector. -56- 2-60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS "A statement is ma~e tkat mitigation measures could be made a par% of a proposed project. Specific mitigation measures, even though general at the change of zene level, should ~e identified as being an integral part of the prc~ect. For example, re~ra~lng and mc~ifl- cation of existing drainage pattern5 to achieve certain res~lt~ are both mentioned as mitigation measures b~t s~nce the extent of the impact being miti~ate~ is not defined, the need or extent of the ~t~gating measure car~ct be defined." The mltigatlen measures ~eta~led in tke Draft £nvircnmental lmpact Staterent will be em~lc>-e~ as a part of the pr~ect design. Said mitigat~c.n measures are revlewe! as fcllcws~ 1. Top soil installation will irpro%-e existing soil conditions. A '0' run-off storm water mana~em~ent system will prevent overland flcw, siltation Of -57- 2-61 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS d~e to ir[ro~er use of fe:tl!lzer5. 2-62 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-63 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5EC~IO' - MITIGATION COMMENT NO. 25: "What is the design of catch baszn$, as describer, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur cens~dering slope on site is toward water. A site grading REEPC, NSE: A specific site gra~in3 plan with corstructicn details is ncr required as a part of a re~oning application. However, it has been stated that a '0" runoff storm, water manage-ent system will be mainta,ne] within the project bcandaries. 2-64 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I NO. 26: HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 'Why w:!l the ~kra~-ites he rercve~ and wh':' is it really a nuisance s~ecies? This needs to be detailed." The Cor~,cn Reed IPhra~r~tes Co~unis) is ccnsi~ere~ a nuisance speczes becazse of its Iimite~ ~alue wildlife food sources and cover, it has ag~ressi';e growing h~ its that allow it to OUt-Compete more desirakle species and will be the flrst tc colonize disturkeJ slte~, such a5 the s ak~ect property. Within the Fro]ecu prc~csa!, it i~ intended to remove areas of Phra_~r. ltes and replace ~hem with desir~le seashore speries. W~hin these areas, the Phra%nrites does serve to control soil erosion; however, this at+rihute can be du~i=cated utilizin~ more benefit:al s~ecies. Once rer.cve~, IM, H~ and trats~tlcn zone p!antin~s will be installed monitored to ensure that Pkraqmites does not re- colonize the site. Said maintenance prcgra~ will continue until full coverage is accor~llshed. -61- 2-65 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS "The creaticn of a natural Wetland along the entire basin shcrelin~ is prc~sed. The DEIS does nc% show %]tis. A kester rendition is needed." The Draft Envlrcnrental Impact Statement states "S. Alterniflorla, S. Patens and Baccheris natural wetlan! cir~dnity along the entire bas~.n shoreline.' Thls wetlands creation will prcvzde benefits, siltation ~r~tection, etc., without the -62- 2-66 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS As state~ in previous sections of this Addendum, tke Green~crt ~ater Authcr~ty has alreafy allocated sufficient reserves to serve this ]ect. N3 otker public service demands are anti- Ci~ate~ ts increase. -63- 2-67 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS "The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be ccm~!ete~ without an analysis of the existinq bottom to be dre~ge~." if fou~J, drefging at the basin area will be -64- 2-68 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING 6NGINEERS 'Doc.~men~ economic infeasiblllty. What toes ~his mean?' An ins~ectlcn cf the $~ ]ect Dro[erty by the applicant and its consultants clearly that the existing ~arina requires a sizeakle capital contrlb'JtLcn in or,er to uFgrade the faclilt}' cD acce~takle c-r~ent standards. Unf:rtuna~ely, ~arZnas tend to "generate lgw 1 ~xperlence~ great difficulty in sec2ring financing. The a~licant has gone through a preliminary marina uDgrade an5 design, and cstilned kelow for a~rrx~rately In order to more s~eslflc&i!y un!erstanJ why no action and si~;le ~raJing of the marlna in not a feasible eccncplc solution, a $i~Dle prg-fcrma statement is odtlin~d Average boat slip - 37' by S60 ~er _iRe=. fo~t = $2,200 x 121 simps: (All figures rounded.) $ 268,900.00 -65- 2-69 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENOERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS bcats x $1,92C ~er beat: Operating expenses Net availakle for ~ek~t service: S342,CC~.C0 ~200,000.00) $I43,9CC.00 Dock Utii2ties: enqineering, architectural, £0,000.00 15C,OCC.O0 100,0%0.00 ~KT after operating C55t and debt service: $ 40,O0C.00 It is clear that no respcmsihle investor would consider incurritg $830,000.00 in debt with a return of only 5 percent. Further, to exacerkate this situation, we placer no value 2-70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTfNG ENGINEERS the up!an~ ~rea noted fur tke ma:i~a. 2-71 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS service: .21 Kstlmate~ incite prclectzons developed for a Develcpmen~ within the Town of Southold would be over SB,OQO,0OO, 1.e. $4.03 x $2,00Q,000 In conclusicr, it 15 only through the mctel anJ suFport~ng facilities within Southport ~eveloFmert that the applicant will be able to s'~sid!ze the marina so tha~ it can stay in existence and offer the puklic marine recreation 0pFortunities. -6B- 2-72 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Marine Manufactaring Association, 1983) . 3(al . Nodin and Brown, "Ne~ Yrrk Co.mercia! Marine and Roat Indust~." (Ne'~ Ycrk Sea Grant Institute, 1974) . 2-73 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL ~HIBITc 2-74 CONSULTING ENGINEERS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND 8ODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS I I I 2-76 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-77 m mo m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-78 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-79 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS I 2-80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT D 2-81 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSU[T~NG ENGINEERS ~enltrification of the sewage is required whenever the ~cpuiatlon density, in accordance with the S~ffelk Cccnty ~anltary Code Article Section 2%c), is exceeded and the total daily design flow ~s 15,00C gallons per day or less. These guidelines serve as an aid ~n design of a minimum ~ystem. Plans are to be prepared and[ submitte~ to the Department by a licensed Prcfesslonal Engineer. The construction of the under-drain and/or denitr~f~caticn system must be certified by a Professional Engineer as being installed as per the approved plans. Septic Tanks In all cases, the system shall be com~non for the site. The septic tank shall be of approved p£ecast concrete COnstruction sized to rece:ve two days' flow. For further details, see 'Standards for Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences." Leaching Field and the ~itrification Process The excavation shall be carried to a depth 4'4" below the propcsed · nvert elevation of the leaching field. The entire area shall be excavated 3 feet beyond the perimeter of the leaching field. The leaching field area is determined by one ~quare foot per gallon of sewage per day. Next, a 20 mil Continuous vinyl liner shall be laid to cover the entire excavation and lap up the ~ldes by one foot. A one inch layer o[ 3/4 to 1~ inch washed gravel ls then installed over the vinyl l~ner. A manifold of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 drainpipe with 1/2 inch holes, 2 every 6 ~nche~, is installed with the holes downward to serve as the collection system. Collection pipes shall be spaced 6 feet apart and extend the full length and width of the leaching area. A salt.~ble 5olld 4 inch PVC SDR 35 pl~e shall connect the perforated pipe to allow the effluent to flow to either the denitriflcatlon system or a pump statzon which ~s determined by de~th to groundwater. An additional 5 inch layer of 3./4 to 1% lnch washed gravel ls then placed in the manifold bed. The gravel bed ~s then covered w~th a f~lter material. Three feet six ~nches (3'6") of clean sand and gravel ls then placed over the filter material ex'zending to the edges of the vlnyl liner. Thls sand layer shall be completely compacted. Four inche~ (4") of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel i5 placed on top of the sand in a uniform layer. A continuous man~fold is then erected over the gravel bed. This manifold shall be con- stracted of 4 inCh PVC SD~ 35 sewer p~pe w~th 1/2 Inch holes, 2 every E feet, 30" apart, facing downward. This leaching system shall be located I feet inside the ~erlr~eter Of the vln'yl liner. The leaching pipes shall be spaced every four to five feet. An additional 6 inches of gravel is placed within the leaching f~eld up to at lea~t the top of the leaching field pipe. The entire leaching field is then covered with filter material. The top of the leaching system shall be at least 2 fes-t below grade. The leaching system for nitrification ~hall not be placed under driveways or parking lots. - 1 - 2-82 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~eachin9 Pool and ~litrification Process Wher~he depth to groundwater is not critical, leachinq pocls ~ :y be utilized~o effect n~t~ification. The n~.ber and depth o{ po61s ~re / determined bye. 5 gallons,,foot2 of sidewall area of the pools for eve~ gallon of sewag~er day. ~he excavation shall be carrzed to a d~4 feet below the boom eleva~ion of the leach~n~ pools. The Fr~ to~ ~ excavated 3 feet ~y~nd ~he perlF, eter of the o~ermcst le~3. g ~ccis. A 20 mil contl~uous vi '1 llner shall be laid to cover th- .~tlre excava- washed gravel ~s then inst~led over the vinyl l[rm/~n[fold of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 drainpipe will/2 inch holes, ~r~ inch~paced 30", is co~uc~ith holes~cing downwa~ve as the ~lection manifold~ecti~ ~e~hal~e 6pac~ f~ apart and extend the full le~ of the leaching pools. vinyl l~or~l 5 l~he~f 3/4 to gravel bed is then covere . Next 3'6 of clean coarse sand an~~h and width of the yin '1 be completeAy co~acted. The lea~oC~e equal dosing an' h clean coarse sand and gra~~~ c~r~ ~and Lift Station If the depth to groundwater is insufficient for the effluent to com- pletely flow by gravity, then a dual sewage election pump system will be used to suitably lift the effluent. Pumps shall be s~zed according to the head required. The pumps shall be placed w!thln a mcmclith[c pre.fast concrete manhole, which is waterproof, with a cast iron cover brought to grade. The cover ~;hall be placed so as to prcvlde access to the pumps for repair. Refer to GLUMRB "Recom~mended Standards for Sewer Works', 1978 edition, for complete pump station design requirements. 2-83 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~'he Denitrification System Whether the collected waste from the leaching system flows by gravity or is pumped, the following criteria apulies. The sulfun and llmestcne media shall be placed within an approved precast concrete chamber. The chamber shall be l:.ned with a 20 mil vinyl l~ner so as to render the C~am- bet watertight below the inlet. The inlet to the chamber shall be 4 inch sc!id schedule 40 PVC pipe. The inlet shall be provided with a three-way 'T'. The bottom of the 'T' shall have a 4 inch solid pipe extending to within 2 inches of the bottom of the chamber connected to a 4 inch manifold system with two holes {1/2 inches), spaced every 6 inches, facing downward. The bottom of the chamber is to be filled with 6 inches of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel comp].etely encasing the manlfoId. The cham~r is then filled with media which consists of 4% pounds of elemental sulfur per gallon per day of design flow and 4% pounds of limestone per gallon per day of design flow. The sulfur and limestone are to be ~lxed to provide a uniform ~edla bed. A 4 inch outlet should be placed one foot below the manifold point of entry into the chamber. Both inlet and outlet are to be securely ce- mented to the chamber. Solid rings will be placed on top of the chamSe~ cemented to be watertight, if neeJed. A slab or dome shall be placed on top of the chamber one foot below grade. A cast iron cover to grade sh~ll be located over the lnlet manlfold pipe. Final Recharge The effluent from the denitrificatlcn chamber shall be piped to approved precast concrete leaching pool(s). For design ~urposes, an application rate of 10 gallons per day per square foot sidewall leaching area is per- mitted. The 4 inch effluent pipe should be brought to the edge of the manhole for sampling purposes. Either solid r~ngs or domes and chimneys shall be utilized with a cast iron Cover brought to grade over the manhole opening. Chimneys s~all not exceed 2 feet in height. - 3 - 2-84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS DEI~I;RIFICA~'ION C~AL'I~ER - DE'~AIL ~LEX~BLE COUPLING NO SCALE 2-85 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -. 2-86 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-87 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOP VIEW FIGURE 4 FILTER BED - DETAIL - *7 ~ 2-88 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT E RE-cOLUTIC~ BY VILLAGE OF G~_E.,p~R~ SHOWING ALLOCAT!O~: OF W~.TE~ FOP YOL'NG'S "'~' PRO3ECT 2-89 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HEI'~DERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS STATE OF ~Ebl YOBK ) } s~ . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 2-91 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-92 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ?7-533 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT No. 10~84 p.,~,.,,~ ...,.., ,,~,..,, ,.,._ -- ~_~ 1977 -- ~, ~, ~, ,o 1522-15 (£nelt~_r Isl~-d Scumt - Zehr~r, P~ward Ii. - Eulkhead, flll and rre-mt.e:'m cLred~e) ;)-93 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-94 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-96 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT F(2) 2-97 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT #135O8 Michael Levinson 255 West Lane Bridgefield, CT 06687 516-477-1675 ~ilhelm Franken Donald Bayles 75 Carroll Street 66 Mt. Sinai Brooklyn, NY )1231 O;~ram, NY 11727 516-477-IC,43 516-924-8866 maintenance dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of material by crane from a 320-foot b.y 25-foot area to a depth of 6 feet below the plane of mean low water with a 3-on-I slope anu dispcse of the dredged material on the adjacent upland. b an unnamec canal off Southold Day, Shelter Island Sound; · t Southold, Suffolk County, New York; 1522-15 (Shelter Island Sound - Franken, Bayles, Levtnson- maintenance dredging with upland disposal) 1 2-98 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IS I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL COIqlSULTING ENGINEERS PERMIT 10-84-1383 ~t~(sulo} lo Donald Bayles, Michael Levinson, Wilhelm Franken $outhold, NY [vate Canal Dr~dge 37S' area Of $'rivate Canal south of Tarpon Drive to 6' below mean ~ water by Barge cz'ane wlth resultan6 ap~0 yds.) to be placed upland bulkhead at southwest corner of Private Canal. There will be no distur- bance to vegetated tidal wetlands at property of Franken & S~ ~thold, NY. outhold I Southold GE~EIAL CONDITIONS 2-99 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4 2-100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-101 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-102 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2=103 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i, ! ! HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGtNEERS SoIL TYPE .MAp 2- 104 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-105 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS THr LA,t,..IP L.!~E ~..C~. · . Z - 106 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHZ5 IT J 2-107 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-108 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ie I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SLACKE TEST BORING, INC, 4 IMAIN ,STREET. P.O. BOX 64. KINGS PARK. L.I. NEW YORK 11754 · (516) ,5.44-0404 2-109 i. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SLACKE TEST BORING, INC, Doted. Mu,-ch 26. J955 ,'*,, L, SED ~' 3' Lo~m, trace G~ave[ to' $3' Gray Cley 2-110 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SUFFOLK COUNTy DEPAP'i.~ENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 2-111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Building Us~ I Design Flow I Single ramil7 Equivalent ~ 300 gallons/day Efficiency A~ame~=s/~cel/Motel~ lO0 gallons/day/unit plus fo~d service I Bedroom A~ar%ment/Condominium 2 Bedroom Apartment/Condominium 3 Bedroom Apar~ment/Co~dominium Condog/ntums One Bedroom Seasonal Cottages Tourist Camp Trailer Park ~o~ling Alley, P~c~uecball or Tennis Courts Day School Boardin~ School/Home Office Space Industrial Storace $~as, Beach, Coun=r~ Clubs Nursing Homes ~ars ~aundr~ Facilities 150 gallons/day 225 300 gallons/day . 100 lO0 gallons~day/bedroom 60 gallons/day/site 150 ~allons/da~/trailer 1.5 ~allons{day/occu?ant 5 gallons/day/parkin~ space 100 nllons/da or al[e ~t of buildin= floor area + f~od service ~ flo~r area ft. of flcor area .foot of building floor area of buildinc flcor area - 4 - 2-112 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT L LETTER FPDM ARTHUR FOSTER ON PUMP-OUT DISPOSAL 2-113 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CUSTOm CCSSP0ObS, Inc. CES~=CCL$ - EXCAVATrCN - BL~LLOOZER - C~NE SERVICE ?ebruarv 14, 198~, me at 2-114 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2-115 m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS POLICE DEPARTMENT. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PECONIC. NECV YORK. I1958 Mr, Jcseph Flschetti P.O. Box 616 Southold,New York ll9?l Re: Sodthg. ort De,elop,nent Youngs Marina Greeqport,New York Dear Mr. Fischetti: Pursuant to your inqJiry, please be advised the construction of a motel at why a mo~el at Ycungs Marina would be any different. Very~JT¥ yours, H Daniel Winters Chief of Police HDW/w 2-116 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LFT. T£R ~R'iM 3CSEPH FISCHETTI, 3~. TC, S?t'TH?LD TOWN BOAFD 2-117 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 12, 19B6 Southold T~n Board Town Ball Main Road Southo!d, New York 11971 Master plan - Marine Rusiness and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Superw. sor ~urphy and Board Members: This letter, ! hope, will clarify an inconsistency between ~-he intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient ~tels in general and Young's Marina (Southport Development) in part~cJlar. ~rhen $outhport Development was first proposed to the Planning Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft Proposed ~oning Regulations, date/ ;~ril, 1985, prepared by Raymond, Parrish, Plne and Weimer. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine ~ecreation districts allowed transient ~otels and restaurants. The Planning Board was in favor of the project and recor~ended the zoning change to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State- ment for $outhport Developrent, the Town Board notified us that Mr. Tasker, the Town ~ttorney, was make possible rsvisions to the Zonirg Code at the Town Eoard's request, and that we should contact him to inquire whether Southport Development was still cc. nsistent with the Proposed Zoning 9rdin&nce. In discussions with ~r. Tasker, we were advised that the ~arine Business and Farine ~ecreaticn d~stricts were, in fact, being revise~. Transient motels would be permitted only in the Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business district this use wa5 being rereved from the Code. 2-118 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southold Town Board February 12, 1986 Page 2 We then contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. Emilita, and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our understanding that the Zoning ~aps were being revised to reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and that the Tc~n Board, in support of the ~aster Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, h~euer, that the mags were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt and Young's Marina, but wod!d al!o~ metels in Marine Recreat~o~ sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of Hobart Road in Southold. I therefore request that the Town Bcard revise the Zoning Maps to mb ow Young's Marina in the ~arine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of the Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and the Planninq Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. Very truly yours, JF:mclh cc: Southold Town Planning Board Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. 2-119 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LETTER FROM SZEFAT,DWEFI ASSOCIATES, INC. TO SGUTH,DLD TC~D~ BCARE 2-120 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUC~N~ ENGINEERS Southold Town Board Southpoct Development SzepatowsKi Associates, Inc. Janua[y 20, 1986 Impact Statement for Southport Developmens, Souchold, }~ prepared by Land Use Company, Wading River, N'f, the following concerns and Propose~ Development conflicts with: Change of zone req~es=ed and the proposed zone on To%;n Zoning Map. Sage Boulevard is not a public road, therefore, poss~sle problems with access, road width, and improvements are a~parent. T~ere are problems with the [~arina expansion, specifically %:hat is to be done wi~h boat pump ous; suitability of dredge s~o!l for intended purposes; and providing boat slips for "less ttan luxury boats (less than 30 ft.). Lac{ of $cnerctic s~etch plan to der. onstra%e -Location Of Hotel, Restaurant -Environmental ~mpacts -~:ltlgatlon measures -Adverse impacts A meeting was held on January 13 to discuss the above concerns ~:r,d the follc%.'lng detailed co,=duen[s. The proposed response has been indicated. The change of zone requested (General Hultlple Residence) allows for docking facilities for non-ccmmerc~ai boats and hotels, and motels both wish special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not lis~ed under this zone. As ]ust pointed out, the proposed development conflzc:= with ooth the change of zone requested and the proposed zone on the /o;'n D2strict. Tke proposed Zoning I!cp needs to ~e amended. 2-121 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 1 - D~o cegard for fresh water use impact on Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked t'o verify if it can provide peak flow Page 2-3 - Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. Howe';er, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, "Marine Bus,ness", doe~ not allow motels as currently drafted. The Plannlng Board recommended "Marine-Recreation" (M-Fec) as appropriate fcr site, but this zone does not permit boat yards. A reso!ut:ct of these conflicts is needed by ellalnatlng repair to roars ncr moored at the marina. Page 3 - Sanitary effluent wlll De adb3ect to denstrsfscac~on system. This eliminates only 30% of nitrogen from effluent. Where will effluent be dlscharged? It ~s not clear fro~ the report, but was revealed at the meetlng to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the s~te. The site plan needs to show the system. Pa~e 4 - A public need for the pro3ect is referred to, tut surveys Or other evidence is not offered. An lntentlon to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translate9 into fact as the proposal is developeJ. The stateaent is maJe that there will be no increased demand for public services, yet pUDi~c water is needed. Police and fire protectzon are also needed. A statement from the Village zs needed on water sJpply and fro~ the Police an Pire Departments as well. A municipal cost i~act would De helpful. Page 6 - Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with its abuttors having son,e control over access and "improvements" there on. Since i~provements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the applicants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This ~s es£entzal for pro]eot approval since existing access is not satisfactory for the proposed pro3ect to be approved. The question of malnta~nzng Sage Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be improved Jointly. An agreement on same ;;zll be necessary for site plan approval. 2-122 I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page ? - A supposition Is made as to potential negative i,~pacts from spills of Industrial compounds which ml3nt be used by industries under the current zoning. It appears that an impression is trying to be created that sore~c~ t~lS n~t be possible under the proposed use. However, it lsa kno~ fact that even the existing use has such compounds on Mite and that there already exists a threat to the environment. This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned. Page 9 - Dredge spoil analysis must be done to determine suitability Of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands crea%ion). If contaminants are found what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland gradln~ as stated in DEIS would not be possible. Dredging method, tlm~, upland dewatering, and runoff control method must all be a~dressed. I0. Page 10 - Concern with regards to boat slip length. Ail are over 32' in length. This does not allow for "less then luxury boats." What is the public need in the area for "elite boating?" Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and locased, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method. 11. Page 11 -Wnat is pervious material used for 2~ space parking loc? Inconsistantcy on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be "pervious" Or "lmpe£vious", or "semi-pervious". A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. must be sho~n along with drainage calculations. A "0" runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. 12. Page 11-12 - Since no site plan has been included in the DEIS, it cannot be commen%ed upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity and no mention is made of employee parking. Unsubstantiated statements are made regarding 'satlsfyin~ zoning requirements', runoff generated from i~perv~ous to senl-pervious surf&res. This section needs to be supplemented. 13. Page 12 - t~o calculations of peak water use and sea;age flo~:s are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable Of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation %;lthout going saline during peak season? If not, Greenport must De made aware and utility acknowledgement is needed. ;Al 2-123 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Page 12-13 - What is meant by the statement, "Subsoil testing ~1.[1 be conducted to de%ermine" etc and 'If s~ch =aterlal...' an{] "proper design criteria..." and "proper erosion contract..." This is a draft environmental impact statement and this information is needed to properly evaluate the impacts and to clarify the vague 6tatements made. Supplemental 1nformatlon is necessary. Page 15 - Soil borings, since they will be necessary anyway, should be included in the DEIS. Unknown subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts. Page 16 - The last sentence is missing at least two words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded. Page 17 - Undocumented 'Agency observations' are held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to the subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence. Page 17-18 - Does the 'representational species list" re?resent actual observation? If so, why call it 'representational'? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this a~ea so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation 19. 20. page 19 - Why aren't the bird and fish species actually sited na~zed? On what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory. Page 20 - Reference is made to a USACE maintenance dredging pe:~ait. Is it in force or pending? A copy should be included in the DEIS. A low water depth of 6' is mentioned, while on Page 9 a depth of 7' to 8' is mentioned. Can thls be done ~ltnin the scope of the USACE permit? Who holds the permit and wao will do the channel maintenance dredging (asiJe from ha:sin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrated in ti%e DEIS. If this depth of dredging Is deeper than the entrance channel, the reason for dolng any dredging is missing. Uhere will the ~n~tial spoil and the maintenance d~edglng spoil be deposited? A mo(]lflcation to the dredging is needed &s well as more detail and ~ soundings plan. 2-124 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 23. Page 27-29 - The significant environmental impacts dlsccssion on so~].s, topoqraphy, groundwater, surface waters, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands cannot be commented upon without a more detailed environmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan tQ demonstrate before and after conditions. The impacts listed are con3ectural and not conclusory based oR evidence contained in the DEI$. This section needs to be rewritten. 24. 25. 25. 27. Page 30 - A statement is made that mltzgatlon measures be made a part of a proposed project. Specific mitigatlon measure, even though general at the change of zone level, should be identified as being an integral part of the project. For example, regradzng and modlficatzo~ of drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned as mitigation measures but since the extent of impact Delng mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of the mitigating measure cannot be defined. Page 31 - l~hat is the design of catch basins, as described, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is toward water. A slte grading plan is needed. Page 33 - Uhy will the phragmices be removed and why is really a nuisance species? This needs to be detailed. Page 34 - The creation of a natnrai Weciand along the entire basin shorelines is proposed. The DEIS does not show this. A better rendition is needed. 28. 29. 30. Page 35 - 'Little demand" ignores fresh%.ater use for the entire expansion pcoposed. Pa~e 37 - The discussion cf unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be completed without an analysis of the existing bottom to be dredged. Page 41 - Document economtc infeasibility. [.That does this mean? {Al 2-125 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION III COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDANCE SUBSEQUENT TO SUBMISSION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I I I I I I i I I I i I ! I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LEGAL NOTICE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ElS - SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold is in receipt of an Adde~durn to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southpor't Development with respect to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, oh the westerly side of Sage Boulevard. Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.q61 acres. SFQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mentat impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk. Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986- The public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board. and will reconvene at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall, Main Road. Southold, Ne~ york, at whirh time all pPrsons ~'il[ be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to same. DATED: February 25, 1986. JUDITH T, TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE. MARCH 6. 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD. SOUTttOLD, NEt¥ YORK 11971. Copies to the followincj: The Long Island Traveler Watchmar~ The Suffolk Time~, Town Board Memt~ers Town ClerK's bullet.n Board 5outhold Town Planning Board Charles ttamillon. DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC. Albany N.Y.S. Department of State I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 25. 1986 3:30 p.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ~PACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM aC" TO #M-I" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: At this time I would like to reconvene a public hearing which was orig~nalIy held on February ~th, 1986, 8:00 P.M., Southold Town Hall, concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. We are going tO reces!~ this hearing again to allow comment on the Addendum that was turned in. We are not going to d[$allow any comments. Anybody could make any comment they want, but there will be a reconvening of this public hearing after there is time to evaluate the new addendum. At this time I'd like to ask anybody if they would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LYNNE M, GORDON. Attorney: Gentlemen and ladies, I am Lynne Gordon of the firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale ~; Shenn. Your resolution No. A I think is fairly clear. I just want, i~, my own mind, clarify it. The public will have until March 26th tO make further comment. That will then be the end of the public comment period? And then there will be a hearing, which we have some expectation of being the final hearing, on April 8th, or should it be adjourned for another week or something like that. But is that where matters stand as of now? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It appears so. Yes. Is that correct, Bob? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: I don't know. Judy's got the resolution. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Yes, B:00 P.M., April 8th. MS. GORDON: The time is somewhat longer than we had expected, but we certainly will no object and will be pleased to do what we can to assist the Eoa~-d. Thank you SUPERVISOR MURPHY. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on behalf of the 3-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS age 2 - Reconvened F%,' ,~l_Hearingb Sour hport Drai Moved by Councilman Schondebare, seconded by Councilman Penny, It was RESOLVED that this reconvened public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development be and hereby is recessed until 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 198t;, Southold Town Hall. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council- man Schondebare. Cou~qcilman Stoutenburgh. Justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy. This resolution was cler. lared duly ADOPTED. 'Judith T. Terry ~,/ Southold Town Clerk I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS r 0 BOx 616 5outhold, ~ Y 11971 hr. ~oseph Fischetti 6r: in reFly to your letter of ~anuary 25 th, r-: Zou%h~o~ bev- 3-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS MAR I 0 ;335 5OL"I'HOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY ~arch Southold Town 'Board Southold Town Hall Road Southold, New 'York 11971 COUNCIL 5, 1986 Subiect- CAC comments on Addendum to D£IS for Southport Developm~:nt Dear Board Members: Our comments remain much the same for this proaect although page by page. We stzll find the maps mislemdlng. Omc glance at Exhibit B are the plans for REAL LIFE sewage d~sposal? This d*:vclopmcnt effluent l$ plainly a "fudge" to get in und~r Ibc amounts that 3-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) p. 20 p. 50 p. 58 p. 26 If the typical cost of a 32 foot craft, some $100,000. to $500,O00.,doesn't make them "luxury" or "elite", what do you call them? Even "yuppies" don't qualify as boat owners for such things. Of course there were no scallops this year! The conclusion for recent times is not Justified in the report. A multiply-sampled one year survey of fish species is culled for, especially for juveniles. How much fertilizer use is "improper"? Are you going to fertilize the blacktop, or m'hat? Estimated water use by accessory lavatories is ridiculously lo~. Some 60 flushes ~10 gallons or even 120 flushes ~ 5 gallons per flush is much too lob when you think about all the "elite" marina users COming ashore to use the heads all day every day. An honest figure would best be obtained from Carl Darenberg or Henry Colombi st Montauk. 10 ) p. 59 Just how are your going to red0ce illegal dumping? Patrols? How ~111 you enforce, or ~111 thls just 11) p. 65-6,5 There is not "other income" to the marina includec in the flgureb pre~ented. Surely the sales of gear and equipment should be figured? Also aren't the operating exp£:.scs a blt on the lo~ side9 One. la al~a}'s susF~c~ous of figures that are so beautifully rounded off, like $200.000. It really make~ the final figure of $143,000. net look far too low. ~c can only hope this cI'~tlc~ will be addm.~sed frar;kl$ In the fingl ElS so that th~ Toun can finally act on the props%at 3-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~arch 12, 1~6 ~r. Cerald C. ~e~man Chief Ple~ne r ~ounty of S~ffclk Department of planning Town of Scuthold 3-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -2- 3-S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -3- plans also call for the dredging of l?,O00 cu. yde. of 3-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HEf~DERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Co~le~ Ren~' C. t;eism~rm~ Eec[. P. O. B. 1123, Southokl, l~Y 11971 3-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2EC:IVED C JNTY OF SUFFOLK March 17, 1986 ~uthold, N.Y. 11971 Application of "Southport Development" (#269) for a change of zone from "C" light industrial to "M-l" General Multiple Residence. Town of Southold (SD-gS-9). In response Lc your letter of 3/12/86 please be advised that tn accordance vith established pclicy and procedure of the Suffolk County Planning Co~ssion, the above referenced can only be reconsidered upon submission of an a~ended application. The Planning Commission only approved the zoning change subject to use/developmental restrictions. If the zoning change is approved, and the existing ~oninE reziains in effect, petitioner will have to file special per,nit applications with the Zoning Boa[d of Appeals for the motel and marine use(s) necessitating [urthe~ Planning Commission consideration of such development proposals. If the proposed zoninE is enacted, the motel/restaurant use(s) wtll require submission of applications for a special permit, once agaln necessitating ~lanninE Co~ission consider~tlon of such development proposals. ~tle the marina is a pelnmltted use under the proposed "MS" zoninE requirements, the Com~=i$sion determination clearly sets forth a limitation on any expansion of such fac[llty. truly yours, [e~ E.KoFpelman Ditectoz of ~lanming Chief Planner 3-11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SIAR 2 § March 26, 1986 MS. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 1197~ Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum of Southport Development Dear ~s. Terry: On behai[ of H~nry Weismann and Flank Flynn, I enclose herewith an original ami five copies Of their conu~ents on the DEIS Add~nJdm of Southport Development for the Town BoarJ and Tow~ planners re.zie~ and consideration. Sincerely, 3-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUL'rING ENGINEERS TOt;N BOARO OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the ~latter of the Application of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS ON THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS BENRY WE ISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN Henry Ueismann anJ Frank Flynn reside on Tarpon Drive, in Southold, in close p[oximity to the proposeJ Sodthport Development project in the Town Of $outhold. On their behalf, we submitted comments on the original dcaft environmental impact statement subr, itted by Southport Development including technical analyses by land-use planner, FreJerick Reuter and environmental applicant in the addendum do not suffice to adequately 3-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS comments and questions raised by the tntervenors and their experts. The analysis, overall, between the original DEIS and the addendum, ~emains faulty, defective and insufficient as a matter of law on the enumerated points. This conclusion is supported by the comments of Frederick Reuter, landuse planner and Laurence Penny, envirnonment analyst submitted herewith. It is apparent from a review of the DEIS addendum that the applicant is attempting to Dostpone enviromental review on particular critical issues to later stages of the process. However, SEQRA requires that these issues must be addressed at the earliest possible time. Applicant will undoubtedly a¢~ue at the site plan and special permit stages of review that an additional DEIS i~ not required. This reasoning is circular in nature, if he is not requireJ to give a full analysis of his pcoject at this early stage. A review of the addenddm reveals that the applicant ha~ still fazled to adequately address several ma3or issues ralseJ by this project. A brief d~scu~s~on of these issues follows. F~rst, the applicant has ignored or avoide~ the serioa5 questions raised about the legalit}' and prddence of allo~lng three inten~l,/e uses of a very small s%te -2- 3-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS based on a double and triple counting of the area of uplands available for development. The calculations used to determine the density oE the motel and the area available rot parking are Ear out of touch with reality. The overriding issue this development pcesents, a5 set forth in the comments Of the inte~venocs on the original DEIS an~ again at the hamlet meeting on the proposed master plan Eot the Town of Southold, is that this proposed development i~ not consistent with the character of the surrounding community and would constitute a spot zoning. It is of a type and intensity of use out of cha~acte~ with the surrounding ~e$idential and open space qualities of thi~ area of Southold. In addition, the sit~ is severely constrained by the unique envir~nnentai features of the small but fertile and relatively p$istine embayment, which it abuts. A marina, motel and restaurant of the size propose~] cannot be abs0rbeo by suuh a small area and are mr)re appropriate for a site on an are~ with gre~te~ tldal flush~n~ anJ with neighborin] ~elated co~n, erc~al uses. S=cQnO, as stated in the original comn~nts on the DEfS, t~e alternatives section Of the D£IS, what should 3-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Third, the economic justification for this project is based on a study of tourism in the Nappa Yalley in California. Whether Or not such a study is relevant is subject to question. But assuming, arGuendo, that it is, the assumptions used by the applicant in applyinG his economic analysis seem remote and far fetched. At page 68 of the addendum, the applicant argues that the motel will ~;enerate $2,000,000.00 in revenue for lodging per year, ~ich will Generate $8,000,000.00 in spending in Southold in a given year. The $2,000,000.00, figure according to the analysis provided, does not include restaurant, entertainment, retail purchases, gas or automobile ~ervices but is limited to lodging. If we take this $~,000,000.00 figure and divide it by 82 units it means that each unit would have t¢ proJuce $24,390.24 in income per year. To provide that type of income, eacl% unit would have to be filled 365 days per year (a 100~ occupancy rate) and rented at a rate of $66.83 per night. Given the seasonal economy and the motel cutes in the a~ea this would ~eem highly unlikely. Thus, the pro3ection of $8,000,000.00 in spendin~ is grossly exaggerated. Fourth, this project is seriously li%]teJ b~' the lack of adequate access to the s~te as point=J out 3-17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS who have clmmented on this project including the office of the Secretary of State. Access is controlled by a neighborinG property owner and is by a narrow right of way. The ability to expand this right of way is highly questionable given the proximity of wetlands and other owners who~e property would be effected. To date, no satisfactory solution has been offered by the applicant for the access problem. Fifth. conflictinG statements are given in the D£[S and addendum regardinG the handlinG of runoff, effluent and what use will be made of industrial chemicals used in the marl, na and boat repair businesses. No data is provided regarding the effectiveness of the proposed dentrificaion system and no drainage plan has been submitted, Sixth, the applicant's vegetation and wildlife analysis, based on a single day of observation in the dead of winter is laughable and deficient on its face. A poir~t by point analysis of the DEIS addendum by six malor cl=ficiencies and othe[s, follows. 3-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO.SU~T~N~- CO,'.I;,1Et;TS ON THE ADDE;IDUM OF THE SOUTHPORT DE!S FOR DEVELOPING SAGE £OVE PARCEL IN SOUTHOLD TO',{N ~,la r ch 25, 3-19 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (P.3) HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The following CO~ents address the concerns raised tn the C~]5 for the proposed Southport Development change-of-zone project a: Sages Cove, Soutnotd, in light of the materials contained in the "AdJendum" of February 17, 1986 and other file materials rece~¥ed 3-20 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mI m m (p. l~) (F. 1~) HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport DET ~ddendum Coqm:ents/Penny-2 conditions there may have to be a pump-up system which would furlher com,plicate the final design of the denitrification system proposed. The fate of virus particles and most chemicals that are soluble in water or of very small molecule size and weinht, other than nitrogen products, is not elaborated. Such a syste,~ is not designed to treat these, Ironically, the very springs which no;~ enrich the coves tidal waters with freshwater and thereby serve to enhance flushing and corsam- inaqt dilution( while inhibiting shellfish predators and creatin9 optimal salinities for the reproduction of shellfish).wil) serve to' entrain contaminated effluent and shunt it into the cove. Access. The elabDration of Sage Boulevard an: tqe road to the site is necessary to this project and a pending subdivision partially surrounding this project's site. This elaboration will require the of wetlands at severzl points in the R.O.~. of the road to be im~,ro:e~. These wetlands will be greitly diminished in va~ue as will those 3-21 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo m m {P.20,2!} (P. 22-2~} (P.35-}?i HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS $outhport OEIC:~dde.dum Coments/Penny-3 appropriate for marsh building, nor construction base. nor landscaping, nor leaching substrate, nor other site use. In all probability the only safe deposition of said material will be at the landfill or other upland locus off site. The dredging propo~cl (mc~' c~t ~ bJi~ ~ ~'olum~) will r, ot n~essa~ilv increase flushing throughout the basin. How it will effect bottom flc.. benthic water quality (dead spots, debris accumulation) has not been addressed. The dredging of the channel area to conveniently fall outside bounds of the parcel (and thus outside of the bounds of the expanded marina facilities) may not be best for channel maintenance and water quality. )4~rina Uses, The placement of a fuel dispensing facility so close to the channel ( and main surface fid. vector) would be foolhardy. The ~ccumulated pump-out station waste may not be corpatible with the sc]ranger waste treatment plant design require~eqts (it ma) ki~l the 3-22 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mI m m (37 plus) HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport OEZ¢'Addendu~ Cc:=:ents,'Penny-4 provided. (Note bee:say com~,ents attributable to Redman of DEC on page 35.) Wildlife And Fisheries. The shellfish Survey is entirely specious. Zt ~s done at the worst possible time of year. the methodology is suspect, and the results even more SO. Obviously, no blue-claw crabs would be found at this time of year. If only ~ hard clams were found, how is it that Scuthold baymen regularly rer~ve hard clams from tke cove~ The analysis of beAthic vegetation should also be disqualified on the same grounds. Of course only small amounts would be found at this tir~ of year. The wildlife accounts are also flimsy. In m9 casJal observations (t~= dates) ] ~oun~ several species of waterfowl (e g. gre~ter scaup, red- breasted ~erganser, canvascack, etc.) not found in the addeqdum. The cove 3-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS FR[DERICK H. REUTER, AICP co~ents I suk~nitted date~ Januac.~ 14, 1966 on t~- original DE[S. 3-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION .- DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Co=ment No. 1 - Re Zoning - 2 ~ 3-25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BOOWELL ~LTING ENGINEERS Comment No, 3 - Re ~resh Water Co?~ent No. q - Re Boatyard Use - 3 - 3-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERE EECTZON - PUBLIC NEED FOR THE PROJECT 3-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~SUCT,N~- ENGINEERS Comment Iio. ? - Re ~&e Boulevard the details s~L~urz~ing ~ traffic counts, the trip generati~ data Comment 14o. 8 - Re Spills of Industrial - 5 - 3-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~U,'r, NG ENGINEERS SECTION - MARINE CONSTRUCTION Con~.ent No. 9 - Re Dredge Spoil 3-29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1® I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S£CTION -- UPLAND D£1/ELDP~?NT Comment Iio. 11 - Be Pervious Haterial 3-30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEER~ SECTION o CONSTRUCTZON AND OPERATZON Co~=ent No. 14 - Re S~bsoil Testing borings. Although the eappingis z~lat~iveZy legible the log of ,~e 3-31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGIN£ER$ ~ee I'indtn& with re£erence to CommenL NO. 1~ on borin&s and soils. For liny evaluation or this entire site or ~ade Land more borin&s are &oin& to be needed. Reuter Study rindin&s are still applicable. - 9 - 3-32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENalNEEfl$ Coc~ent No. 17 - Water Quality Evidence Needed 3-34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-35 I I I :1 I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 13- 3-36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - HUP~ BESOU~CES - TRANSFGPTAION permit papers do not inlcude any mapping. Similar questions raised in the Reuter £tudy also remain un- 3-37 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ccmmemt No. 23 - Significant £nvi~onmental Impacts Section Needs 3-38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-39 -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 17. 3-40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-41 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS UAR 3 ! ;285 ... March 25, 1956 Ms. Judith Terry To~n Clerk Town of Southold TOwn Hall Main R~ad Southold, NY 11971 Dear MS. Terry: The Department of State has reviewed the Addendum to Draft Environmental I~act Stater~nt ~)r Southport Develooment and would like to take this oppor- tunity to outline cur concerns regarOing the development and protection of coastal resources with respect to this project. Our comr~nts are as follows: 1. This Addend~n does not describe how the proposed zoning action and sc5- sequent developn~nt is consistent w~h the State's coastal policies. As indicatE, d in this Department's letter of DecerJ)er 27, 1985, the con- sistency of this action wi th the applicable policies must be demons trated in the FEIe. 2. Due to the recent oil spill at the present Desire facility, what 9rovisions will be taken to protect the local groundtvater system and tidal wetlands, from future leakages? 3. The results of the Traffic Survey mere bated upon June, 1984 conditions. Peak tourist season traffic flows (i.e. for the months of July and Aught) should also be considered in determining the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing roads and traffic conditions. The Addendum states (p. 22) will' be utilized to achieve of the site's existing soil tion of a system that would conditions, the FEIS should contain a descrip- The Addendum indicated that some boating services may be provided at th~ site. The FEIS shoulo describe which services will be available at the proposed marina and where other necessary boating services may be obtained. To minimize turbidity during dredging operations, the Departcent of State recom~nends that clam shal) bucket or hydraulic dreooe n~tnods be used rather than a crane with a drag line (p. 181. 3-42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUL?lNG ENGINEERS ~. Judith Terry March 25, lg86 Page 2 7. The dune enhancen~nt program mentioned on page 55 of the Addendum should be explained further, including the provisions wmich will be made (~.e, elevated catwalks) to minimize hu~n impact during dune crossings. Please contact Mr. Aram Terchunian of this agency at (518) 474-3642 should you have any questions or the above con1~en~s or need additional informtion. Coastal Resources Specialist Enc)osures WFB:KAC:dlb cc: M. Greges, COIZ/NY District C. Hamilton, DEC/Region ! R. Musack, DEC/Region ! 2.3.13 2.3.14 3-43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OFIqCE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOLrFHOLD Town HJII. 53095 M.~]n Road P O Box ~Z~ SoulhoId, Neb' York I T971 TELEPHO%E March 26, 1986 Attached hereto is the Dredge Spoil Analysis and Water Semples for Southport Development for inclusion in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement transmitted to you under date of February 25, 1986. Southold Town Clerk cc; Southold Town Planning David Emilita, Planner Board of Town Trustees Southport Development ~" Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State 3-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNTRY RD · BOX WADINC RIVER. N Y. -79~ (5~b) 9~ DREDGE SPOIL ANALYSIS SOUTHPORT DEVELOPHENT 3-45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -2- 3-46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Lind,ne us/Kg ~ 2.0 C&dsium aa Cd Haptachlor us/£g ~ 2.0 Chromium aa CF Heptachlor Epoxidl u~/K~ ~ 2.0 La&d aa ~b u81£~ < 2.0 Chlordane ug/Kg ~ 8.0 Tox~phena u8/£~ ~40 A~ochlot 1016 u.~/£~ ~ a0 A~och~o~ 1232 us/~ ~ aO 0.065 13 16 10 0.03 0.25 2,8 -3- :3-47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HEI~,IDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ltndane ul/C~ ~ 2.0 Aldgin u8/£8 ~2.0 o,p-DDD us/£g ~2'.0 Endr~n u~1£8 ~ 2.0 -4- 3-48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS US/KS (2.0 Atd~n ug/Eg 42.0 Hoptachlot Epo~:ide ug/Kg ~ 2,0 p,p-DDE US/Ss o.p-DDD uS/Es ~2.O Endcin ug/Kg ~ 2.0 o,p-DOT uS/Ks ~2.0 p,p-DO? us/Kg ~ 2.0 ~irex ug/K~ ~2.0 &=ochlo~ ~2~2 uS/Kg ~0 A~ochlo= ~2~ us/Ks ~40 Arochlo~ 1260 us/ES ~0 A~$entc as As ms/Kg 3.3 C&dm~um BE/[S 6.8 Chromium &l Ct ns/Kg 0.25 Coppec aa Cu ss/K6 12 -5- 3-49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-5D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -6- 3-51 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ex=tact) 0.2 0.2-.75 .75 CLASS -7- 3-52 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -8- 3-53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Centra! Sound Leve! of Contan[natton (ppe dr~' bas[s) ~ Low Noderate H~ .05 ,05 0.5 O, 5-1.. 5 1.5 Pb 27.8 6-63 1.00 1.00-200 200 Zn 87.8 2,3-2[4 200 200-400 400 ct 28.8 2-108 1.0o 1.00-300 3o0 V .... 75 75-1.25 [25 -9- 3-54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS can be classifled as Class [ aaterial. 'Class I spoil ts site of similar lithologic background.' Interim Plau for the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound, Ne~ Ensland River Rasins Commission, lusust 1980. It should may be the result of limited past dred8in8 in this area. parameter found within this sample. It should be also noted that said parameter would still place the spoil material within a "non-de&fading" classification suitable for use in habitat activities. 3-55 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND [30DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Fecal Coliform 1-27-86 93 3 4 2-3-86 3 3 3 2-13-86 3 7 3 low 2-2 - 0.38' mid- no cain form MPN/IOOml is 70 or less and no more than 102 of the 3-56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Conversations eith various staff members of the N.Y.- -12- 3-57 I I I I I i I I I I I I i I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-58 .... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS April l, 1986 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Tcwn of Scuthold P.O. Box 728 Seutkoid, New York 11971 F-B5-455 So,~thport Develo~ent Cocp. Tc~n of Southold entStle9 "Dredged Spoil Analyszs for SeuthTort make dec:sicns cn acceptable d~s~osal options. Hc~ever, I hove 1. On page six I am essentially misquoted. My statement dards set by E.P.A. do exist and I have since located th~m. Upland disposal requires that E.P. toxicity The pa[agra~h on the botto~, of page six is inc~...plete. The full wor~ing is "In the absence of more defznitive knowledge on the pollution effects of dredged material or the effects of specsfic pollutants found in dredged sedzments at the dls~osal sites, the follcwing pbysi- cal and chemical parameters will be used to dete£~ine whether biological testing of sediments will be called for...". Thus, the decision making process may actu- ally' requite an additional set of tests. Although the propcsed dredged material is pres mad to be Class I (uage 10), I could find no data to back thim u~. It is necessary to have pro[er data to cc,- pate to the values in the table on page seven. 3-59 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ms. Judith Terry April 1, 1986 Page 2 As stated on page ]0, very minute quantities of certain organic chemicals can render dredged materi~l ccr~t~inated; for example, 1 part per million of PCB. However, the test methods used were not ser~- sitive enough to measure such small values. In the case of the PCB chemicals (A~ochlo~ 1016-1260) the minimum that cculd be measured was 40 PF~. Since there ale a total of seven Arochlors, the test materi- al could be extremely contaminated yet not be shown as such by the test. Even allowing for diffe~enc¢.s between wet and dry weights, the situation is simil~.r for DET a~d Dieldrin. Testing perfo~ed on proposed dredged materi~i should be in ke(~ping with the stan- dards to be met. When lpp~ of a chemical may reflect shew this. In my judgement no decision on the suitab!Ilty of the sub]eft mate[ial for a particular d~s~csal mean5 can be made from this document. Additional testing and retesting of physi- cal and chemical parameter~ are necessary. If you have any questions yc~u may cnll me at (516) 474-3642. Sincerely Lar~y Enoch Enviror.~entat Analyst Coastal Management Program 3-60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TO".". OF SOL~-HOLD Aprzl 8, 1986 To: Southold Town Board ~mbers From: Elizabeth A. Nevzlle, Deputy Town Clerk Received telephone c~ll at 2:23 P.~. from ~r. Larry Enoch, New York State Office of Comstml ~anm~ement, Albany, New York 518 474-3642 ;Ir. Enoch said that he recenrly reviewed the paper on Southpor[ Development and had se,.era! crltxc~sms. Se';eral of which are stlll Yalld, but one of whicB ls not. The relieving complaint is no longer valid: His c9mFIalnt gbout the sensitivity of the tests as pertains to PCB and DDT. He must admit that he misread the scales ~s parts per mlll~on. ~hen they ~ere actually parts per bAll,on. Therefore, tke materlzl As not contaminated, but it Mr. Ynoch may be reached by telephone at 518 474-3G42 up untll 4:15 P.M. 3-61 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENIDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS P O ~OX 250 S,~GE BLVD GREENPORT N Y 11~44 Apri! q, l~°~ Boqtyard & Marina. As a license9 N.Y.5. Professional Engineer l st.ted complaint of a ma;or oil spill. On December 16th, l~q5 with the clean up. 3-62 · ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-63 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3-64 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED from FEBRUARY 25, 1986 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD APRIL E,. 1986 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I/~IPACT STATE',tENT Of: SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO"M-I" AT SAGE BOULEVARD. GREENPORT. Supe,'visor Fran~s J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondeba~e Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terr~ Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR ~,',URPHY. I would like to open the public hearing. This is a recon,~ened public hear:rig with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southpo~t Development. Original hearing was held on February 25th, 1986 and recessed until today. Now, is there anyone here would like to speak? Any representatives of Southport Development? LYNNE M. COP. DON, Attorney. firm of Conforti. Gordon. Reale & She,~n: We are the attorneys for Southport Development and I'll be plea~ed to yield the floor and listen to the other comments and then I will comment on those comments. Thank SUPERVISOR ~.IURPHY. Okay. Is there anyone else would like to speak or~ behalf of the applicant? [No response.) I, there anyone would like to make any comments at all on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Sir, go ahead. JOHN SHEA. Attorney, firm of Twomey, Eatham, Shea & Kelley, Rivel'h~d and East Hampton. New York: We represent Henry We~sman and F,ank Flynn. As you may know, our f~rm has filed comments on the D~aft Environmental Impacl Statement and we have also filed comments on the Addendum to the Draft. believe you received our mo,t recent set of commeflt~ on J~la~ch 261h, 1986. Without repeating a great deal of what we've said in those comments, I decided it would be most beneficial to the Board to hear perhaps from one of the experts that helped Town of East Hampton, and is acting on behalf tonicjbt, on behalf of Mr. Weisman and Mr. Flynn. I had prepared this in a question and answer format with M~. Penny and I don't know the best way to do this since we have one microphone. Mi'. Penny, could you give your address. LA['iRENCE PENNY, Envi.'onmefltal Consultant: q50 Noyack Ruad, Sag Harbo.-. New YO, k. 3-65 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2 - SOuthport htR. SHEA. MR. PENNY. Hampton. MR. SHEA. planner? Could you gi~e your background and education as an Environmentat MR. PENNY: Ye). I have a Masters degree in Biological Sciences and have been a consultant in b,olog,cal anal,~sis, biological reports and many other technical a~eas that have to do with planning, and have been EnvHonrTJental Planner for the mental Protection Director for the Town of East Hampton. MR. SHEA. And you rev;awed, did you not, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on this prolect, as well as the Addendum to that Draft ? MR. PENNY. Yes, I reviewed both. MR. SHEA: Right. In reviewing the Draft and the Addendum. could you exFlaln your rating of the quality of those sections dealing with wildlife and vegetation at the proposed site? MR. PENNY: Well, in terms of wildlife, it happens to be one of my areas of greatest expertise. The original DEIS was very deficient and the Addendum had some info, ma tion based on a relatively superficial look at the wilahfe in the Cove area, on the upland area, and -- MR, SFtEA: Whet, you say, "supe, flclaJ look at the w dj fe what do you mean? MR. PENNY' Well, the sampling for sh=llfish, fO,' example, was done at an in appropriate time, a few days at the end of January, beginnlng of February, and I believe there's actually a one day sampling for say clams, other bl..alves, an~ if you were to do the appropriate sampling, and that's why it should have be~n done aa, Ilar when the DEIS was written, you'd do it at a time when most of the~e species were accessible. For example, the DEIS Addendt,m says there's no blue crabs present in Ihat site, and you don't sample for blue crabs in the end of the site, and we all know that bay scallops, this past year, suffered dramatic and creeks, embayments on both the north and the south forks because of the mystery algae bloom. In general I fred it hard to believe thal one days 5amphng would turn up three hard clams in the sampling areas whet] I know that the bcttc,m wo~ k th~e water5 that they do produce ha,'d clams ,n that type of samphng. In term~ of the waterfowl, the Addendum does identify b:ack duck, mallards, and so MR. PENNY. Commelclal fishermen do use that cove. 3-66 I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 3 - Southporl. &tR. PENNy. What shell~sh species or what species? MR. SHEA: Start with shellfish. MR. PENNY: Firsl of ali. it's suitable habitat for a variety of shellfish because it's prolected waters. It bas a fresh water influx, ther-efor-e it would make it a very good habitat 1for say bringing up scallops starting scallops, bringing them up. Hard clams, oysteKs should do well there. They bke--especialJy oysters llke a little brackish water, and also the more fresh the surface waters- /he few the starfish predat.]rs. We all know that starfish predaceous is becoming a very big problem again in Peconlc/Cardiners systems, and these little coves are ~deal bodies of water for not only catching sheIlf~sh, but also for breeding shellfish - natural stock. MR. SHEA What other species? What other shellfish species would you find here? MR. PENNY: It depends ufx~n the season, of course, and the year, because certain years are more -llke in bay scallops are more prolific than other years. MR. SHEA: Would you expect to find blue crabs? MR. PENNY: Well, I had never seen a blbe crab in there, because I haven't been there at the appropriate time, but I have, again, h~d hearsay ev,dence from p~,ple blue crabs there, yes. MR. SHEA. All right, yes. What I'm asking you is knowing the habitat, you've studied the habitat - MR. PENNY. MR. SHEA MR. PENNY fish species, &!R. SHEA: It's cjood hah,tat for blue crabs. What iii this good habit;t--wbat other species is this good habitat for? especially b~g fish species. &'R. PENNY: Winte, flodnder would be in a situatior~ like that. W~uld e~en bFeed in a situation I~ke that. MR. SHE^ And v~hat d4d the DEIS conclude in tel-ms of wildlife~ 3-67 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL COI~LTING ENGINEERS MR. PENNY. Well, I'm not quite sure what ana¥1sis that's bas~J on. It would be my experience that in those kinds of situations where you have intense shore side development that not only the diversity of the shellfish goes down. but the individuals. Numbers of particular species population tends to go down. It deper~d$ upon the intensity, but we're talking about fairly intense use here. So it would be hard for me to say there was any kind of evidence that would suggest that the shellC~sher~/ in themselves would b~ enhanced by development of this kind. MR. SHEA: Well. based on your review of the project, what do you behave would be the impact of this project as proposed upon the sheJifish? MR. PENNY. Well, it's very intense situation. Here we have three intense MR. SHEA: All right. I'm addressing now specifically shellfish. What would be the impact of this project,as proposed, on the shellfish in the area' MR. PENNY: In terms of probability the impacts would not be good, beca~Jse oF the b~sin. MR. SHEA: The DEIS said that the proiect would increase the a~aiJability of shellfish. MR. 5HEA: I don't believe thalt it would, first of all. Okay? Do you believe it would -so you don't believe it would increase the MR. PENNY: I can't see how it could, no. MR, SHEA: Do you believe it would dec~ease the shellfish. 3-68 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 5 - Southport MR. PENNY: In almost all cases you have heightened coliform values where you MR. SHEA So what impact would this complex as proposed, this project as proposed, have on the coliform counts in this Cove? MR. PENNY: As far as I can see they could not help but go up. So -- MR. SHEA: Why is that7 MR. PENNY: Boca, use of the added impact. We're talk~r~g about something on the order of 15,000 or more gallons per day of effluent, inc:lud;n9 boat wastes, or else we're talking about the possibJity of clean out pump-odt station, I appreciate Ihat. We're talking about the surface runoff from activities, and so forth. We're talking about swimming pool use. We're ~lking a~ut a lot of intense use and ar~ that has a very high water table. It's going to see a lot of that effluent is going to go right into the cove. Whether it goes in in one ~ay, or whether it goes in in a few days. Okay? And it's been my ~perience--J've I~ked at a lot of these kinds of situations that ~Jiform values go up in those kmd~ of c~rcumstances. I've very rarely seen -in fact I have ~eve~ seen one case where they go down, or where they rema~ the same i~ develop~ areas. MR. SHE&: Would you please explain your review of the analysis of the--Pm going MR. PENNY: Well, this cove if you look at this co~e and you look at the topo~.~raphy of the cove and you, look at the way it's shaped and so forth, look at its inlet, there's a constriction there. They're going to dredge the constriction--make it a little deeper--the inlet and so forth. A small embayment like that, a small cove, has very limited flushing. It has a very long, extended turnover time. Giving an example: the turnover time at say Northwest Harbor they think- which is not a cove, which is ou'[ south of Shelter Island and north of East Hampton and b~unded by No, th Haven on the west and Cec~ar Point on the east. with no inlets. It's an open body of water with constrictions -abOut 23 days they figure the turnover. actually turnover all the water in a small cove like this. So ~t has limited flushing compared to open bodie, of water and the little bit we car~ do m terms of dredging to enhance that flushing is going to make it very small amounts difference, really'. MR. SHEA: The D~FIS included certain comments by a Mr. Redman of DEC. Do MR. PENNY: Well, I know Jim Redman very well. Work with him all the time in the town and I don't think it appropriate to use a remark, which I think is out MR. SHEA. ~,'lhy do you--explaln why you thir~k it's out of con/ext. MR. PENNY. Because the remark refers to the Bay and due-. not refer to the cove, and that refe~-s to the Bay, not the in~hore edge of the Bay, but the outer part of the Bay. Obviously the outer part of the Bay is failly well flushed. 3-69 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HElUDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 6 - Southport MR. SHEA: Given the level of tidal flushing in the cove and the geography of the cove. do you have an opinion as to whether the type of use. as proposed, is appropriate? [3ased, again, on the tidal flushing and geography of the cove? MR. PENNY: Well, again. I'm going to say that this cove is going to be asked to accommodate on the order of five to ten thousand gallons a day of a effluent. We don't really know much of this effluent is going to flow into the cove, because we don't have any tough surface flow data, but it looks llke, as far as I c~n see, that the bulk of that effluent is really going to flow towards the cove, and con- sequently a much smaller use would produce much smaller amount of effluent and v, ould have much Oramatic--much less dramatic impacts and would be more fiushable, but I would say any one of these three uses perchance safely mitigated would have an ~mpact that could be mitigated, but I don't see how you're going to mitigate these three intense uses taken together with some other uses that are a little bit ambiguous at th~s point. MR. SHEA: On your inspection of the site. did you see any waterfowl or other-- or water birds? MR. PENNY: Yes, I did. MR. SHEA: Could you explain to the Board what you saw? MR. PENNY; Red breasted mergansers (~), scup, porgy soup, black crown nlghl herons, great bilge herons, buffelheao, about four different species of diving ducks, which means that they're in there- they were diving, by the way. So they're in there feeding on things on the bottom. The diving ducks eat the ? little fishes, ? vegetation when they can't find those species. About twenty-five of these d~ving ducks on both occasions. They weren't all there on the two occasions that I visited. MR. SHEA: How would you rate the population levels in terms of the waterfow,? MR. PENNY. I th nk it'5 a very good habitat for waterfowl and fo,' water birds. Gooo habitat because a lot of the edge has not been disturbed. There's still a lot of wooded edge along that body of Wale,. There are shallows where they can and feed, you know, with fairly h~gn ~is~bdi[y. ~;ould be good for dabbling mallards and black ducks that were mentioned in the Addnedum to the DEIS. I could see black ducks actually breeding in an area like that, and certainly mallards. MR. SHEA. Did you list- a moment ago you listed water birds or ~aterfowl? MR. PENNY: WateJfowl and a few water birOs. MR. SHEA. And a few water birds. What other birds did you see at the silo, or MR. PENNY: Well. you p, obably at one time or another would have just about every single waterfowl that uses the Peconic system, flies over it and so forth. You would have in addition t~ black crown night he~ons, great bilge herons. You would have ~ herons, and you wo~JId ha~e some egrets, ca~ual egrets. I don't think Lhey would breed in that ¥ionlty. Ospreys would d~ve into the cove f~om time to time and take a fish or something. [ don't thmk there are any ospreys breeding or. tme 3-70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 7 - S~uthport kind of shore birds. MR. SHEA: And how would you rate the quality of the habitat for those blrd5~ MR. PENNY. Well, it's particularly good for diving ducks because of the benthic habitat and it's not bad for herons because of the oval]ability of big fishes and the ~.~R. SHEA: What would this project do, specifically in terms of the quahty of [he hab~tit, for those birds? MR. PENNY Well, it's hard to say, except that this intense use again, dur;ng the p~ak time. It would not be friendly to almo,t any water birds--perchance m,:te swans which seems to take kindly to human;, and occasionally mallard ducks, in general this kind of use. this klr~d of area with lack of protection you're gc, iog to have boats goinc_l--120 or more boats going back and forth all the time, or s,tting there and sometimes radios and lights and daytime act[vity, nighttime activity. pool, tenms courts maybe, i'm not sure. Cars coming and out, you know? All thai kind of stuff add5 up and Jt would devalue this habitat value, you know? Th~s ware- fowl value. ~ater /c,ird value considerabJy. MR. SHEA. The DEIS concluded that there would be an increased diversity [n the wilOlil'e p~pulatlon by improving habitat. Do you agree with that conclusion' MR. PENNY. Well, iUs hard for me to see how theyJre going to increase the diversity of say th~.· waterfowl. You have a fairly high diversity there now. l think what they may mean is you may get a few more land birds, cardinals, m~,cking birds, those k,nd~ of things, because of some horticultural planting kind of thmcj. t don't see anything in that DEIS, or the Addendum that speaks of--fha! will actually result in the increase in the di,~ersity of wildfowl wildlife in general. I don't see that. MR. SHEA: The DEIS makes some ~.tatements about the impact of septic waste from the project on the quality of ground and surface waters. Do you have an opi,~,on as to those c~nclus,,ons in the DEIS and the Addendum. The Addendum addresses MR. PENNY: Well, I think even the--[ think the DEI$ and the Addendum adm;1.5 tl~at the so-called clenitrification system will only take out nitrates and presuma:~,ly lot of chemicals associated with these kinds of uses, as you know. And the qtJeStiOn soils, depending uFen the soil consistency, quality and so fo. th, great dls[ances. MR. SHEA: Stopping theJe for a moment. The denit~ification ~ys/em to which you MR. PENNY. To a limited degree. If It works well -~f it works well. If Jt ~oJ'k~. properly. 3-71 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 8 - Southport density and you d,dn't have sewage treatment facility, you didn't have the avad- ability of the sewage treatment pipes, you know, going to a central[zed plant, anO you had very h,gh density and because of this high density you begin to exceed the nitrate levels, which is ten milligrams per liter. Therefore the groundwater would not be dr[nk.lble down gradient, or on site. MR. SHEA. Would there still be a significant amount of effluent from this project' MR. PENNY. There's a great deal of effluent from this project. MR. SHEA: And would it have a significant impact? /',IR. PENNY: It would have--in my way of thinking it wo~td have a very impact, yes. MR. SHEA: And would you describe that impact. MR. PENNY: Well, you have to keep in mind that a motel, and especially extensive one, and one that might become, who knows--you know. bought umts and so forth, and a restaurant. All sorts of health codes that are involved here. AH parts of the health code--the New York State Health Code and Suffolk Sanitary Code in terr~s of a variety of chemicals to keep them clean. They're in~pected routinely by S,~ffolk County Health Services inspectors. Okay? There are a lot of chem,cals that are associated with maintaining grounds, and maintaining swimmmg pools. I know, I deal with them all the time in the town. Se,eral chemicals. Chemicals that '~ou would not put on your skin, like methylene chloride, and so forth. There are a lot chemicals that h.~ve to do with mainta[nlng boats. Granted th~s isn't go;'~g to be a boatyard as such, but I remind the Board about tr~abuci]e (?), for example, which is the most c,ammon preservative paint bottom pa;nt, wh=ch the EPA is think lng of banning because it's so toxic to shelJflsh and so forth. YouJre going to i~ave petroleum chemical getting into the surface water. You have--I mean there's a whole bunch of chemicals here that in addition to the bacterial stuff they're worried about, that the DEIS does not add,ess. It does say that the chemlc:als aren't taken out by the system. MR. SHEA: By the way, would you explain your experience with wastewate~ management in the 'rown ? MR. PENNY: Yes. I'm in charge, in terms of one aspect of our scavenger trealment plant. I work with a -we have a scavenger wa~le trealment like Southoid has, and we've been told that we better keep that plant in very good shape ~n terms of what goes into it. because we don't want to kill the cultu,'es. I've worked w,th systems. I work w~th the Suffolk County Health Services. We have a standard in Southold Town of 150 feet from--I mean East Hampton Town, of 150 feet from surface water, so Suffolk O~unty has a standard of I00, so I have to make sure that we',e getting 150 feet from leaching pools to surface waters and have to keep Suffolk 3-72 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 9 Southport MR. PENNY: Doesn't take out. MR. SHEA: Does it take our the viruses which affect shellfish? MR. PENNY: It's never been demonstrated it takes out the viruses. MR. SHEA: Does it take our bacteria~ MR. PEN'~Y: In the sense that it works like a concent~onal leach pool system it takes out, I would say, most of the bacteria. I~IR. SHEA: How much--what percentage of the mtrates doe~, it remove? MR. PENNY. When it's working there's various figures. ) think a ballpark figure is somewhere between twenty-five and thirty percent. You have to keep this thing tuned, however. It has to be charged. It has to be inspected every once in a while to make sure thai things are working, because it depends upon a biological culture process. MR. SHEA: So if t~'lere's a mistake in maintenance it may not e~en remove twent~'-~v~ to thirty percent? MR. PENNY: That'~- true. It would then work Pike a normal septic system really. MR. SHEA: All rig[-~t, so then the denltr~flcation system only denltrif~es, and it only does that up to a fi§~re of about thirty percent. MR. PENNY: It depends upon it again. I suppose it could exceed that on occasion. It depends on a lot 3f things -temperature of the system, how it's working, the state of the culture. You have sulphur and l;mestone and the quantity of those, the ratio of those. MR. SHEA: Generally if the system is in tuned it will remove only about thirty MR. PENNY: There is ~ery little analysis. What they do says ~s because of the use. ? use, the~e will be less fewer chemicals. I find that hard to believe and there are other uses that would ? your chemicals of this use. MR. SHEA: Doe~ it provide an accurate estimate of the boa[ use -the use of boat maintenance? MR. PENNY: They don't have any figures on how- to what degree the boats are being maintained. They'll have to be washed down -- MR. SHEA Tbe,e's nothing in the Addendum or the DEIS on that~ MR. PENNY. No. MR. SHEA. Doe~ it say anything about restaurant cledne,'s? 3-73 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page I0 - ~outhport MR. PENNY. No. MR. SHEA: D~s it say anything about pest control agents? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about treatment chemicals for the dwelhng units? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: What abOut pool chemicals and turf management chemicals? MR. PENNY: Nothing. It does say that limit turf so that there will be Io,~ use of fertilizers. MiR. SNEA How would these, according to your review of the project, how these chemical[ be dlsposed of? MR. PENNY: Well, ar~y chemicals that either go underground in that area, or are on top of the ground, are going to ~nd their way because the water table, the they're not going to be degraded on the.way, because things don't get decjracle~J-- I mean they do slightly, but there's very little bacterial act,vity underneath the MR. SHEA: So they'll either be effluent or run-off. MR. PENNY. Yes. MR. SHEA: What would be the impact of that run off or effluent of those chemicals MR. PENNY: It will tend to degrade the qualify of the surface waters--of the cove and of the nearb,/ inshore Bay waters. MR. SHEA. Did you review the DEIS analysis or representations concernm9 Ihe drainage and run off at the site? MR. PENNY: Well, the DEIS and Addendum contlnuaily refers to a zero storm ~ater management plan, but we really don't have any idea how that work,, and I have some very stror~9 reservat;oos about the plan here, not knowing how it works, ~ut [ know that--- MR. SHEA: Was the plan disc/o-~ed? MR. PENNY Not really. It was mentioned a~ a concept on several pa~es. MR. PENNY: Right. MR. SHEA: So. going back to what you said before, it's your conclusion tha, t all of these all of th,> run off and effluent ~,ill end up in the surface waters MR. PENNY E~entua[ly it wdl end up in the surface waters. Some of it will 3-74 I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 11 - Southpo,rt MR. SHEA: Can you do an environmental review, as is required in a Draft E,5. or the Addendum, without the drainage plan? MR. PENNY: Well, I would say these three intense uses on this site, and the efe~atlon of the site with respect to floodplain, with respect groundwater, water table, with respect to its proximity to wetlands behind it on one side and the Cove and Bay waters on the other side, I would say that the drainage plan ~s absolutely crucial to m,tigat~on. I'm not so sure that you could actually de~ gn a drainage plan thai would m,tJgate all three uses to the degree that they should be mitigated, how(var. MR. SHEA: But it is feasible then without it to do a proper environmental re, Jew? MR. PENNY: I most certain~y would say that you'd ha~e to have something how that plan is v, orkin§, yes. Fairly- you know, a few pages and some ~.~R. SHEA: What would be the impact on the surface waters of the run-off tha, t we've been dlscuss~ng? And I'd ask you to address the ? coliform 7, mos~,u,to Control chemicals, etc. MR. PENNY: Something that hasn't been mentioned here, but when you do and there's (Jot to be mosquitos in those wetlands back there. You're going to like now, the County is usmg 8TI, but they do use some hard pesticides, n,balm(?) and so forth, loggers, and they would like to use abate[?) again, and abate the proper license and spray the place, but I don't know of any place llke t~s that doesn't get spray~J routmely, especially during the summer when pests are such a control. ~ all these things are ~oiflg~ aga,n I repeat it--Pm going to repeat h. again -all of them are gomg to end up in the water at one time. You know, hke the chloridane has. MR. SHEA. And again, what's the impact of that ending up in the water? MR. PENNY: The impact ,s the loss of reproductivlty of the shellfish. Loss ot and so forth. Certain plankton are susceptible to these chemicals. Just a general degrac~ation of the water qualify for all the highest uses. MR. SHEA: All right, sh~fting gears now, what's your assessment, as an eP'.iron- MR. PENNY: Well, I don't necessarily agree with the traffic study, because it says there's not gamg to be any traffic impact. I think the~e certainly is a traffic impact. It's--talkmg about a restau.ant, 82 units. 20 employees com.ng back and forth, day trips and so forth, and whereas I haven't done any traffic analysis on v, ould conside~ thai. First of all, the expansion of the road that would be required he,'e is certainly going to have some k~nd of impact on those wetlancts behind that out and also for heavy vehicles, you know, garbage trucks and other surface vehrcle~ 3-75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL COI~ULTING ENGINEERS Page 12 - $outhF~rt MR. SHEA: So the sixteen foot right-of way is insufficient? MR. pENNY: I don't think the fifteen foot will meet Southold Codes. I'm not an expert on Southold Codes. There is a subdivision which is around -there's a sketch plan for a subdivis,on in the immediate area ar~cl I think that the ro~d would have to be brought up to the specs of the st~bdivlslon. MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the sufficiency of the water srppJy for the site~ MR, PENNY: For the sufficiency of the water supply' MR. SHEA. Yes. PENNY: Well I--- MR. SHEA: I rarer you to the Great, port - MR. PENNY: Rio_iht. MR. PENNY: Well, Pve read all that about the Greenport Water District ha~-ing report in my briefcase, it's the Suffolk County Groundwater Resources Draft Management Plan -or the Management Plan Draft of it. and it walks about Soulhold pubhc water supFly and Southold has eight wells thai are poor. Two that are marg~naI. I th~nk one that is good, and four thai are *hat they call amb~en:, wh~crl is the best quality. SO it has the worst publlc water well record of any Town in Suffolk County, and that is not only to do with nitrates, but nitrate!, is a problem. It ha~ the second highest nitrate problem in Suffolk County. be~;nd Huntington. It a!so has aldicarb problems, ~roper ? problems, and so forth. It has a bunch of problems. I'm not their water planper, but I would say it's not necessarily good water planning to just look the other way arid say, yes. we MR. SHE~,: WouhJ you aadress the alternative section of the DEIS~ &tR. PENNY: Just addres~ it for the Board? Well, I know the alternatives lark - profit making abil,ty--but there are commercial uses that are necessary polluting and I think it was a little blt of a sham to say that all commerc;al uses are i,~o~lut~ng. I think that g~ven a good high quality marina in itself was not really explored ~n has been looked at by people who have looked at it superflc[ally. MR. SHE,&: Is it possible that such an alternative would be less destructive to 3-76 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 13- Southl:mrt MR. SHEA: Did the DEIS or Addendum present adequate economic data to s~pport MR. SHEA: And based on your re~;ew of the Addendum and Draft ElS. ~hat is your view of the information provTded for the adequacy of the information provided in those two documents. MR. PENNY: I would like to see more information obviously. We don't have enough informatior, on the seq~ment that wob[d be dredged. There's displacement. We don't have the ze~'o stormwater management plan. We don't know how the good substrata, you k~ow. Those kinds of things are missing. Wo,JId Tike to see 3-77 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page lq - Southport active use, and I would I;ke to see a better shellfish analysis. MR. SHEA. last, turning your attention to -there is a section in the Draft ElS, and a section in th,.~ Addendum wh,ch compares -where it was set forth purported benefits as well as impacts of various aspects of the project. If you could first turn to the Addneclum, to the sheets from the Addendum, and those sheets are page 5q to 55. 56, and focus in on the key imFacts--the purported beneficial impacts, and explain your d;sagreement or agreement with those partic¢lar be~e~,E,al impacts. MR. PENNY: Well. first then the soil. I'rn not so sure- they don't talk about removing the benthic soil which I find to be very important. MR. SHEA If you codld addre~ your comments to the Board. MR. PENNY. Yes. excuse me. So I would say there is an adverse impact. They say none, but ] would say removing the benlh~c soil might be an adverse impact here. Topocjraphy---creatlng an aesthetically plea~ing land forms -i'm not so sul-e you're go~ng to be--you have to bdild up that site and so I'm not so sure how you're going to create an ae.~thet[cally pleasing land form on that site. Granted r~ght now it's d,st,Jrbed and something could be done witf~ it to make it more upgrading of ex,stiJ~g sanitary system. I think they're talking about --- MR. SHEA. Moving back for a second. There's a statement about a zero run-off MR. PENNY' Oh. right, we talked about that. It could be a benef;cial aspect if we could do it here. I'm not so sure we could do it, personally, because of the h;gh wa[er table, the substrates. The limited amount of land and the fact MR. SHEA Is thel"e any basis m either of the documents you reviewed for thai. MR. PENNY; No. Not at all. MR. SHEA' Moving on to the upgrading of ex,sting samtary--- &IR. PENNY. It says the g~-oundwater will have a beneficial impact upgrading the stitut~on of a system that's gomg to handle 15, O0O gallons per day -a day not a substitution for a system that's designed to handle four or five hundred gallons per day. That is not a quid pro quo trade-off. I don't see that's a beneficial impact. ;".e're talking about upgrading the ex~sting sanitary system that would be a beneficial impact obviously. Okay? Surface waters they talk about planling vegelation to capture the gasoline leaks and other leaks of other petroleum products. I happen to lust COme back from Oil Spill School in Galveston, Texas A £ M and believe me, that ga~o[[ne runs right through that vecjetat.on. Vegetation does not capture gasoline and other t . I don't think that would work. You might stat)ll~ze the land. That wo~l-d-~e nice. &IR. SHEA: How al:Out vegetation. Installation of buffer areas? 3-78 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 15 - Southport MR. SHE^: And then under wildlife there is a purported beneficial impact of increased diverslty. MR. PENNY: Ac_;am I th~nk I talked about that earl;er. How we could increase the diversity, increase the quality of ~,ddllfe habitat here by doing what we're doing. MR. SHEA. Moving to the Draft ElS, pages 28 through -28 and 29, could you address some of the beneficial impacts on those pages? MR. pENNY: Some of th~se are the same. I think it's interesting to -28 here where it talks a~ut wHdllfe again, increased diversity by improving habitat. don't think we're g~mg necessarily increase diversity and are limited in what kind of habitat ~,e can add here, because the use--the coverage of that site is such that it limits us greaHy. The temporary loss of ?,000 square fee of high marsh ]M is not go.ng to be compen~_a',ed for by planting along the edge buffer dune vega[etlon and so forth. All of those there I don't see any be~efit in the whole area. Removal of undesirable species. I'm not so sure what they m~_~r, there. Maybe the phragmitJes, but pr~ragmities can be desirable and does ser'~e a lot of purpose in erosion control and so forth and filtration and so forth. Polson Ivy, maybe. I don't know. I just see that all these benefits are not carefulJy thought out and a lot of them are very MR. SHEA. All right, thank you, ~.!r, Penny. Members of the Board, you already have received Mr. Penny's curriculum ~;tae. I believe that was submitted with his original submission. It outlines his many years of work in this area. The original Draft ElS had some serious problems and they were to be corrected in the Adc~endum. I think after you review our written comments submitted by my partner Christopher Kelley, who COJid not be here tonight, Frederick Reuter. a [and use planner, and people who several other people, including the Szepatowski group--the problems that were in the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement. %Ye believe the Draft is still inadequate, but more important it's pretty clear that this pr~,ject is going to have some very serious impacts and before the Board goes any further with this. significant new inforrna[~or~ has to be developed along the tines that Mr. Penny layed out tonight. I thank you for your patience. I know this is fairly tedious malarial for you tO have to for you to sit through. I appreciate SUPERVISOR MUI~PHY. Thank you. Is there anyone el~e would llke to speak on RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: We'd just llke to support every thing that has beer~ written or staled tonight in oppos=t,on to the Addendum and 3-79 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page ;6 - $outhport but there Is not one shred of date on Long Island as to the reliabd[ty of this system, except in Ihe experimental proJect. Just keep that in mind. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else Hke to make a comment to the Board:' INCEBORG FLYNN, Southold: I'm a realtor and appraiser for the past seve'~teen years. I have passed the-.-successfully the courses of the SRA in resident;al appraisal and income appraisal, and Pm a member at the moment of the Easte~3 Board of ReaJtors. I was a member of the Long Island Eoard of Rea~tors, ar-~ ? for Suffolk County, and a member of many committees. I'm a director f~r ~-he State of New York, including land use and fair housing and their legislat ,e c~3mmittee. I also have studied these aspects and I would like to talk to the application of -one aspect of the application which has been largely overlooked court and pool, I think this application must be viewed in the light of a 5pct zoning, 3-80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HErdDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 17 - Southpo,-t mandated by the DEC, plus the required sideyards and selbacks, plus the 2. t acres occupied by the tennis courts and pool, pursuant to a ? , combines the require area f(~r marine operation, leave no upland area at all for motel and will reflect the state of industry standards. The applicant apparently doesn't kpow that to operate the proper marina, current industry standards cml for a full-service marina. This ? the case in which the owner of larger boa[s, which he is intending to put in 37 foot an average, the owners of these boats iust leave the keys in the fall time and expect their boat ready in the spring in the water fully serviced. Morever, the marina space is in short supply, as magntained by the applicant. Marina operators insist, and on their contracts, incJading winter storage and the right to provide all repairs and services. It is these latter item!; that make marinas profitable and they are singularly ignored in the applicant's projection. This appraiser belie~es that the present use ts a estimated realistically. Slip rental should be predicated upon an annual rate, including winter storage. Essential services include winterizat~on of engines, water systems, air conditioners, hull painting and boat cover;ag. A properly provJc~e repairs, facilities for engines, hulls, as well as ? maintained, re not menttoned in the report. Also not noted that no project,on of income has been made by the applicant for the pool and the tennis club. complete with the have prlvate docking facilities that require facilities for winter storage in the of revenues which no projection has been made for that. Even allowing for reason- able operating expense and maintenance, it appeared--it is apparent that the value of the subject prop6rty as presently improved is far closer to the owner's asking is to the Land Use Company's opinion that the property is virtually valueless as I would like to make a general statement. It is my opin[on that it is the duty of the Town to employ police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the should be banned in general, tt should be recognized that the Town is primardy If these words, gentlemen, sound familiar to you, these are taken newly from yo,Jr newly promulgated floating home ordinance, arld as employed herein applies equally I think to marinas. The applicant's Addendum at page 59 states that a pumping station will only redtJce illegal dumping by vessels now using the basin. Well, an increase of slips most certainly wilt increase the pollution again. And I wot, der if anybody here has considered the potential for firey catast~ophy in ha~ing a large number of boats filled with fuel in close proximity to a motel, w~th only a limited means of access for' fire, police and evacuation. What chance of a rescue for people? And all of the above--if all of the above may well be academic, in that that the property's access is so inadequate even if it would be possible to improve the access wetlands. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else ~ould like to speak7 Si,-. 3-81 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 18 - ~:)uthport CHARLES BOWMAN, President, Land Use Company I know it'~ ge[ting kind oF the shellfish resources on the site. Another point i'd llke to brin~ out is that 3-82 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 19 - $outhport SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. I$ there anyone else would like to aCcres, the Board? John? JOHN COSTELLO, CreenDort: I'm in the marine contracting business Ioca!l¥ for the past twenty-fivE years. I'd like to just address a few comments on th~s project. I'm not hh'ed by anyone to be here- Land Use, or' Southport, or anyone e~se. I'd llke to offer some of my op~mons. I per~onaHy believe this is one area that can be developed over many, many areas in the Town. These needs are going to increase in Southold To*n. pet, pie are going to want more boats, The motrin-. we know we need. This is basically clay. We all know the history of that boat- yard. It was a cia)' pit. Some of the fuel oil spills. This stuff is not goir~g fuel oil doesn't permeate clay as it does sand or ground'.,ater. The effluent. TIRe denitriflcation and what isn't handled by the denitrificatlon system i~ again not going to penetrate the clay and bother the groundwater down gradient of this property. It's one of the better p,e~es of property in Southold to develop as marina. We all know that our standards over the past few years -or past ten - constantly increase environmentally. We're all concerned with it. I am. I'm sure everyone here i~. This is one area that has an existing boat yard in it and know the site, it can be improved conslde~-abiy. With the road run off- road run- off is a problem everywhere in Southold and I'm sure it's going to be addressed. Sewage. What they have there no~ is not as good as a denitr~ficatJon syster~. [he Health Department is going to handle basically that part of it. I also think that dredging that parcel -that is a small area of water, small area of flow. It will increase the produclivity in that area. The flow in that area, without the b~lknead lng -and I don't see where anyone's advocating any bulkheading- with the natural shore I~ne accelerate the flow of water and if the entrance is dredged and the~e'.; more circulation in there it will increase it. I don't know what the depth they anticipate putting in there, but a six foot depth--and I'm sure Mr. Penny ~,iII verify it--a s~x foot depth is most productive for fish habitats. Anything over six foot loses some of that habitat abibty to reproduce with small fish. The coliforms -I guess we've heard of the road run off, we've heard of the human beings and sounds like a few people are advocating gi~inQ this back to the I'd hke that too, but we ali know it's not going to happe~. The Coliform they've had some problems in East Hampton To*n, not that we have plenty of them here. They exist where there's no people. They have a couple ponds where there's no development around and there's coliforms. I'm sure Southold and every other Town around is concerned about it and with the coliform count in this creek now I'd think you'd be screaming to open up and dredge the entrance, get some mo~e circulation in there. I'm not so sure I'd eat the clams in there w~th the cob,~orm ~,hat it is. I think it's one of the better parcels ir~ Southold. I know it's one SUPERVISOR MURPBY: Thank you, John. Anyone else llke to address the Town HOWARD ZEHNER. I'm the owner of Young's Boat Yard and Marina. Just two 2~1 percent of the basin. By all means it doesn't take up the majority of the basin 3-83 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 20 - Southport built on clay bars that existed before the basin flooded in the 20's and the ~3ter SUPERVISOR MURPHY. Thank you. Howard. Anyone else llke to address the Town Board ? HENRy WEISMAN: Yes. Mr. Supervisor. M~, name is Henry We~sman, and I hve recjularly and tlhtey apparently earn their livehhood from that cove. We can observe them re.moving, per man, any~,~ere from two to three bushels of clams on tide. So I can't possJbJy understand how they were ur~able to discover or locate any clams his little boat,and he apparentlY spent hts time pr~nc;pally in the [mmedlate wc,nily perfectly welcome to come do~n to my property, walk along the beach and p~ck up whatever oysters you'd like, and I'm sure you'll find a few dozen of them ir, a matter of a very short time. Thank you ~ery much. SUPERVISOR MIJRPHY: Thank you, Is there anyor~e else would llke to adcress the Town Board? MR. SBEA: I'd like to address the Board briefly again. I was just prowd,~d with a document thai I hope is on file with the Town Board. It's a letter daled April 11, 1986 from the State of New York, Department of State. by Larry Enoch, Environ- mental Analyst. in wh,ch he--he contends that he was essentially misquoted by the apphcant in the Addendum in the dredge spoil analys,s for the Southport Development. 15 lhat letter orl SUPERVISOR MURPHY. Yes. MR. SHEA. Yo~ do. All right. One other thing. This hearing is not des=gned 3-84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2~ - 5euthport SUPERVISOR MURPHY. Thank you. MR. BOV;MAN: One very brief comment, because Mr. Shea did br,ng ~p Mr. Enoch's TOWN CLERK TERRY: He did. It's m the file. MR. BOWMAN: --because that letter was wrdten in error. interpreting ~he data, and we waC, ted to clarify that. COUNCILMAN 5CHONDEBARE. We have a memo ir, the file. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Everyone was gl,eh a copy of the memo. MR. BOWMAN Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. anyone else? Yes. MS, CORDON: At this close of th~s public hearing today of the SEQR pr¢~ceedlng, we would first like to thank the Board for the time and energy expended ,n Ibis effort. Three hearings over a period of two months. And thank the Town generally 3-85 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 22 - Southpor' going to try to acldress the points specifically. They're contained in the reports particulars of the design. As you know, what our el;ant has applied for here is a change of zone. which anticipates the change in the use proposed by th~s site by the recently compZeted Town J~.las[er PIan, a result of fairly comprehe'~s;ve that some of the public comments would put the cart before the house. %o~thFort this analysis more complete and have given it a high standard of en¥iror~mental review. Southp~rt will of course respond to the addibonal comments in the c~an make the balancing analysis nece~_sary -that balance between social and economic SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wo~id like to address the Town Boaro? {'No response.) If not, we'll close th~s hear ng. Hearing adjot.rrned at 9:30 P.M. / ' Judith T, Terry Southold Town Clerk 3-86 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS April Il, 1986 James Redmaa New york State Department of Environmental Conservation Buildxng 40 - Stony Broo~, NY 11794 RE: Southport Development DEIS and 36 of I;ne Addendum to the DEIS for adding the uses Of an 82-unit motel, a 125-seat restaurant and Doatyard facxlity on a small emDayment located on the Con~lzng Po[nt Peninsula in Soucnold. The embay~en[, just west of the Village of Greenport, empties into Shelter Island Scund. Enclosed is a copy DEi$ and i%s addencum is the capacity of t~i5 er£~ymen~ shalio~ in spots and given the influx Of effluent and runoff from the project, we believe that it will De significantly impacted by the project. We believe Such tidal flushing. In response to this concern, the applicant has quoted you D~ page 35 of the DEIS addendum that there is a "high vel3city Of tidal exchange (flushing) found within the pro3ect vicinlty". Larry Penny, ou~ an~ probably meant that there was a high degree of tidal flusning in Shelter Island Sound, on the bayside of the 3-87 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 11, 19~6 project, rather than on the cove side of the project. Tn~S would seem only logtcal in'that the whole of the basin has as its only entrance a 20-f(~t wide channel at its southeastern end. AS I asked you on the phone, if your statements Sincerely, CDK/bb encs. cc: H. Weismann F. Flynn L. Penny 3-88 !1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS XO. 17 = in cluse ~:oxinity to ~he s~bjec=. This _ s-.- a--er.:v f----n =he suni__= 3-89 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~-..ents t~e e~b &n~ ~loo~ o~ tidal into en~ out of the subject basin, thus prevencin~ the Concentration of pollu~ant~ such as coliform and nitrates, As no ei~erstion of ~he e×istin~ channel entrance is anticipated, this kith rate of e~ckan~e will continue after projec~ eom- rue!it'; wi~--~.in th~ 3-90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APR 1 6 1986 April 11, 1986 Southold Town Board Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Sout. hport Development Corp. Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board It has come to my attention that some confusion has been created regarding the applicability of the remarks Of Larry Enoch, Environmental Analyst of the New York State OeEartment of State regardinG the above project, A copy of his comments on the dredge spoil analysis for Southport Development is annexed. In speaking with Mr. Enoch this day, he confirmed that all of his comments in that letter are still pertinent with only one exception. BIS only change is his withdrawal of the statement in No. 4 of his letter that the test methods used by the applicant were not sensitive enough to measure such small values. He confirmed to me that in all other respects, his letter still stands as valid. In addition, although I was not present, ! am advised that applicant's attorney argued again at the hearing on the Acdendum that a pro]ect specific EIS is not necessary and that a more general or generic ElS can be utilized since th~s application involves a zone change. This argument is totally fallacious given the fact that from the very initiation of the zone change appilcation, the applicant has had a very specific project in mind. The position advocated by the applicant would result in this Board acting illegally in contravention of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. I, therefore, reiterate my arguments as set forth In my letter to the Beard d~teJ February 2~, 19~6, a copy of which is annexed. To wit: 3-91 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HEINDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southold ~own Board April 11, 1986 Page two 1. ~either the zoning proposed for this site in the new master plan nor the zone in the existing Zoning Code that the applicant requests a change to would allow the uses as proposed by the applicant. Thus, the master plan data available does not suffice to serve in lieu of a project specific EIS. 2. The SEORA Handbook at page B-45 only suggests the use of a generic impact statement on a zone change when an applicant has 'no specific project planned'. Clearly there is a specific project planned by the applicant and a project specific EIS is required. 3. The quality and quantity of data in the EIS and Addendum is seriously flawed as pointed out by intervenors' witnesses Larry Penny, Frederick Reuter, by the New York State Department of State and the Town's own Conservation Advisory Counsel and would be insufficient whether it was a generic or site specific By urging that the Board avoid project speci[ic intensive environmental review at this early stage in the develop~ment of the proposal, when the zoning changes necessary for the proposal's viability ace reviewed, the applicant urges that the Board disregard the mandate and purpose of 5fORA 'to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision-making processes of State, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time.' [Emphasis added.] 6 N.Y.C.R.R. S617.1(c) We respectfully urge the Board to consistently and purposefully carry out its mandate pursuant to SEQRA. To do so, it must require a full project specific environmental review at this time and require the applicant to provide critical additional in[ocmation, and corrections to the faulty analysis in its work to date, to cure the serious d~fects in the DEIS and Addendum. CDK/bD F. Fl)mn 3-92 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGtNEER$ SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS "" TO: $outhold Town i3oa[d [ ~'""'~'* RE: Addendum ~o the DEI5 lot Sou~hporC Development FROH: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: April 15, 1986 t:e have ce.Jie~ed the Addendum to the above mentioned DEI5 anti find missing element~ in the ~aate~lal. Principal missing elements are: Documentation from Fire Department Drainage plans Additional borings [rater quality analysis Our specific comments are as follows: The site encompassing $outhport Development will be [edesignated 'Harlne-Kecreational" on the proposed zoning c~ap per the Southold Planning Board. The present chanqe-o~-zone request [o General J4ultiple Residence District (with a yet to happen appl[catlo~ fo~ a use variance fo[ a restaurant) must be dealt with in the ~resent S£0R process whose outcome will guide the Sbuthold To%:n Boacd an~ Zoning Board of Appeals in making their ~eclslon. Co~apllance with a [p~osed Zoning Ordinance does not preclude t:%e pos$1Dlity Of adverse lmpaotL of a specific p~oposed project. To clarify the r~cord, that is the purpose of 3-93 HENDERSON AND BODWELL cONSULTING ENGINEERS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. would be a terrible 'eye sore' to the clientele that they had a 'Bay vteu' from their room. Another problem with this ~ocatton for [finter storage and/or boat repairs is that this area was designated in original DEIS for a "transitzon and buffer area' to the so-called "dune establishment and enhancement' progra=. Comment S and Response The act,~al flow generated may ~sceed 15,000 gpd since the calculations egua! ]5,000 gpd exactly at the outset. Site plan app,oval should not be granted prior to approval by $CDHS of the plans for denitrification. Comment 6 and Response The response is sufficient except that no documentation from the Fire Department having juEisdiction is supplied. This ~s particularly critical s~nce access sufficient to suit the F~re Depa,tment ~ill ultimately be required. The needs of the Department should be known now. Comment 7 and Response The ~esponse is unsatisfacto[y. Sage Boulevard will have to be widened to To%tn specifications. Itu p/o]ect approvals should be granted until such an agreement is in place and appEoved ~y the appropriate To%;n autho[ities. and Response The response contradicts the response to Comment 4. In addition it is stated in Co.men: 4's response that the existing travel lift wi2L1 rema:n. This as the applicant is well auare, from the spill on December 16, 1985, poses as a definite threat of a hazardous liquid lea&, namely hydraulic fluid. So in stating tha: 'the said proposal ~11 eliminate the pctentl&! hazard~ may occur. (See Comment 4) be it st:ripping ~nd painting the hull or at least cleaning it. S41 $41 I 3-94 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Comment: g end Resoonse After reviewing Dredge Spoil Analysis for $outhport Development the main concern is why was the actual lab analysis report not included in the report. Having Land Ute Co relay Eco Test Laboratories, Inc. results of the dredge spoil on Land Use Co. statiorery is highly unusualJ V erification of this information is impassible unless a copy of the test analysis report is included. The method of sampling is not indicated in any of the reports submitted nor is the method of packing or time period of travel of the samples from the site to the lab for volatile organic: this is essential for detection. Another comment that Was not addressed in response is where will dredge Qaterial be shipped if unsuitable for upland grading and wetlands creation. It appears this might be the case since in the core sample analysis indicated a 6" - 1 ft. sand layer atop of grey clay, Clay is not suicaale for site grading since surface runoff is a problem nor is clay suitable for wetlands creation for obvious reasons. and ~gsponse Questions are raised as ~o she condition of the existing undergoJnd tank. It should be tested and approved by the SCDHS prior to site plan approval. Likewise the proposed pumpoL, t system shall have been approved prior to site plan approval. Comment ll and Response Until a full review of drainage is completed, the SEQR questions on impact to ground;rater and the Bay will remain unanswered. app~ovsls should be granted nor should a final determination u~t~l the drainage questions are sa[lsfactorily addressed. ~12 znd Respcn~e The amount of area available for the motel appears to be overstate~; nuLoer of employees undersrate~; no loading spaces are sho%~n; the side yard dimension is incorrect and several other s~te plan dete~ls are unfulfilled. These, no~ever, are Comnent ~ and Pe~pcns~ $41 3-95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ....~, ,-..~?J ~ ~ ~'~ _._ · ~ ~ ... $41 3-96 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND 6ODWELL CONSUCTING ~NGIN~ERS, ?he location of the borings are not sufficient to reveal whether subsurface conditions can suppo[t a parking lot, or mote importantly a motel/restaurant complex. At least five more are needed. See test boring plan for proposed locations. Comment 15 and Respon&~ See Cogent 14. Comment 16 and Response Satisfactory Comment 17 and Response In the response it is stated that "it is highly unlikely that water quality withing this area would ever be found 'unsatisfactory' for shell f~uhing purposes" because of the "high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within the project vicinity." This is quoted from a hearsay telephone conversation with Mr. James Redman, ~tarine Resourses Specialist III (I~SDEC). A follow up letter should have oeen obtained and put in the exhibits section to verify the subject had been researched thoroughly by said specialisc. A look at the area map in DEIS sho~:s tile location of property to be %:est of the t%;o points which cause these "constriction" velocities and increase flushing. Furtnermore, the marina property is not on £oushold Bay, it is on an ad]o~nlng cove ~:hicn further reduces the flushing capabilities. ThC n~ore removed from the main water body a ~arlna is the slaver tho flushing capam~ll~y of the cove. Just because flushlng stuoleS have seen done on Southold Bay this docs not n,ean they necessarzly pertain co Sage cove. Co~,ment 18 and Response The applicants lack of Concern for toxics er:losing in boy boctoF~ survey of lnlnln, al vegetation and w~]dlzie an~ blacx s~lc, many tln~es indicates aha:tlc (lack of oxygen) condltlong oeln~ caused $41 3-97 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Satisfactory Is the Sehner permit trans[errable to new owners? A:e any of the permits sho~m in Exhibits F-1 and ~-2 pertinent at all to this project? ?here is no indication on any plan to this linkage, Was the wor~ under Army Permit ~ 10484 ever accomplished? Zf not, there can be no maintenance of a project never completed. CgDment 23 and Response Due to previous unans[~ered questions, this entire Section cannot be evaluated with regard to groundwater, surface water, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, landuse, (~ Coastal Zone compliance) and community services (fire protection) The responses (mitigation measures) are not located on the site plan as to where specifically ti(ay are needed and located. Specifically ~1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. ~opment 25 and Resuonse A zero runoff system should become a Cor, dit[on of any rczoning. Comment 26 end Response. The location of phragm~te$ removal and ne~; planting is not shown. How %/ill pnragmltes then be controlled after new plantings are made to prevent re-lnva~;lon? Ho%; ace natural wetland species such as ones listed fo[ rcveget~tion to De Comment 27 and Respon_~ See response ~ 26. o~.~ent ~ and ~sponze Satisfactory. 3-98 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Conclusion and Recommendation Ne ~ould zeco~a~end that a ~inal enviton~enta! impact statement be coapiled by the applicant as one document, addressing our co~J~ents, comaents Bade at th~ public hearing and du=ing the public co~en~ period, Before deternining whether the final ElS is complete to review, ! would strongly urge the Town Board to allow us to ezamzne the document. This particular project is ¢o~nplicated end the documentation to date has not been aatzs:Gctory. I do not wish to see the To~n £endering a decision on inco~nplete information. I 3-99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APR 2 2 !g86 Southold Town Baymen's Assn. Inc. ~outhold Town Tru~teea Re: The ~outhport ProJe:t POST OFF ICE BOX 523 GREENPORT. LONG ISLAND. N.Y. 11944 Ap."I1 15, 19:6 'Fne DEIS report s,t~ltted ~y the 5outhDort p~oJect cc: Sou:hold Town Council 3-100 m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS I® I Co.m.uAn. R .. /~,',/'~ m Bu~au of Shellfisheries Bldg. t40. SUNY Stony Brook, kew York 21794 ~~' APR 2 4 April 22, 1986 m ~ c~ Christopher Kelley, Esq. m Two~y, Lat~am. ShEa and Kelley P.O. ~x 398 RiverheaU. Ne~ Yor& m ~ar MK. Kelley: In re~ly to ye, ur letter of April 21. 2986, I have discussed page 35 and 36 of the enclc, sure with Charles deQuillfeldt of th~s agency. Neither Sincerely, JHR/dg I I I I I 3-101 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENOINEERS Town Ildll. 530~5 Main Road PO. Box I]79 Soutllold. Nvw York 11971 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, 1986: WHEREAS, Southport Development has heretofore filed a petition with the Town Clerk, pursuant to Article X of Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold, for a change of zone on certain property at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, from "C" Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Envirorm~ental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter qq of the Code of the Town of Southold, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and cDde, and WHEREAS, ~outhport Development did. upon request of the Town Board, cause to be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitteo by Southport Development at the Southold Town Hall on February 4, 1986, at wh,ch time all interested persons were given an opportunity to speak, and 5ald hearing was recessed to February 25, 1986 and again to April 8, 1986 to provide an opportunity for comment on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby determine that the actior, proposed .s likely to have a si§nihcant effect on the environment, Southold Town Clerk I 3-102 I I$ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS NOTIC~ OFSIGNIFICANT EFFEC~T O~N TH__~E ENVIRONMEN~T Dated: April 22, $986 Petition of South,p, ort,,Development for a change of zone from "C" Light Town Hall. 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold. New york 11971 I 3-103 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND 6ODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS · ,C.~T,~'~ mf,c~nt Effect on Town II,~ll. 53095 M.,n Road PO Box 1179 the Environment" with respect to your petition for a change of zone, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution on April 22, 1986, of copy of which is also enclosed. Southport Development is hereby requested to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for submission within sixty days of Whereas your office ha~ already obtained the comments of the Town Planner. Szepatowski Associates, Inc,, a copy of the minutes, and other Comments contained in the change of zorle file, I do not th,nk it is necessary to trar~smit them to you again. Hole,er. if you ~ish to review the file again, you are ~elcome to obtain copies of those documents referred to in the resolution free of charge. I am enclosing a letter dated April 15, 1986 from the Southold To~n -,, _-, / --~-~ / --- .~- ~.< ~ -~ 2// I 3-104 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION IV DETERMINATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTLNG ENGINEERS GEOLOGY AND SOILS The proposed project will not affect the geology of the site or the surrounding area. The soils present on the site consist of Made Land (Ma) and Cut and Fill Land (CUB) which were either placed by mechanical means or altered in the course of previous land uses. The soils will be further modified by the proposed project as necessary for construction. Such modifications will include the placing and regrading of toposil for the establishment of lawn areas, removal and/or regrading of subsurface soils for the construction of the sanitary disposal system and the proposed drainage system. The operations will be discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. Another modification required by this project involves the dredging of the marina portion of this property. This operation will necessitate the disposal of dredged material either on-site in the upland portions or off-site at a suitable location. The high clay content of these soils, as evidenced by the former brick making operation on the site, will likely require the addition of supplements or amendments to allow the material to be used for construction. It is also expected that due to the requirements of the sanitary and drainage disposal system, some of the soil will not be suitable and will have to be disposed of off-site. Disposal of this material will require the approval of the Town of Southold, at a location to be determined or proposed by the applicant. TOPOGRAPHY The topography will be affected by the construction of this project. The marina portion will be dredged and the existing spit near the center of the basin will be eliminated I 4-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CON,SULTING ENGINEERS to allow for better flushing action as well as a more efficient marina pattern. The upland portion of the site will also be modified to accomodate the proposed development. The Sanitary Disposal System will require a portion of the southeast corner of the property to be filled approximately seven feet. The area where the building is to be constructed will also be filled. Parking and lawn areas will be regraded to achieve positive overland flow and to allow for the containment of storm water runoff within the project's boundary. (see Surface Water Hydrology). None of these modifications will have any significant impacts on the topograpy of the site. GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Ten test holes were augered across the Southport Marina Site in an effort to better quantify the locations and elevations of the groundwater underlying the parcel. These soils tests, numbered P-1 through P-10, found that the groundwater elevations in the northern portion of the property is at approximate elevation of 4.5 feet above sea level. This groundwater is perched and is created by having porous sand overlaying an impervious clay underlayer. When this situation exists, the rainfall which lands on the ground surface percolates vertically through the porous sand and is trapped by the relatively impervious clay barrier. The water then fills the voids within the sand and the water level rises until an escape path is found. The elevation of this escape path would approximate the elevation of the perched gcoundwater. A profile of the soils information is enclosed as Section A-A on Page 4-4. If the clay barrier did not exist, the elevation of the groundwater would approximate 0.5-1 feet above sea level due to the parcel's proximity to Southold Bay, the Marina Basin and the inlet to the east. In fact, a water table elevation I 4-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CGMSUL?ING ENGINEERS SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN SOUTHPORT RESORT AND MARINA GREENPORT NEW YORK 4-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWEI. L CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS of this range is found in Boring B-1 in the northeast corner of the site. Apparently, this boring was located beyond the clay barrier and in a normal, for Long Island, sand layer. With the exception of the northern portion of the parcel, the remainder of the site soils are found to be predominantly clay. No indication of any groundwater elevations could be found due to the hardness of the clays encountered. The proposed Sanitary Disposal System will be located over the perched groundwater in the northern portion of the parcel. This artificial watertable elevation will be respected insofar as the design of the Sanitary Treatment Facility is concerned. Therefore, site development should not adversely effect the groundwater under the parcel. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Under the current Town of Southold Regulations, there must be a zero stormwater discharge from this site into the marina basin or into Southold Bay. Additionally, the stormwater runoff from a 6 inch rainfall must be retained onsite. This requirement is easily met on the more normal sites in the Town of Southold via the use of stormwater leaching rings or recharge basins. These facilities collect and store the stormwater runoff and allow it to slowly percolate vertically through the subsurface soil into the groundwater regime and thence laterally to Southold Bay or Long Island Sound. The Southport Resort and Marina site differs from a typical Long Island parcel in that portions of the subsurface soil consist predominantly of clay. This clay is impervious and prevents the downward movement of surface runoff. In the areas where there are sand stratas overlying the clay, the sand itself fills with water and creates an artificial water table, very much of the way a bowl forms a water level. The 4-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~ULT~NG ENGINEERS '- bowl fills with water because no water can precolate through the impervious bottom. The water in the bowl rises until water starts to spill over the edge. This spillover determines the water elevation in the bowl. On the Southport Resort Site, the sand/clay interface acts as the edge of the bowl and sets the artificial water table elevation. Soil probes across the site indicate that this artificial water table elevations is at approximately 4.5 feet above sea level. As the ground water passes over this clay/sand interface, it drops down to the true groundwater elevation which is approximately 0.5-1 feet above sea level. In the areas where no sand strata overlays the clay, there is no artificial water table. Instead, surface water enters the clay in miniscule amounts and over very long periods of time, works its way through the clay to the underlying sand strata many feet below the surface. It can be stated that there is no practical water movement through the clays due to their extreme density. Therefore, in severe storms, much of the rainfall on these areas is transferred directly into runoff and enters the surrounding surface waters. It is still practical to develop the Southport Site under the above stated conditions. One method of development would be to treat the artificial water table elevation as unchangeable and construct drainage leaching rings above this water elevation. This would require the use of an inordinate amount of of shallow drainage rings (1-2' depths) or the filling of the site to elevation 12.5 and above and a lesser number of 4' deep drainage rings. Another method for the disposal of stormwater runoff is to lower or eliminate the artificial water table in the areas drainage leaching rings. This would allow the bottom of the rings at a significantly and permit the development of the site to above. This would be at approximately the of the proposed the placement of lower elevation elevation 9 and utilizing 4-6 ;I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS elevation the site would be developed if it were a typical Long Island site without the existing clay barrier. In order to lower the artificial water table, a transport medium or conduit must be installed to connect the artificial water table with a pervious strata or other water table at a lower elevation. A soils investigation, consisting of probes and augers, was undertaken to see if the existing sand in the dunes along Southold Bay extended northward under the clay towards the motel area of the site. These auger holes indicated that the dunes themselves consist of clay (probably placed by mechanical means) which have been covered by sand in an acretion process. Only a small continuous sand strata was found to extend from Southold Bay northward into the site. It was deemed more practical to connect the transport system into the marina basin rather than disturb the existing sand dunes along Southold Bay. The proposed transport system will consist of a ten foot wide, four and one half foot deep trench lined with filter fabric and filled with broken stone. The irregular shape of the broken stone will create a large void area (60% or more) which will permit the transport of stormwater runoff. The filter fabric surrounding the stone will filter any water entering the system as well as preserve the integrity of the voids by preventing the entrance of silt and fine sand particles. The transport system will be composed of two elements. The first, with a bottom elevation of 2.5 feet above sea level, will transport the storm water across the site to a location approximately 75 feet from the marina basin. Here, the second transport system will connect the first system, at a bottom elevation of 2.5, with the marina basin, at a water elevation of zero. The second transport system is in effect a series of short fingers which will release the water at a slow rate into the marina basin. This system duplicates a 4-7 I BODWELL CONSU~.T,NO ENGINEEA$ HENDERSON AND ! I I I I I I I i I 4-8 I I I I I I I I ! I I I ! I 10 I i 4-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS typical Long Island Site composed of sand wherein the fresh groundwater meets the salty marina water in a shoreline interface. The transport system will reduce the water table elevation along its path to elevation 2.5 feet level. Therefore, it is proposed to place the required storm drainage leaching rings alongside the length of the transport system. These rings will be four feet away from the transport system with an identical bottom elevation. The four foot distance will consist of selected sand which will both allow the passage of the water as well as provide a high above sea degree of filtration. It is proposed to utilize the voids within the transport system as reservoir storage as water can pass between the drainage leaching pools and the transport system. Therefore, the transport sytem will provide dual use both to store stormwater runoff and to transport the runoff to its discharge points along the marina. This is much the way the natural ground water regime functions acting as both a storage reservoir and a transport system. The voids within the broken stone will approximate 60% of the total volume of the transport system. To be conservative, it will be assumed that the voids comprise 50% of the total area. Also, half of the storage will be provided in typical drainage recharge rings while the other half of the storage will be placed within the transport sytem. A tentative design for the project would be as follows: Gravel Pavement 104,000 S.F. X 80% R.O. X 6" Rainfall 41,600 Cubic Feet Buildings, Walks & Pools 49,500 S.F. X 90% R.O. X 6" Rainfall = 22,275 Cubic Feet 4-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO~SULT~N~- EN=t~EERS Tennis Court 13,000 S.F. X 90% X 6" Rainfall = 5,850 Cubic Feet Grass & Landscape Areas 139,500 S.F. X 20% R.O. Totals ...... 306,000 S.F ....... 83,675 Cubic As half of the storage is to be provided the number of rings are as follows: X 6" Rainfall = 13,950 Cubic Feet Feet in drainage rings, 83,675 Cu. Ft. X 50% diameter drainage ring. 100.88 Cu. Ft. = 415 L.F. of 12' Provide 95 12' Dia. X 4.5' Deep Rings...Vol Feet The remaining volume, first transport system. 43,125 Cubic 40,500 Cu. Ft. is to be provided in the 50% Voids 45,000 Cubic Feet Volume Provided 2,000 L.F. X 10' X 4.5' X The following preliminary drainage plan indicates location of the transport and storage systems as well as drainage ring locations. This plan indicates that more than sufficient room withing the project accomodate for the required storm drainage runoff. The use of the drainage system as proposed will the possibility of any significant impacts on the waters in the vicinity of the site. the the there is site to preclude surface 4-11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I HENDERSON AND BODWEL/ CONSULTING E.G~NEERS AIR QUALITY The proposed project will cause a slight increase in air-borne pollutants. This will be due primarily to exhaust emissions from additional automobile activity in the vicinity and to a lesser extent, from additional boating activities associated with the enlarged marina. These increases would not significantly effect the overall air quality on the site or the surrounding area. In addition, the initial construction of this project will cause a deterioration in air quality. The principle cause for this will be from dust and other particulates associated with the construction operations and equipment. This impact will be of a temporary nature and will not present any significant long term reduction in air quality. VEGETATION The proposed project will have a minor impact of the site's vegetation. The report prepared by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. contained in Appendix D, contains a detailed discussion of the existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation recommendations. As brought out in the D.E.I.S. and it's Addendum, wetland and ornamental plantings will be incorporated into the development. These plantings, if planned correctly, will fully mitigate any adverse impacts to the site's vegetation caused by the proposed action. It is therefore recommended that as part of the Site Plan Approval review process, detailed planting plans and details be prepared, submitted, and reviewed by the appropriate Southold officials or consultants. FISH AND WILDLIFE As with vegetation previously, Terrestrial Environmental 4-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Specialists, Inc. has prepared a report contained in Appendix D that discusses the existing conditions, impacts and mitigation recommendations as they relate to fish and wildlife resources on and around the site. This report concludes that no significant impacts to these resources will be realized if the project is completed as proposed. In fact, some positive impact to the aquatic species utilizing the basin may be anticipated due to the increased flushing potential of the basin as a result of the proposed marina reconstruction. It should be noted that there has been some correspondence and concern as to the impacts of the proposed development on commercial shellfishing within the basin. The above referenced report points out that while some species (namely hard clams) exist in the basin, they are not present in sufficient numbers to be considered commercially important. Additionally, since the entire basin is privately owned and taxed, the public and/or any commercial operation has no right for fishing, shellfishing, anchoring, or touching bottom in any way, without permission of the owner(s) (Howard Zehner, Pers. Comm.). In fact, only surface activity is permitted by right, and this could be controlled per U.S. Supreme Court decision, that public access to navigable private waters is not automatic without "Just Compensation" to the owner(s). Futhermore, Young's Boatyard & Marina owns the basin inlet, holds a valid maintenance permit for same, and has a N.Y.S. Land Grant (Howard Zehner, Pers. Comm.) for the jetty which protects the inlet. Based on this information, public and commercial shellfishing issues should not be considered as impacts relating to the proposed development. 4-13 I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS WETLANDS The small areas of wetlands along portions of the basin in the vicinity of the marina will be impacted during construction. These areas are not significant in terms of size or quality habitat. As stated in the D.E.I.S. and Addendum, areas along the basin's shore and the beach area along Southold Bay are proposed for Wetland creation/enhancement by the planting of appropriate vegetation. This can more than mitigate any impacts on wetlands that occur during the construction phase of development to assure that this program is successful and compensates for any disturbance to existing wetland vegetation. It is recommended that a specific program of wetland planting be submitted and approved during the Site Plan review process. Creation and restoration can be accomplished effectively if proper plant material (species appropriate for such projects are available commercially) is specified, and if installation and initial maintenance are performed properly. TRAFFIC The proposed development will have an impact on the traffic in the area. Traffic on Sage Boulevard itself will be increased significantly by the project. The proposed traffic generated by the site on Sage Boulevard will be more than double the existing volume (108% increase) based on the data supplied in the D.E.I.S. Since all traffic on Sage Boulevard must also use route 25, this highway will also be impacted, but to a lesser degree. Not only is the increase in traffic volume a much smaller percentage of the total (approximately 19%) on Route 25, but the road itself has a much greater capacity than Sage Boulevard. The New York State Department of Transportation 4-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS has already stated (letter of December 6, 1985) that they do not feel the proposed project will have a significant impact on Route 25. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard to serve this project as well as adjacent properties, has been questioned by several reviewers of the D.E.I.S. and it's Addendum. Although the Traffic Report by Dunn Engineering states that with some minor improvements, this road will be adequate to serve the area, it is recommended that prior to the time of Site Plan approval, the Southport Development will enter into an agreement with the adjacent property owners to improve Sage Boulevard. The minimum recommended improvements would include the widening of the pavement to 24 feet and resurfacing the entire roadway from Route 25 to at least the easterly entrance to the Southport project. LAND USE AND ZONING The present zoning for this site, "C" Light Industrial, is not appropriate for the proposed development, and therefore a rezoning to "M-i" General Multiple Residence has been requested. This zone most closely fits the Southport Development project, but a use variance for the restaurant will still be required. In addition, Southold is presently revising its Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan, and it has been reported that the subject property will be designated as "Marine-Recreation" when these revisions are completed this fall. Since the revisions have not been finalized and it cannot be determined if the speculations about this site will become a reality, only the current zoning as it relates to this project will be discussed. There are many different aspects to the land uses associated with this development. In order to completely discuss these aspects, the subject action will be subdivided into two separate topics, the marina function and the 4-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENOtNEERS SITE PLAN 4-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS motel/restaurant use. The site plan on page 4-16 should be referred to, for a clearer understanding of the following discussions. The present marina use will remain. However, the entire layout of slips, docks, and boardwalks will be changed to accomplish a more orderly and efficient use of the Southport Development's portion of the Basin. The site plan, as recommended, shows a total of 113 boat slips as compared to the 121 that were proposed in the D.E.I.S. The reduction of eight slips is recommended in order to allow for a setback from the property line and to assure that the boats utilizing the facilities have adequate space for maneuvering. Winter storage of boats will be allowed and can be accommodated for approximately 60% of the users. This will take place on the western most parking area (see site plan) where it will not interfere with the parking space for the on-going motel and restaurant use. The existing travel lift will remain in its present location and is a potential source of pollution if a leak occurs. However, any such problems can be contained quickly and corrected since an operator must be present when this is in use. Furthermore, since this is an existing feature of the present marina, the proposed project will not cause any impacts due to its use. No normal maintenance or repair of boats will be permitted on-site with the exception of minor emergency repairs. All annual maintenence of boats and repairs other than as stated above must be performed at another location that has the proper facilities. No such facilities will be provided or made available at the Southport Development. It is recommended that the underground fuel tank that exists be retested and certified by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and/or the $.C.D.H.S. prior to granting of Final Site Plan approval. This will ensure the adequacy and integrity of this facilitiy. A pump-out facility for use by the docked boats 4-17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS at the marina will be provided. As stated in a letter from Mr. A.P. Foster of Custom Cesspools, Inc., such a facility will be practical and the material can be disposed of at the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. No dumping of sewage from boats will be tolerated, and this will be strictly enforced by the Southport Development. Any violation of this regulation will be cause for immediate expulsion from.the marina, and since quality docking space is generally at a premium all over Long Island, such actions will not cause any economic hardship or unused docking space at the proposed facility. Like the fuel tank, the pumpout facilities will require the necessary approvals prior to Site Plan approval. Dredging needed for the marina reconstruction, as well as the docks and floats, etc., will require the approval of all applicable local, state, and federal agencies. These approvals must be obtained prior to any construction of these facilities. As recommended in the flushing observation study (Appendix A), the spit near the center of the marina area is planned for removal as part of the proposed marina reconstruction. This will allow for not only a more efficient marina layout, but will also improve the flushing action in the basin, particularly in the vicinity of the marina. As previously stated elsewhere in this report, any dredged material that is not suitable for use in the upland portion of this development, must be disposed of off-site at a suitable location. The motel/restaurant portion of the proposed development will require a major change to the existing land use. All of the structures, the tennis courts and the pool will be removed with the exception of the old Brickworks "Chimney" which will be preserved and incorporated into the overall Site Plan and architectural style. The recommended Site Plan that follows provides for 78 motel units (a reduction of 4 units from that stated in the D.E.I.S.), a 125-seat 4-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS restaurant, a small bar area (10 seats) restaurant operation, two tennis courts, a area, and parking for 238 cars. The parking broken down as follows: as part of the pool and patio provided can be Marina (1 Space per Slip) = 113 Motel (1 Space per Unit) = 78 Restaurant (1 Space per 5 Seats) 25 Bar (1 Space per 5 Seats) 2 Employees 20 TOTAL: 238 The parking area proposed for use as winter boat storage would encompass 110 spaces, thus providing for adequate parking for the remaining land uses during these periods. Also, even though the storage procedure will necessitate using only the eastern entrance to the site for ingress and egress, the internal driveways will still provide efficient and adequate vehicular circulation for the on-going uses and facilities for both patrons and delivery services. The reduction in motel units and parking spaces as recommended allows for somewhat larger setbacks along the eastern property line and also provides more space for the Sanitary Disposal System and the possible future expansion of same in the north central portion of the property. Other features of the proposed development, i.e. Sanitary Disposal System, Storm Water Disposal System, Topsoil Spreading, Buffer Plantings, Wetlands Creation and Enhancement, and Pump-Out Facility are either covered in the appropriate sections of this report or will be specifically detailed during the Site Plan review process of this development. The proposed project is in compliance with the New York State Coastal Management Program, (CMP) policies that apply to such a development. Specifically, the following CMP 4-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS policies apply to the site and the proposed action is consistant with them: POLICY 1: Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and under utilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational and other compatible uses. POLICY 2: Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. POLICY 4: Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activites which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity. POLICY 5: Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate. POLICY 8: Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on resources. POLICY 11: Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. 4-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I$ I I HENDERSON AND BODWELI.. CONSULTING ENGINEERS POLICY 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and buffers. POLICY 14: Activities and development including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measureable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. POLICY 17: Non-Structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible. POLICY 19: Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities. POLICY 21: Water dependent and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given prority over non-water related uses along the coast. POLICY 22: Development when located adjacent to the shore will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the 4-21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POLICY 25: POLICY 33: POLICY 34: POLICY 35: POLICY 37: HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS primary purpose of the development. Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. Discharge of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels subject to State jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal water will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands. Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. 4-22 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS POLICY 38: The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies, will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. POLICY 41: Land use of development in the coastal area will not cause national or state air quality standards to be violated. POLICY 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preseve the benefits derived from these areas. The remaining CMP Policies are either not applicable to the proposed development, or the project will not have any effect on the stated policy. The above policy statements have been excerpted from "State Coastal Policies" prepared by the New York State, Department of State, Coastal Management Program. Therefore, while the development will have an impact on the land use and zoning of the site, the recommended modifications as stated in this report should preclude any significant impacts, and furthermore the proposal is consistant with the New York State Coastal Management Program. COMMUNITY SERVICES This project will not have any significant impact on Community Services. Letters from the Police Department and the Fire Department dated January 28, 1986 and March 3, 1986 respectively, both state that the proposed development will not cause these departments any significant impacts. The other Community Services are either not impacted at all 4-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ',. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (i.e., Library, School System), or are discussed elsewhere in this report. WATER SUPPLY There is sufficient public water available for the proposed development as per the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees Resolution, adopted April 18, 1985. This water will be provided by the Greenport Municipal Water System. SEWAGE DISPOSAL As the test holes and auger probes indicate, the Southport Marina site consists of sand overlaying clay with an artificially high water table elevation in the northern portion of the parcel being at approximately elevation 4.5. Boring B-1 indicates that the ground water in this location may be at the more normally expected elevation of 0.5' to 1'. AS the sand lenses at this location may be isolated from the remainder of the parcel by clay strata, it is deemed necessary to have the Sanitary Disposal System for the Southport Resort and Marina designed and built utilizing the upper water table elevation of 4.5'. The Sanitary Disposal System will be of the nitrogen removal type, designed and constructed with the approval of the Suffolk County Health Department. The sewage will flow by gravity from the motel complex to a septic tank near the north end of the project. After initial treatment in the Septic System, the sanitary effluent will be pumped to the upper filter bed and then flow by gravity to the lower filter bed, the nitrogen removal system and the final disposal pools. It is anticipated that the resulting effluent will have a total nitrogen concentration of well below the 10 parts per million (10 ppm or 10 mg/1) New York State Drinking Water Standard. I 4-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS DISPOSAL PLASH ! SANITARY SEWER :1 I 4-25 I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I ! I HENDERSON AND BODWELL COr~SULT,N~ This Nitrogen Treatment System has been required for projects of this nature for the past five years. It is currently considered standard design for flows below 15,000 gallons per day and early reports indicate that the tested treated effluent meets or exceeds the design criteria standards. The design flow for this project will be less than the 15,000 gallons per day listed in the Addendum to the D.E.I.S. Due to the artificially high water table elevation in the northern end of the site, the Santiary Disposal System will necessitate the filling of the existing ground. It is anticipated that the ground over the disposal rings will be at elevation 11.5 and the ground over the filter bed will be at elevation 17.5. The granular material to form this fill will be brought in to the project from a local offsite source. The filter bed and disposal ring areas will be shaped to create a pleasing landscape appearance and planted with shrubs or other shallow rooted type of vegetation and blended into the remainder of the project. As this method of sanitary treatment is currently the standard, and must comply with the Suffolk County Health Department standards, it is not anticipated that its implementaion will have any significant adverse effects on the groundwater regime. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The site, as presently developed, is served by private carters for the removal of soild waste. This material is disposed of at the Town of Southold Landfill located north of Middle Road (County Route 27) in Cutchogue. The proposed development will be served in the same manor, although an increase in the amount of solid waste generated will occur. The amount of additional solid waste 4-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS originating at the site during the summer months may be estimated by assuming a generation rate of 5 pounds per day per motel unit, 5 pounds per day per boat slip, 8 pounds per day per restaurant seat, and 2 pounds per day per employee (ref. Dept. of the Navy). Using the 78 motel units, 22 additional boat slips, 125 seat restaurant, and 20 employees, the following calculation may be made: Motel 5 Lb. X 78 = 390 Lbs/Day. Marina 5 lb X 22 = 110 Lbs/Day. Restaurant 8 lb X 125 = 1,000 Lbs/Day. Employees 2 lb X 20 = 40 Lbs/Day. Thus, the total increase in solid waste estimated for the development is approximately 1,540 pounds per day or three quarters of a ton. This increase will not have a significant impact on the Cutchogue Landfill as they presently handle about 100 tons per (Ray Jacobs Pers. Comm.) day during the summer. In the off-season, this development would be expected to generate about half of the above amount, based on the figures for the Cutchogue Landfill for that period of the year. ELECTRIC POWER The Long Island Lighting Company will provide the electrical power for this project. No significant impacts to I 4-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LILCO or their other consumers will be caused by this development. VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed development will have a significant impact on the area's visual resources. Since most of the existing structures on the site will be removed and replaced by a fairly large motel and restaurant complex, the visual character of the property will be completely altered. This transformation must be viewed in a subjective manor since architectural style is a very personal matter. The existing visual character of the site is dominated by the old brickyard buildings and the present marina configuration. Visually, the proposed marina will differ very little from that which exists presently. The motel-restaurant complex will be vastly different from the structures that are in existence currently. The proposed building will occupy slightly more of the site's area and will be located toward the southern end of the property to take advantage of the view onto Southold Bay. Additionally, the site will have a fairly extensive network of access drives, parking areas, and vehicular service drives. These areas will not be paved with impervious material however, but with gravel or crushed stone. In the off-season, the western-most parking area will be used for dry storage marina. This will have site during these times. The construction of not significantly alter towards either Southold of some of the boats utilizing the an additional visual impact on the this development, as proposed, will the views of adjacent properties Bay or the Basin containing the marina. These views will remain essentially as they are presently, even though the view of the property will be altered considerably. 4-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES There are not known historic or archaeological resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. Since the property had been extensively modified by the operation that was previously present, any such they even existed, were likely destroyed or altered during that period. brick making resources, if significantly DEMOGRAPHY This project will have a minor impact on the demography of the Town of Southold, but due to it's nature of transient use, no permanent impact will occur. The total population of Southold in the 1980 cencus was 19,172. The present estimated population for 1985 is 20,229 (1986 Long Island Almanac). This project with it's additional 22 boat slips, 78 motel units, and 125 seat restaurant, might add, on a temporary basis, 300 people to the population of the Town of Southold. This represents only a 1.5% increase, which is not deemed significant, especially in light of the fact of it's non-permanence. On a more local basis, the 1985 estimated population of the Greenport-Southold Area is 8,614. The projected temporary increase created by the proposed project represents an increase of 3.5%. Again, this is not deemed to have any significant impact on the area. NOISE The project will have an impact on the noise levels on-site and in the surrounding area. The more intensive use of the property will necessarily generate additional noise. This noise will be primarily from three sources, additional 4-29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS vehicular traffic, use. Additionally, noise levels can increased boating usage, and the motel during the construction phase, elevated be expected during normal working hours. These noise levels, while they may cause some inconvenience to surrounding property owners during these time periods, will be of a temporary nature. Also, they will not be occurring at night or on weekends, when they would be most objectionable. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating Measures are proposed and discussed in the appropriate sections of the F.E.I.S., and these specific subtopics should be consulted for this information. Furthermore, the D.E.I.S. and Addendum offer additional discussion and detail pertaining to the proposed Mitigation Plans. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed project does not simply involve a short-term use of committed resources. Structures made of steel, concrete, and glass can be expected to last 100 years or more and can even be rebuilt on the same site, if necessary or desired. It is not expected that these structures will ever become obsolete or surplus in view of the general population. There will always be demand for marina space and a motel/restaurant complex in the increasing trend for water-oriented recreation and leisure activities. Vegetation which will be removed from the site represents a commitment of a natural resource. However, this will be offset by the additional plantings that will be installed in conjunction with the development of this project. Loss of some of the habitat for wildlife represents 4-30 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS an irretrievable commitment of a natural resource, but it mostly affects those species that are adaptable to other habitats nearby and that are tolerant of most human activities. Some habitat may actually be improved by the development of this project (See Appendix D). Development of this project will irreversibly and irretrievably commit the short-term use of various resources use of during the construction period. These include the electricity for operating tools and machinery and for lighting; the use of gas, oil and diesel fuel for operating construction equipment and for the delivery of building material, and the human resources of manpower for the construction itself. Long-term commitment of building materials including wood, concrete, steel, glass and others will also be necessary for the development of this project. The quality of these materials and energy committed will be in keeping with those used for the development of high quality structures such as those proposed. None of these commitments will have a significant impact on the site, the surrounding area, or the region as a whole. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The project will require both short-term and long-term expenditures of various kinds of energy. In the short-term, the energy consumption will be caused by the construction operations directly. This will involve electricity and various fuel sources for operating tools and machinery either directly or indirectly, i.e., fuel consumption of trucks delivering building materials. Long-term energy consumption will primarily involve electricity and fuel oil used in the normal operation of the marina and motel/restaurant complex. The project will cause an increase in traffic by the population using the facility, and this will result in a increase in the use of gasoline and to a lesser extent, 4-31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS diesel fuel. Additionally, the expanded marina facilities will result in an increased use of marine fuels. The design and construction of the buildings themselves will take into consideration all of the latest advances in fuel efficient building technology. Use of such things as superior insulation and double glazed windows will all be maximized to the fullest extent possible to reduce the amount of energy consumed by occupancy of the buildings. No siginificant impacts on the use or conservation of energy will result from the construction or operation of the proposed development. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Although the D.E.I.S. and it's Addendum do not fully discuss all the possible alternatives to the proposed project, it seems that the economic analysis presented on pages 65-68 of the Addendum justify a mixed use type of project if the marina is to be upgraded and maintained. The fact that this report is recommending a reduction of 8 marina slips, makes it even more important for the project sponsor to be able to generate income by some means other than the marina site. The alternatives presented and discussed are the only ones that the project sponsor has the ability, desire, resources, and economic means to consider. Since the proposed action has been shown not to significantly impact the site or the surrounding area in any way that can't be mitigated successfully, the proposed development is a reasonable and proper use for the property. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS No significant growth inducement will be realized by the construction and operation of the proposed development. The 4-32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS motel/restaurant will encourage additional tourist activity to some extent, although this would not be expected to be significant in and of itself. No permanent population increase will occur as a result of this project, but the seasonal influx will bolster the local economy during these periods. 4-33 I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I i I. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULT;NG ENGINEERS APPENDIX A FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY AND SUPPLEMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPRESS DREDGING SYSTEMS, INC. P.O. BOX 564. HOLDEN. MA 01~20 FLUSHING OBSERVATION S~73DY Y~t~G ' S MARINA SAGE ROAD ~ OF SG~//~D~D, SUFFOI~ COUNTer, NY ~ 9--10, 1986 John C. Roberge M. Sean Burnett '.t"I~,RES'II<EAL ~ SPECIALISTS, It,lC. RD 1, BOX 388 Phoenix, New York 13135 EXPRESS DREDGING Sv_~.~MS, INC. Neal J. Gruber, P.E. P.O. Box 710 ~ewerton, New York 13029 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 6 7 CONTENTS TITLE INTRODUCTION SITE DESCRIPTION STUDY CONDITIONS INSTRUMENTS & EQUIPMENT SURFACE DROGUE MOVEMENT 9 JUN - P.M. EBB 10 JUN - A.M. EBB 9 JUN - P.M. FLOOD 10 3UN - A.M. FLOOD ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS BATHYMETR¥ VELOCITY DATA OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS PAGE 1 5 7 10 20 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE NO. 10 ll LIST OF FIGURES TITLE LOCATION OF STUDY SITE SITE DETAILS STUDY TIDE AND WIND CONDITIONS SURFACE DROGUE EBB FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 9 JUN 86 EBB FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86 FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 9 3UN 86 FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86 1010 - 1140 FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86 1145 - 1257 EMBAYMENTTHROAT VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS HISTORICAL WIND DIRECTION DATA PAGE 3 4 6 8 11 14 16 17 19 21 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. INTRODUCTION Based upon discussions between Mr. Roy Slack, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES) and Mr. Neal J. Gruber, Express Dredging Systems, Inc. (EDSI), a program to identify the flushing characteristics of the Young's Marina Development Site located off Shelter Island Sound, Southold, NY was identified. This program included: .Soundings of the embayment entrance throat section .Vertical velocity profiles in the throat section .Tidal stage history .Surface drogue study .Periodic wind observations The purpose of the program was to observe and characterize the flushing capabilities of the embayment. Velocity measurements, tidal stage history and the embayment throat cross section data were used to determine the tidal prism. The surface drogue study was used to characterize the tidal flushing effects as well as to qualitatively identify the effects of wind on water movement within the embayment. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. SITE DESCRIPTION The Young's Marina Development Site is located within a man-made embayment to the east of Hashamomuck Pond on Conkling Pt., Southold Bay in Shelter Island Sound, approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Greenport, Suffolk County, NY. The site location is shown in Figure 1. The embayment, which encloses the study site, is shown in Figure 2. Based upon the Mean H~gh Water Line (MHW) approximated from the New York State DEC, Tidal Wetlands Map No. 718-550, the embayment has an approximate surface area of 848,000 sq. ft. or 19.47 acres. Several predominant physical features of the enclosed area include: (1) a land spit running approximately westerly from the existing marina site into the embayment and (2) shallow submerged bar formations which define the northeast and northwest quadrants of the embayment. The embayment is a former landlocked clay pit, which supported a large brick works at the current marina site. The bottom includes several deep holes created by excavations in the past. littered with bricks and small cobb]es. located isolated The bottom is The embayment surface is exposed to unimpeded wind fields originating from all directions. There are no promontories or natural wind screens which would influence the study site. Winds from the south have an open fetch of approximately 2 miles across Southold Bay before affecting the embayment reach. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I 3. STUDY CONDITIONS The flushing observation study was conducted over two days, 9-10 June 1986. The weather was generally fair with temperatures ranging between 68 F and 86 F. No precipitation was observed or measured. Winds were intermittent from the North and Northwest and generally light throughout the study. Predicted tides, based upon the NOAA predictions on New London, CT and corrected to Lat. 41°04', Log. 72°25' (Southold) were to run between 2.1 and 2.6 ft in range with the following schedule of high and low: 9 Jun: H.W. 1216 L.W. 1816 10 Jun: H.W. 0014 L.W. 0705 H.W. 1259 L.W. 1901 The observed tide and wind conditions at the study slte are identified on Figure 3. Observed tidal ranges were approximately equal to the predicted ranges. However, the observed times for high and low water were approximately one hour later than the predicted times. Tidal observations were taken at the embayment mouth and at the boat dock located ad3acent to the travelift at the interior of the marina. Both tide staffs were in agreement and there was no measurable time difference between tidal fluctuations ]n Southold Bay (mouth) and the embayment. I ' I i 9 3~me 10 June Wi~d Speed 5-7 No Detech~ble ft/s from NW Wi~d between 0000 Measured 7-~t a~d 0740 above la~d ~urface between Wind Speed 1-2 1530 a~d 1820 ft/s frc~ N ~ured 7-ft wi~*~ Speed 1-2 aboue land ft/s Measured surface between ?-ft aboue land 0920 amd 1025 1910 a~d 2230 Wired S~ O-1 ft/s fr~ N No Detectable measured 7-ft Wi~d during above la~d Max~ Flood surface bet~_n Tide 1100 amd 1320 1° I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I 4. INSTRUMENTS & EQUIPMENT The flushing observation study was conducted using several standard instruments and elementary fleld equipment. These included the following: .Neutrally buoyant surface drogues (50) .L~neal tide staffs (2) ,Hand held anemometer .Propeller velocity meter The surface following drogues were constructed as shown in Figure 4. The 18 in long white ash shaft was made neutrally buoyant by adding lead counterweights to the bottom. The drogue was vertically immersed in the flow field to a depth of approximately 16 in. The top 2 in of the shaft extended above the water surface and displayed the drogue number for ident~ fication. Tidal history was read throughout the study on two lineal staffs set at arbitrary datums. Water elevations was recorded by observers as a function of time. Tidal elevation readings were accurate to ~ 0.25 in. I I I I I I I I I ! ! I ! ~o ~, ft/s I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A hand held anemometer was used to monitor local wind speeds. Wind direction was estimated from a hand held compass. The anemometer was a weighted flap type with an accuracy of + 0.25 mph. The instrument was held over the technician's head or attached to a clear view vertical post. The water current meter was a hand held propeller an operating accuracy o~ The meter was capable of average output. type with O.1 ft/s. Sensor range was 0 - 5 ft/s. displaying an instantaneous or a 45 sec 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I 5. SURFACE DROGUE MOVEMENT Surface following drogues were placed at predetermined locations throughout the embayment at the estimated peaks of two ebb and two flood tide cycles. Drogue movement and consequently near surface water movement was observed to be significantly influenced by the presence of any instantaneous wand field. The strongest sustaaned water velocaties were observed to be through the embayment throat or entrance on both the ebb and flood cycles. Attempts to monator subsurface ve]ocaties with the electronic propeller velocity meter yielded no measurable flows within the embayment confines. Details of the various drogue motion studies are described in the following sections. The drogue pos~t~on tracings are shown in F~gures 5-9. The times of posation readings are shown, wh~le the directaon of travel as indicated by the arrow at the end of the dashed vector. 9 JUN 86 - EBB FLOW CONDITIONS Drogues were placed throughout the embayment during ebb tide, approximately one hour before peak low, between 1821 and 1847 on 9 JUN 86. The measured wind speed during this phase of the study ranged between 1-7 ft/s, measured approximately 6 ft above ground surface, 220 feet south of the Young's Marina Travelift. The wind was consistently out of the NW. Drogue movement patterns are shown in Figure 5. Each of the drogue vectors, with the except]on of that placed near the 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I embayment throat, was oriented nearly parallel to the wind axis. Drogue velocities ranged between 0.05 ft/s and 0.58 ft/s. The flow vector through the embayment entrance was the highest in magnitude and appeared to orient itself along the channel axis. Surface velocities within the NE and NW quadrants even under the influence of the NW wind, were typically under 0.! ft/s. Drogue velocities in the reach between docks 1 and 2 were on the order of 0.2 ft/s. The three drogues shown between docks 1 and 2 were beached by the wind driven water movement. Not shown by any drogue motion, was a slight current which ran westerly from this reach, parallel to the levee and towards the embayment entrance. This water movement was visually tracked by following floating trash which consisted of grass, seaweed and several plastic bottles. This clockwise movement was also noted when following the drogue which moved from between docks 2 and 3 (west of the travelift), under dock 2 and was eventually beached. There was a general clockwise rotation within the marina reach. 10 JUN 86 - EBB FLOW CONDITIONS Additional ebb flow drogue motion observations were taken between 0430 and 0647 on 10 JUN 86, during the ebb cycle which immediately followed the previous ebb observations. The significant difference between these observations and the 9 JUN 86 results was that there was no detectable wind during the ebb cycle on this day. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Drogue patterns are shown in Figure 6. Drogue motion through the entrance was oriented approximately parallel to the entrance channel axis. The speed of the drogues passing through the throat and entrance channel ranged between 0.7 and 1.28 ft/s. Flow between docks 1 and 2 appeared to split at a shoreline nodal point located approximately midway between the two structures. To the west of the nodal point drogues were observed to flow in a clockwise direction, eventually orienting themselves parallel to the shoreline and moving towards the entrance. East of the nodal point, the drogues defined a general counter-clockwise rotation, beneath dock 2, over the submerged shallow spit upon which dock 2 was constructed, across the travelift and eventually deflected by the extensive impermeable spit which includes the dock 3 structure. This latter counter-clockwise rotation appeared to be an extensive eddy which split from the flow mass exiting the NW and NE quadrants of the embayment. Drogue motion in these upper reaches was generally directed towards the inner channel constriction. Velocities were typically under O.1 ft/s in these areas. It can be speculated that the formation of the eddy in the dock 2 area is primarily a result of shedding of flow from around the dock 3 spit tip. Elimination of this spit would likely reduce the possibility of this eddy formation. 9 JUN 86 - FLOOD FLOW CONDITIONS Initial flood flow drogue patterns were observed on 9 3UN 86. These observations were initiated near to the mid-tide range. A slight wind from the NW was noted at the beginning of the flood observatlcns, but diminished as the tidal cycle approached near peak. 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1,4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Drogues placed within the inlet throat, as shown on Figure 7, were untfromly distributed throughout the embayment by the flooding tide. Velocities ranged between 0.11 f/s and 0.16 ft/s in the near entrance reach and dtmlntshed to under 0.1 ft/s as the drogues entered the inner embayment. No significant drogue movement was detected within the NE and NW quadrats. Flood water, entering through the embayment entrance channel appeared to unifromly disperse throughout the entire embayment system. 10 JUN 86 - FLOOD FLOW CONDITIONs 'Drogues were placed throughout the embayment to track the flow patterns created by the midday flooding tide of 10 3UN 86. The drogues were initially placed between 1009 and 1024 and tracked through 1259, approximately one hour before peak flood stage. Wind from the N was measured at 1-2 ft/s between 0920 and 1125 and diminished to between 0-1 ft/s between 1200 and 1320. The drogue patterns for this tidal cycle are shown on Figures 8 and 9. A comparison of these two figures demonstrates 'the significant impact which even a moderate wind can have upon the embayment circulation. The drogue patterns shown on Figure 8 reflect the influence of the steady N wind upon the surface water circulation in the early to mid range of the flooding tide. A general clockwise rotation was evident within the southern half of the embayment and throughout the Young's Marina reach. The strongest velocities were evident in the entrance channel reach immediately inside the embayment. Maximum drogue velocities in this reach were between 0.29 and 0.32 ft/s. Maximum drogue velocities in 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ! I 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I the NE quadrant were approximately 0.! ft/s. A significant reduction in the wind intensity was noted at approximately 1145 during this same flooding cycle. As the influence of the N wind diminished, an immediate change in drogue trajectories was observed. The wind was nearly undetectable after 1205 and the resulting drogue patterns are shown on Figure 9. No eddy or rotational movement of the water mass was detected when primarily influenced by the tidal flow and not by a wind field. Drogue velocities between 0.1 and 0.35 ft/s were noted in the entrance reach. A strong flow, with an average velocity of 0.21 it/s, was tracked from the entrance side of dock 1, through the reach between docks 1 and 2 and beneath dock 2 running approximately parallel to the shoreline. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, I I 6. ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS A detailed determination of the embayment entrance bathymetric and flow characteristics was conducted as an integral part of the flushing study. The geometry of the throat section of the entrance channel was determined. Velocity profiles at two locations within the entrance throat were measured at both the mid-flood and mid-ebb tidal stages. BATHYMETRY The embayment throat section was measurd by lead line, referenced from the measured low water datum, on 10 JUN. The approximate trapezoidal section shown on Figure 10, is slightly skewed to the west which results in a shallower section slope on the eastern side of the entrance channel. The western side of the channel is stabilized by a driven sheet pile bulkhead. Maximum depths in the channel range between 8 ft and approximately 10.5 ft depending upon tidal stage. The channel bottom appears to be stable and is armored with bricks and cobble. Grasses are well established in the intertidal zone on the eastern shoreline of the channel. No evidence of channel meandering was observed. 2O I I I h _ ~ £ I I I t I I t I I I I I I I. t I I 0 .1.2.3.4.5 .5.4.3.2.1 0 0 .1 .2.3.4.5 I I .5.4.3 -2.10 Veloc] L-y~ Ft/s L . , 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VELOCITY DATA Velocity profiles at two stations within the throat section were determined at both the mid-flood and mid-ebb stages. This data is plotted on Figure 10. The profiles are generally uniform with typical flood velocities ranging over depth of between 0.34 and 0.48 ft/s. Ebb velocities were slightly higher, ranging between 0.32 and 0.65 ft/s. Visual observations of the flow patterns through the entrance channel identified several significant events. During flood tide, horizontal flow distribution across the throat section appeared to be generally uniform. However, during the ebb tide, an eddy extended from the eastern shoreline of the throat to approximately the 35 ft horizontal reference station of Figure 10. This eddy zone was essentially quiescent, with no measurable velocity over the entire 4 ft depth. This zone represents approximately 15% of the throat cross sectional area. 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I$ I I 7. OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS The embayment, which includes the Young's Marina development site, is characterized by its unique geometry and by its unimpeded exposure to the prodominant local wind conditions. Water surface elevations within the embayment are primarily driven by the astronomical tides affecting Southold Bay. Surface water transport within the embayment, as traced by the drogues in this study, is highly affected by local instantaneous winds. The wind field dominated the tidal induced motion during both the flood and ebb cycles of this study. The tidal excursions noted during this study were typical of this site, and representative of normal daily conditions. TIDAL PRISM The approximate surface area of the embayment is 848,000 sq. ft. (19.47 acres). The maximum range of the tide observed during this study was 31 in (2.58 it), while the minimum range was 25.5 in (2.12 it). The tidal prism is that volume of water which enters and subsequently flushes from the embayment during each tidal cycle. The maximum tidal prism of the embayment was 2,187,800 cubic feet, and the minimum tidal prism was 1,797,700 cubic feet. ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS The embayment entrance throat has a cross sectional area of approximately 345 sq. ft. at low water. At higher high water, 23 I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I i. I I the wetted cross section includes an area of approximately 620 sq. ft. Based upon the tidal prism approximation, the time averaged tidal velocity at any profile through the throat during flood would be approximately 0.20 ft/s and the maximum time averaged profile velocity would be approximately 0.28 ft/s. This is in general agreement with the observed velocltles measured in the entrance throat. These computed velocities would be valid for ebbing conditions if the ebb flow through the throat was uniformly distributed. However, the stagnant zone observed during the ebb cycle incorporates approximately 1§~6 of the throat cross section. The computed ebb velocities would be approximately 15~6 higher than the flood velocities. This was verified by the field measurements. EMBAYMENT GIRCULATION Water movement within the embayment appears to be influenced by three primary factors: 1) Astronomical tides 2) Local Winds 3) Westerly oriented interior spit Ebb flow, unaffected by wind, was observed to move uniformly through the study area with the exception of the formation of a large eddy to the south of the interior spit. Removal of this spit could reduce the formation of this eddy and thus ensure uniform flushing of the embayment. 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flood flow was observed, during those intervals with no wind effects, to move through the embayment entrance and flow uniformly into the embayment. Flow appeared to be skewed towards the developed marina reach and was not measurable in the upper reaches of the NW quadrant. Local winds were observed to significantly influence the movement of surface water within the emayment during both ebb and flood flows. Wind effects should be taken into account for any flushing considerations in this embayment. Figure 11 includes typical directional wind roses for the Brookhaven National Laboratory located approximately 30 miles west of the study site. The wind rose is a graphical depiction of the frequency cf wind direction. On an annual basis, the winds whlch effected these studies could be expected to occur approximately 17% from the NW and 10% from the N. The data contained in these illustrations is a summary of hourly readings taken between Aug 1948 and JUL 1951. While not adequate for design purposes, this data set does indicate the presence of significant winds at the study site. These winds are the primary driving force for circulation within the embayment. The spit, which includes the Dock 3 structure and runs in a westerly orientation into the embayment, also impacts circulation and flushing in the system. Ebbing tidal flow from the upper NE and NW portions of the empayment is constricted through a 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I relatively narrow reach at the tip of the spit. Shedding of flow from the tip i$a likely cause of the eddy which was observed between docks 2 and 3. Removal of this sp~t could be the most significant ~nfluence on Generating uniform flow through the embayment. This could enhance flushing of the system. 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. SUPPLEMENT TO FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY YOUNG'S MARINA SAGE ROAD GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY 3UNE 9-10, 1986 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MARINA PLAN 3ohn C. Roberge M. Sean Burnett for Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. RD 1, Box 388 Phoenix, NY 13135 by Express Dredging Systems, Inc. Neal 3. Gruber, P.E. P. O. Box 7]0 Brewerton, NY 13029 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MARINA PLAN The proposed marina plan for the Southport Resort includes the development of approximately 3.6 acres of the embayment for up to 120 slips. The plan calls for removal of the existing land spit which presently includes the dock 3 structure and the submerged bar formation beneath dock 2. In addition, the marina will be dredged to maintain minimum depths throughout the facility. The plan is shown on Figure 1. based observations made during the two day, 9-10 June 1986, observation study; flushing of the project area will upon the flushing likely be improved compared to existing conditions, by the implementation of the development plan. This conclusion must, however, be qualified due to the relatively limited duration of the study. Removal of the existing land spit will reduce and possibly eliminate formation of secondary flows such as the eddy observed on the 10 June 1986 ebb tide. Tidal water flow, during both flood and ebb, will be made more uniform in the NE sector of the embayment. This uniform flow will improve the flushing characterisitcs withJn the improved marina system. Wind effects can be significant w~thin the existing embayment. During the two day observation study, winds from the north and northwest were noted to dominate the tidal induced flows. As shown Jn the attached appendix, winds during the boating season can be expected to oringinate from all directions. There is a predominate during May-September. marina development site, SW wind field at the Brookhaven site If this predominance were noted at the there could be further significant wind I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I effects upon the flushing character~sttcs of the study site. No absolute conclusions of w~nd effects can be made based upon the Brookhaven historical data. It ~s recommended that a meteorological station, mon~toring wind speed and d~rection, be established at the development s~te. Further hydrodynamic studies, i.e. drogue studies, of the embayment circulation should be correlated with these real time conditions. The effects of wind and astronomical tides upon the flushing characteristics of the system and upon the new plan could be further studied and absolutely defined in a physical or a mathematical hydraulic model. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Monthly Wind Direction Data Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY Source: Nagle, C.M., "Climatology of Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1949 Through 1973", Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY November 1975 %¥md d:rec~mn ro~. 3T-h le,,'el. J~r, Wind dirertion ro~. 3~-8 te,.~l. Feb I I I I I I I I I I 1,%'~nd dlrtcfion rose..IT-fl I¢~:1..Mar ~¥md d~r~ct~on ro~. 3:-fl I~'rl..-~r I ~,%'ind dire¢lian ro~. 37-fi level..Kla~. ~,'md d~n~ctinn ~ 37-fi I~!. Jun I %¥b~d d~rect, on r~. 37-~ k~'el. Jul. I %Vind clis~on rm~. 5T-fi le'~.'el, I Wind dir'cctmn r~, 3T-fl le,-'t'L I ~,'md dirt'ct/on ro~. 3;-h 1¢¥¢1. Oc~ ~,¥ind dirrr6on ~ 37 b le,'rl. D~c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX B SOIL BORING LOGS m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS FF, OJECT Southport Marina DATE May i, 1986 LOCATIC;~ PROJECT N~ HOLE Ii'- __[~_D~PT~H(~__n~_., -- SOIL DESCF PTIOt~,J CONDITIOtt5 Arid R£~ARKS P-1 0 ]' TOPSOIL. Brown-Gray 1' 2' SA~D, trace Clay - Light Brown 2' 6' CLAY, trace Sand, Light Brown No Water P-2 0 4" IOPSOIL - Gray 4" 1' CLAY, $(~e Sand - Light Brown 1' 3' Moist SAND. trace S~lt & Clay some Gravel After 3 Hfs Groundwater at 3' 3' 4' Saturated SAND with s(~e Clay - lan 4' 6' Gray CLAY, firm, minimal trace of Sand, very wet P-3 0 4" SAND - Brown 4" 8" CLAY - Red Brown 8" 2'-6" SAND, trace Gravel - Red Brown After 2~ Hrs Groun~h~ater at 3'-4" 2'-6' 6' Course SAND, some Gravel moist to wet - Light Brow~ P-4 0 4" GRAVEL, some Sand 4" 1'-3" SA~JD and Clay - ReO Brown r-~I]~'--BI' SAND, trace Clay - Brown No Water 1'-~'I 2'-3" CLAv, some Sand - Brown 2'-7 3'-4" CLAY. trace Sand - Dark Gray 3'-4"I 5'-6" Light Gray CLAY, some Bro.n Sand B' 6'1 6' Brown & Gray mottled CLAY trace of Sand. m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m -OLE FF~OJECT LC, C/..TIC N P-5 P-6 P-7 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS Southport Marina May 1, 19B6 DATE PROJECT Ns SOIL OE$SG.PTION CONDITIONS AND R~MARKS Brown TOPSOIL Red Brown SAND mixed with Clay and Bricks Orange SAND Orange Crown coarse SAND, trace Clay and Silt Damp at 3', wet at 4'. Dark Brown SAhD, saturated Gray Brown mottled CLAY very firm Fill material - Brown CLAY trace of BricKs Brown CLAY, very hard SAND and Silt, Trace Clay - Red Brown CLAY, very hard Sandy TOPSOIL Brown CLAY, some Sand Gravel and Brick SAND, trace Clay - Brown Gray Crown CLAY, some Bric~ Wet SAND 'Gray CLAY, very hard BrowT, CLAY, very hard After 2 hrs Groundwater at 3,_gI, No Water Unable to augger further Upper 2'-8" all fill material No Water Unable to augger further m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HC.L£ P-8 P-lO HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS Southport Marina May 1, 1986 DATE PROJECT N~ _ SOIL O[SCF:PTIO~ CLAY, some Brick Tan SAND, some Brick Gm-ay CLAY, trace Gravel and Brick, Yery hard iron oxide ~ 3' Brown CLAY, very hard TOPSOIL SAND, some Clay, trace Silt Cc, arse SAND - moist - Red Browe Tan wet SAND, fine at top, coarse at bottom Gray grown mottled CLAY, very hard TOPSOIL SAND, trace Silt Tan SAND, saturated CONDITIOblS AN)D REM~*RKS No Water Unable to augger further After 1 hour groundwater at 2'-9" Unable to augger further After 1 hour Groundwater at 2'-6" m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORI.NG LOGS PROJECT Southport Hartna DATE June 2, 1986 LOCATION PROJECT N! HOLE N! DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS KRO~ TO l-] 0 5" TOPSOIL 6" 3' SAND and Clay - Brown 4' 7' CLAY and Brick - Brown After 3 Hfs Groundwater at 7' )'-7" SAND - Brown 8'-7" 11' CLAY - Gray T-2 0 3" TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown 3' ?-6" CLAY - Gray 6'-6" 7'-6" SAND - Brown No Water 7'-6" ]1'-6" CLAY - Gray T-3 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 2'-6" Sandy CLAY - Brown After 3 Hfs Groundwater at 8' 2'-6" 6'-6" CLAY and Brick - Brown 6'-6" 8' SAND and Brick B' 11' CLAY - Gra) T-4 0 ~4" TOPSOIL 4" 2'-6" Sandy CLAY - Brown 2'-6" 5'-6" CLAY - Brown No Water 5'-6"15'-10' SAND - Light Brown 5'-10 11' CLAY - Gray m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m PROJECT LOCATION HOLE T-5 T-6 T-7 T~£ T-9 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING Southport ~arina LOGS DATE dune 2, 1986 PROJECT NI SOIL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS PSOIL Sandy CLAY - Brown CLAY - Brown CLAY - Gray TOPSOIL CLAY - Brown - Light Brown ~ AY - Gray TOPSOIL CLAY, some Sand - Brown SAND - Light Brown CLAY - Gray TOPSOIL Sandy CLAY - Brown CLAY - Gray TOPSOIL Brown CLAY - very hard No Water rio Water No Water No Water No Water I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX C TECHNICAL DESIGN OF STORMWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CO,SULT~NG E,G~,EE.S SOUTPORT MARINA TECHNICAL DESIGN OF STORMWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM INTRODUCTION The site in question consists of approximately 306,000 square feet of which approximately 167,000 square feet will be covered with impervious surfaces (pavement, roofing, tennis courts, etc) and the remainder landscaped. Soils on the site are predominantly clay, and will not permit the use of conventional stormwater leaching rings without some modification. PROPOSED SYSTEM Surface water discharge of storm water is not permitted. Consequently, some means of developing subsurface flow and disposal of storm water (similar to a conventional leaching system in good sands) must be developed. One extreme approach that could be taken would be to remove the unsuitable material from the site to the necessary depth and replace it with sand, and then construct a conventional leaching pool system. Because of the hydraulics of groundwater flow, this would require excavation and fill below the pools in order to provide a sufficiently large flow area. The proposed system is a modification of the above, with excavation and sand fill around leaching rings for a distance of 5-10 feet. The stormwater entering the pools will have to percolate through the sand. The proposed transport of water will be accomplished by means of a subsurface gravel drain. This drain will be placed parallel to and about five feet away from the leaching pools (please refer to the storm drainage plan). It will essentially function as a very large I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS french drain. The gravel will be wrapped in filter fabric which will prevent the migration of sand into the gravel voids. This drain will have a cross sectional area of 45 to 50 square feet (10 feet wide by 4.5 feet high) and will have a very slight slope, with bottom elevation starting at 2.5 and decreasing to 2.0 at the collection point about 100 feet from the shoreline. From this point, the drain will slope rapidly so that the drain will intersect the shoreline at or below the water surface. It is also proposed to use the horizontal drain for a portion (50 per cent) of the required storage. BASIS FOR DESIGN Quantity of stormwater Design Storm ( 6 inch rainfall) Gravel Pavement 104,000 Square Feet @ 80% Runoff = 41,600 Cubic Feet of water. Buildings, Walks, Etc. 49,500 Square Feet @ 90% Runoff = 22,275 Cubic Feet. Tennis Court 13,000 Square Feet @ 90% Runoff = 5,850 Cubic Feet. Grass and Landscaped Areas 139,500 Square Feet @ 20% Runoff = 13,950 Cubic Feet Total = 30.$,000 Square Feet ........... 83,675 Cubic Feet of water. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Provide 50% of the storage in leaching pools (41,840 Cubic Feet). This results in 415 feet of pool or 92 pools required. Number Provided = 95 pools for 43,125 cubic feet. Balance to be provided by drain = 40,550 Cubic Feet. At a porosity of 50 per cent, 81,100 cubic feet of drain are required, or 1,800 lineal feet. Actual quantity provided by layout = 2,080~ lineal feet. SUB-SURFACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Ths sub-surface drainage system was designed by means of calculations using Darcy's Law: Q K i Aor q = K i H Where q Flow, Cubic Feet/Day Flow per unit width, Cubic Feet/Day Hydraulic conductivity (permeability), feet/day Hydraulic gradient, i.e., change in head per unit distance traveled, dh/dx. H The Piezometric Head, relative boundary. A = Cross Section Area, Square Feet. to impervious For unconfined flow between two points, this formula can be arranged to give: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS q = K ( hl2 - h22) 2L Where h1 and h2 = the head at two points, and L = horizontal distance traveled. ASSUMPTIONS Several assumptions have been made in this analysis: 1. Hydraulic conductivity of sand = 100 ft/day, achievable with medium to coarse sand. Hydraulic conductivity of gravel = requiring clean gravel which will not voids when placed. 10,000 ft/day, crush and fill Mathematical rigor: in the examination of changing flow between two areas the assumption has been made that the time weighted average flowrate is equal to the simple arithmetic average flowrate (minimum plus maximum divided by 2), which is essentially maximum flowrate divided by 2. EXAMINE SYSTEM BEHAVIOR The system must store flow from a 6 inch rainfall and then dispose of this flow within a reasonable time period. In order for the gravel drain to serve as effective storage, the water must be able to travel fairly quickly through the sand and into the gravel drain. Assume an intense rainfall, where the pools fill up rapidly: I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS h1 Max = 4.5 Feet h2 Min = 0 Feet L = 5 Feet K = 100 Ft/Day q Max q Min q Avg. Therefore, Q Avg. = 202 Ft3/Day = 0, since filled. = 101 Ft3/Day = (lO1) = 222,200 Volume of Runoff h1 will equal h2 when the system is (2,200 Lineal Feet) Ft3/Day. = 83,700 Ft3 Volume to be transferred to gravel 83,700 X 0..5 = 41,850 Ft3. required = 4.5 Hours Approximate time 41,850 x 24 222,220 for storage NOTE: During this period, some water will start flowing out of the gravel drain, but it will be shown that this is a relatively slow process. Any outflow from the drain will speed up the transfer from leaching pool to the drain. EXAMINE FLOWRATES THROUGH GRAVEL DRAIN Starting a'~ the shoreline and working backwards; assume the flow is evenly distributed through four 10 foot wide outlets (or an equivalent cross sectional area, such as two l0 foot wide outlets and one 20 foot wide outlet): I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 83,657 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTINGENGINEEfl$ 4 = 20~920 Cubic Feet Per outlet Examine Case 1) Case 2) final 70 feet to shoreline: Assume flow is uniform, drain slopes to shoreline q = Kih Assume flow is not uniform, drain is depressed elevation -2 2 2 q = h1 - h2 2L to UNIFORM FLOW , i = 2 ft/70 ft = 0.0286 q,ft3/Day Q, ft3/Day 1 ft 286 11,420 2 ft 572 22,840 3 ft 858 34,320 4 ft 1,144 45,680 NON-UNIFORM FLOW, cross section h2 = 2.0 h1 5 4 3 2.5 bottom of drain is flat at elevation of -2, of water varies: ( Sea level, with drain bottom at elevation -2) hl2 q, ft3/Day Q, ft3/Day 25 1,500 60,000 16 857 34,30(] 9 357 14,280 6.25 161 6,430 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS h1 in this case, refers to elevation of -2; an h1 of 5 would mean el 3.0. The preceding calculations indicate that the terminal portion of the drain (sloped or depressed) will be adequate. In the case of uniform flow, a flow depth of two feet will carry the water away in a period of about (83,600 ? 22,840) 3.6 days. Since the average flowrate would be about one-half of this, one week would be required for drainage. In the case of non-uniform flow, a greater cross sectional area ~s available and the same flow is achieved with a water surface that is about 12-14 inches lower. Next, examine upper portion, which carries less flow but is flat. Section A-B (refer to Storm Drainage Plan) - Length = 70 feet; upstream contribution = 1,050 feet; volume to be passed 1050 X 83,600 42,000 Cubic Feet 2085 Based on a depth of 2.0 feet at point a, use the non-uniform flow formula: q = k (hl2 h22), h2 = 2.0 2L h2 h1 q Q 2 3 357 3,570 2 4 857 8,570 1 4 1,071 10,700 1 3 571 5,710 This section, A-B, appears to be limiting and should be widened to 20 feet. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEEI~$ APPENDIX D ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE SOUTHPORT MOTEL & MARINA SITE I Ie I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of the Sout. hport: Not. el & N~rina Site Prepara] for: Henderson & Bodwell 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 Terrestrial Enviromnental Specialists, Lnc. R.D. 1, Box 388 Phoenix, New York 13135 August, 1986 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INtrODUCTION ..... 'r~RESTRIAL RESOURCES Vegetation Wildlife . . . AQUATIC RESOURCES . . ~ellfish . . . Fisheries . . . IMPA~i~ ~ IMPACT MITIGATION Terrestrial Resources . Aquatic Resources .... Page 1 ! 4 6 6 6 ~1' 12 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 1. Figure 2. Table 1. Figure 3. LIST OF FI(~3RES AND ~BLES Project Site .............. 2 Existing ~pland Area .......... 3 Wildlife Observed on Southport Site .... 5 Existing Cove Area .......... 7 I I® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Introduction ~lis report provides an assessment of the natural resources (vegetation, wildlife, shellfish, and fisheries habitat) for the site of the p~oposed Southport Motel am~ Marina c~lex (Figure 1 ). ~e report is partially based upon observations made by staff members of The Land Use C~y, Henderson & Bodwell, and Terrestrial Enviro~xaental Specialists, Inc. and ~ss prepared by Terrestrial Envirorl~ental Specialists, Inc. Terrestrial Resources Vegetation ~he upland portion of the site is approximately 9 acres. Much of the upland portion of the project site has b-~ disturbed by previous development and site use. Natural vegetation (Hardwoods and S~rub) is limited primarily to the northeastern, eastern, and part of the southern margins of the site. As indicated in Figure 2, a hard~x~d area extends around much of the northeast and most of the east border of the site. qtlese hardwoods are less than 5 acres in total area, most of ~hich lies outside th~ site bou~]ary. Sl~rub areas are found along the site entrance frc~ Sage Boulevard and on the dune area along the south side of the site. In ~rl~ition, foundation plantings .m~d other landscape plantings provide ~ habitat. The shrub ar~ and the plantings around the buildings cover about one acre. The hardwoods areas contain Black Locust (Robinia ~seudoacacia), Black Cherry (Prunus :~erotina), Oaks (Quercus sup.), Sassafras (Sassafras ~lhidm), and Willows (Salix s~.). ~e shrub areas and borders of th~ hardwoods contain sumac (Rhas sp. ), Arrowwood (VirburnLim sp. ), C~eenbrier (Smilax sp.), Wild G~ape (Vitis sp.), Boneysuckle shrubs (Lo~icera sp.), and I~)ison Ivy (Rhus radicans). ~ shrub strip along I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the beach area on the south side of the site is predc~inately Poison Ivy, Bayberry (M~rica pensylvanica), S~nac and C.%J.L~,L~B ~ (Phra$~ites australis). Foredune vegetation and vegetation along the ~ter's edge includes C~,',L~n ~3ed, Beach Grass (;~m~o~hila sp.), Cord Grass (S~artina alterniflora), and Salt Hay (S~artina patens). Iandscape plantings include Juniper (Juni~rus sp.), Aut~n Olive (Elaea~us un%bellata), Bush Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), and Apple (Pyrus malus). Much of the central portion of the site is la~ and/or grasses and herbaceous weeds. Unpaved roadways and parking areas of compacted soils with little vegetati~ surround the buildings, pool, and tennis courts. Buildings, roadways, ~rking areas, the pool, and tennis court occupy approximately 3 acres of the site. Wildlife Table 1 lists the. wildlife species that have been observed on the site. Mile many more species can be expected to occur durin~ different parts of the year, the species observed are characteristic of developed shoreline areas with isolated stands of trees an~ shrubs. Bird species that nest on the site include the House Wren, ~merican Robin, European Starling, Song Sparrow, House Finch, and House Sparrow. Mute ~ and Mallards also nest on the ~nall islands in the cove. In all liklihood, Blue Jays, Gray Catbirds, Northern Mockingbirds, Yellow Warblers, Red- winged Blackbirds, a~xi Co~m~n Grackles nest on or adjacent to the site. ~hile the only n~t,,mls observed on the site were the ~tem Cottontail and the burrows of Eastern Moles, other s~all n~,,,~ls should inhabit the woeded portions of the site. Gray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and Eastern Chilm~unks (T~as striatus) should be ccm~%%o~ in the hardwoods on the site. Species su~ as the Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Me, bites me~hites), and ~hite-tailed Deer (Odocoileus vir~inianus) WO,11r1 alSO be expected to occur un the site. q3%e Raccoon I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table Wildlife Observed c~ the Southport Site (a) Birds Winter Spring S~mer Great ~gret (~rodius albus) Snowy ~ret (E~retta thula) Green-backed Heron (Butorides striatus) Mallard (Ana__s platyrhynchos) ~merican Black Duck (Anas rubri~es) Mute S%~un (C~nus olor) Oldsquaw (Clan~ula hye~alis) Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) HerrLng Gull (Larus _ar~entatus) Cc~mon Tern (Sterna hirundo) Tree Swallow (Tachyc]~eta bicolor) Barn S~allow (Hirundo rustica) Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) ~merican Crow (Co__~_ brachyrhynchos) House Wren (Trogledyt~os aedon) Gray Catbird (D~tella carolinensis) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) A~erican Robin (Turdus mi~ratorius) European Starling (Sturnus vul~aris) Yellow Warbler (Dendroica ~etechia) Song Sparrow (Melos~iza meledia) Red-winged Blackbird (A~elaius ~hoeniceus) Ccmm~ Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) House Finch (Car~odacus mexicanus) House Sparrow (Passer dc~esticus) x X x X X x X X x x x X X X x X X X x X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X Fa~tern Cottontail (.b~ylvilagus floridanus) Eastern Mole (Scalo~us aquaticus) X X a. Winter sightings by Land Use Cu.~eny (1986); spring and sumner sightings by TES and Henderson a Bod~l] staff. I I$ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and Striped Skunk pcobably forage along the ~horeline of the cove and Southold Bay cegularl~'. ~hile no a~phibians or reptiles have been ~served c~ the site, c~,L~)n species such as Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhouseii fowleri) , Northern Spring pee~er (H~;la c. crucifer), E~stern Box Turtle (Terrepene carolinensis), and Ba.~cern Garter Snake (Thamno~his s. sirtalis) should occur. Amphibians could not successfully breed in the cove because of the salinity ar~ the presence of fish. The wetland areas across Sage Boulevard to the east of the site should p~ovide habitat for a number of amphibian ar~ reptile species. ~guatic Resources Shellfish Figure 3 illustrates the cove, the placement of existing docking facilities, the location of the ~l] islar~ areas, and the location of gravel bars adjacent tm the islands and shoreline. ~he cove is approximately 16 acres in size, of which about one-fourth is within the project boundary, q~e cove provides shallow water habitat for a variety of shellfish. The most abundant species appeared to be the Atlantic Ribbed Mussel (Modiolus d~missus) ~hich ~s c~,,~)n during spring and s~mer along the shoreline, especially near the inlet. ~his species, along with Blue Mussels (Mytilus edulis) and Eastern Oysters (Crassostiea virginica), are also found around the dock pilings an~ in other shallow ~ter areas with rocky substrate. A particularly important c~,,,~rc~nl species in the region is the Bard Cla~ (Mercenaria mercenaria). During February 1986, q~e Land Use Cc~[k3ny ~erformed a shellfish survey of th~ northern portion of the cove (Land Use C~,~any 1986). Only three Hard Cl~s were found durin~ the sampling. ~ile the t/me of year might reduce the effectiveness of the s,mt~,ling to sane extent, more cl~,~ would be expected if a substantial population existed in the area sampled. t I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I Habitat suitability in the cove accounts for the ~nall nunbers of Hard Ci~ s~led. In areas ~here there is a high percentage of waste brick in the substrate, Hard Clams ~Duld find little suitable habitat. In addition, densities of Hard Clans are inversely related to the percentage of silt-clay in the substrate since silt and clay in the substrate affects clan growth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). ~hus, since the cove was created by the mining of clay to produce brick and much of the substrate in the cove is clay or a silt-clay mix, it is not ~expected that Hard Clam densities would be low. Overall, the areas of the cove that contain soft sediments would support ~all nuabers of clams. Sykes and Hall (1970) demonstrated that soft sediments ware tie p~incipal factor limiting the abundance and diversity of benthic mollusks. Extremely hard substrate containing bricks and large cobble, would also limit the abundance a~ diversity of benthic mollusks. Sc~e suitable habitat does exist in the sand and gravel bars adjacent to the ~mall islands. Figure 3 indicates several areas where Hard Cla~s can normally be found (Zehner, pets. cu~,.). ~ density of ~3rd Cla~s is also a reflection of current velocities. Velocities of 30 to 50 ~n/s are considered optimal for the Hard Clan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). ~%e current velocities in the cove are far below this rarge (EDSI 1986). Turbidity also affects the growth of Hard Clans. In shallow water areas around marinas, the growth of larval and adult clams ~uld be inhibited by turbidity resulting frcm normal marina activities, qhus, the s~all n~ber of Hard Clams found in the i~m~diate vicinity of the marina is not unexpect~. ~hus, ~ahile a variety of shellfish occur in the cove within and adjacent to th~ existing marina area, habitat conditions in the area are not conducive to supporting very large populations. ~aile there are undoubtedly areas of suitable habitat within the cove, and Hard Ci~ can I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I be taken in these areas, the cove as a ~hole does not represent good habitat for this species. Two other species of estuarine macroinvertebrate are also Cu~n in the cove. Fiddler Cr.~s (Uca sp.) and Periwinkles (Littorina sp.) are found along t_he shorelines, qbe crabs are concentrated in the cove near the marina, ~hile the Periwinkles were most c~,,,~ along the beach bordering Southold Bay. Fisheries A large number of fish species could potentially occur in tl~ cove. Studies in coves on nearby Gardiner's Island (Reim~an and Nicol 1973), shallow ~ter estuaries of Long island (Briggs 1975, Briggs and O'Connor 1971), and on sportfishing in the inshore ~ters of eastern Long Island (Briggs 1968) provide data on the fish species that are typical of the shallow bays and ~ali inlets near the study area during the sum~er months. 9he species that are most cum,on include: American Eel Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Needle fish Sheepshe~ ~innow Munmichng Striped Killifish Atlantic Silverside Tidewater Silverside Fourspine Stickleback Northern Pipefish Bluefish Silver Perch Northern Kingfish Striped Mullet ~hite Mullet S~xae r Flounder I~hite Perch winter Flounder Northern Puffer (An~uilla rostrata) (Brevoortia t~;rannus) ( St rongylura marina) (Cyprinodon varie~atus) ( Fundulus heteroclitus) ( Fur~]ulas mjalis) (Menidia menidia) (Menidiaberyllina) (A~eltes ~tlracus) (Syngnathus fuscus) (Anchoamitchilli) (Pc~atcmus saltatrix) (Bairdiella chrysura) (Menticirrhus saxatilis) (M~il ce~alue) (Mu~il curema) ( Paralichthys dentatus ) (Morone americana) ( Pseudo~leuonectes ~-~ricanus) (S~hoeroides mo,latus) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Very few people fish in the cove, since sportfish are not Cu~on (Zehner, pers. Cu~,,,.). During the winter months when the cove freezes over, fishermen do take American Eels. Most of the fish observed in the cove are small baitfish (Killifish, Silversides, Sticklebacks, Sheephead Minnows, and Anchovies, etc. ). During the late spring, sumner and fall months, ~m~ll Bluefish ("snappers") enter the cove on the tide to feed on schools of these baitfish and some S~mer Flounder are also presnt. Flounder are rarely fished for in the cove (Zehner, pets. co~n.). Atlantic Menhaden, referred to locally as bunker, have been observed in the cove. Mr. Howard Zehner, who has owned the property for 16 years, has observed a large school of Menhaden en only one occasion (Zehner pers. c~u~. ). Sc~e juveniles of other sportfish species undoubtedly enter the cove. However, the cove ~uld not be considered as good nursery habitat because of the ]mck of aquatic vegetation and marsh habitat ~hich are important to yourg fish. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Impacts and Impact Mitigation Impacts associa~.~ with the develolmment of the Southpo~t Motel and Marina c<~,~lex can be classified as: 1 ) terrestrial (vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat), or 2) aquatic (shellfish and fish habitat). ~ere are, hov~ver, several aspects of the project that while occurring in upland areas could have more p~ofourd impacts upon the aquatic resources. ~3~ese aspects, site drainage and v~st~ treatment, are discussed in the aquatic resources section of this report. Terrestrial Resources Develo~m~_nt of the p~oject will directly impact existing wildlife by elimination of habitat. Elimination of sud~ ~m~33 areas of hardwoods and shrubs will sot, however, significantly impact wildlife populations of th~ area. S~ue reduction in the level of impact will be achieved by avoiding u~necessary clearing of hardwoods near the boundaries of the site and by the planting of s~ne landscal~ shrubs once the new project is completed. ~e ~not~'t of hardwoods will be reduced as a result of the project, but the ~aount of shrub habitat weuld r~nain nearly th~ sa~e, or possibly increase slightly, as a result of txoject landscaping. During th~ construction period, increased noise levels will result in many animals avoiding the site. ~is im[sct is, however, t~,~orary. Once tt~ project is cc~)leted s~ wildlife species will avoid the inm~ediate project area because of increased hz'nan acrtivity as wall as changes in habitat. Most of the species that occur on the site regularly, however, will continue to occur on site altho~h the n~nber of individuals of s~ne species will be reduced. ~he s~all strip of ~tlands vegetation existing along the ~dge portions of the cove adjacent to the marina will be partially impacted during construction. Following ~upletion of the project, wetland vegetation will be planted at tl~ ~ter's edge and allowed to grew and I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I spread naturally. Species to be planted will include Cord G~ass (S~artina alteriflora) and Salt Hay (S. ~atens). Scme grading along the bank near the marina ~hould allow for more wetlands vegetation than now exists to event,N] ly ~cc~ established. Aquatic Resources Direct iml?cts u~on aquatic resources will result from the construction ar~ operation of the marina. Dredging and other marina construction activity will eliminate scme habitat. Much of the habitat in the in~ediate vicinity of the existing dock contains waste brick frc~ previous site use and therefore has a reduced value to fish and shellfish when cu,~ared to natural substrates. Less than 4 acres of the 15 acres in the cove weuld be directly impacted by project construction. Some additional area would be impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation during the construction period. In areas where the existing substrate is dominated by waste bricks, the substrate my be more suitable for shellfish once the p~oject is cc~mplete. Such beneficial impacts would, hoover, only affect a m~all portion of the basin ~m~d should not be considered significant. One positive impact that will be associated with the construction of the p~oposed marina will be the resultant increased flushing of the cove. As noted by EDSI (1986), r~noval of tt~ existing land spit will result in a more t~ifom flow that will improve the flushing of the marina area. Improved water circulation will improve the aquatic habitat, although such positive benefit will be limited. 7he re~oval of the land spit will also result in a slight increase in the ~ount of aquatic habitat. During construction, noise, vibrations, turbidity and other factors will ca,~ s~ fish species to avoid the constriction area and possibly the cove as a ~4%ole. qhis impact would be t~,~orary, with the fish returnirg after construction. Since the cove is used very little for fishing, this t~..i~rary disturbance ~uld not represent an impact to the utilization of the resource. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Operation of a larger marina facility than currently exists could result in more pollutants beir~3 introd~2~l into the cove. ~ potential of this type of imi~ct is, howaver, reduced by the increased flushing rat~ which will result, frcm removal of materials that presently obstruct tidal flow into and olfc of the cove. ~lle size of the proposed marina has also been reduced fr<xn the original plan by removing eight slips aloe3 the western boundary of th~ site. ~he septic system for th~ proposed motel and restaurant ccmplex co,~l~ represent a potential threat to the water quality of the cove. Even with the ~proved flushing that weuld result frcol project construction, th~ ~ter c~l ity of the cove would be impacted if materials frrml the septic system leach into the cove. Because of ~]] size of the cove, significant nutrient loads would not dilute, therefore resulting in enrich~hnt, which would not only have a negative long-term impact upon both fish and shellfish, but, by affecting the aesthetics of the cove, would also have a negative ~pact tlpon the project itself. ~he septic system, as proposed, has taken this possibility into consideration. By designir~ a system with a less permeable side tov~rds the cove, the Applicant has reduced the potential for nutrient enric~nent of cove v~ters. Site drainage can also potentially affect the cove ecosystem. A decrease or fluctuations in the salinity of the cove resultir~j from fresh~l~ter store rm~off would result in a gradual dnange in the ecosystem of the cove. In ge~leral, those organi~lns that can tolerate such variation would beccme the dclninant species. Such a resultant change, which wo,~l~ prolk~bly be reflected as a decrease in species diversity, would represent an adverse impact to thru system as a vttole. By oatRmlying with Total requests for zero runoff of stormv~ter, the potential for this type of impact is eliminated. I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I Literature Cited Briggs, P. T. 1986. qtle Sport Fisheries for Scup in the Inshore ~aters of Eastern Long Island. New York Fish and G~ne Journal. 15(2):165-185. Briggs, P. T. 1975. Shore-zone Fishes of the Vicinity of Fire Island Inlet, Great South Bay, New York. New York Fish and Ga~e Journal. 22(1):1-12. Briggs, P. T. and J. S. O'Conner. 1971. Comparison of Sho~e-zone Fishes Over Naturally Vegetated and Sand-filled Bott~ns in Great South Bay. New York Fish and Game Journal. 18(1):15-41. Express Dredging Syste~ns, Inc. 1986. Flushing Cbservation Study Young's Marina, Sage Road, Greenport, To,ag of Southold, Suffolk Oounty, NY. Express Dredging System~, Inc. 1986. Supplement to Flushing Study Young's Farina, Sage Boad, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY. Land Use Company. 1985. Draft Envirorl~ental Impact Statement for southport Develo~lmmnt, Southold, New York. Land Use C~npany. 1986. ~ddendu~ to Draft fbvironnental Impact Statenent for Southport Develo[mnent. Rei~nan, H. H. and W. Nicol. 1973. ~he Fishes of Gardiner's Island, New York. New York Fish and G~ne Journal. 20(1):25-31. Schaefer, R. H. 1967. Species C~osition, Size and Seasonal Abundance of Fish in the Surf Waters of Long Island. New York Fish and G~ne Journal. 14(1):1-46. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Hard Clam. U.S. Department of the Interior. 14 ? / ,/ SAGE BOUI-_E VA R D Uplnnd Areo= 8.625+_ sc. PROPOSED M-I GENERAL MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING USE: DISTRICT Area= 0 12 t ac. SOUTHOLD LINE APPROX. NIGNWATER MARK BAY GAYV~EW REALTY DEVELOPMENT C/O JEFFREy D FORCHELLI~ESO. CORp LOCATION MAP 1%- 600~ 500' MAP TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING USE DISTRICT PRFPARED FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT AT GREENPORT TOWN OFSOUTHOLD ["= I00 MAY 24, 1985 ----'-"- / APPLICANT: NOTE: SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NO. ~/ 1725 Hobart Road DISTIO~OO_SECT.5'/' BK_OI_LOT38._~3 Southold, NY 11971 Z. EXISTING MARINA USE IS TO REMAIN 5 EXISTING ZONING USE DISTRICT = "C"LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Y Y 4, PROPOSED ZONING USE DISTRICT= M-I ~ENERAL MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ALDENW. YOUNS,N.Y.G.PE.I~ L.S.LIC.NO.12845 5 TOTAL AREA-- I E.46i +- ACRES ~ HOWARDW. YOUN~,N.~S.L.$.LIC.NO.4589S I AU8 1 '~ 1985 T~m Clerk Souffmkl