Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCROSS SOUND FERRYPLANNING BOARD M]EMBERS RICI-LkP2) G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCI-t-IE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, J~. WILLIAM J. CREMERS IKENNETH L. EDW~A~DS Town Fiall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Re: All involved agencies, and individual or interested agencies that have expressed, in writing, a request to receive the project sponsors draft scope. Draft Scope for proposed site plan for CFI State Road 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-i5-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Date: October 29, 1996 Dear Involved/interested Agency: The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 "scoping", requires the Lead Agency to send a copy of the project sponsors draft scope to ail involved or interested agencies. Enclosed is the project sponsor's scope outline which was received by the Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency, on October 21, 1996. A scoping meeting has been set for December 4, 1996 at Southold Town Hall, at 2 p.m. Because of the large number of involved or interested agencies, and the logistics involved in preparation for this meeting, we would appreciate written confirmation as to whether you or a designated representative will attend this meeting. If you cannot attend, please send your written comments on ~he enclosed draft scope, by November 15, 1996. if you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Robert, Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer, at the above telephone number or address. Sincerely, Acting Chairman End: CC: William Esseks, Esq. Frank Yakaboski, Esq. Laury Dowd, Town Attorney (continued on attached list) Southold Town: Town Board Building Dept. Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1655 Southold. NY 1197t County: Vito Minei. Supervisor Department of Ecology Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead. NY 11901 Stephen Jones, Director Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 John C. Murray, Planner Transportation Division Department of Public Works 335 Yaphank Ave. Yaphank, NY 11980 William Sickles, Superintendent Department of Parks. Recreation & Conservation P.O. Box 144 Montauk Hwy. W. Sayville. NY 11796-0144 State: George Stafford, Director Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization DMsion New York Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12231 Michael D. Zagata, Commissioner New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wotf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 Roger Evans, Director~ NYSDEC Bldg. 40, SUNY Rm. 219 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Darrel Kost, Regional Env. Coordinator Dept. of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memodal Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Draft Sco,oing Outline for CROSS $OU VD FER2: 'Y' SErViCES. L 'C. The folIow{ng is the Sponsor's draft scope for the preparation of the Draft Environmental ~mpact Statement (Draft ELS): for the Cross Sound Ferry parbing tot project, prepared pursumnt to 6 ~N-fC!tR Part filT,8(b) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). The outIine that follows utilizes the required format as identified in Section 617.8(0(i-5). 1. A brief descr/ption of the proposed action, The applicant se~ks a var;~ance and ske plan appro-v~l to establish md m~dmain a parking tot for veh/cles on a 2.5 acre parco! of land (SCTM No. t000-015-9- 3.5), !ocazed immediately to the east oft_he Cross Sound Terminal off of Main ltoad (S.R_ 25), Often% Town of Southotd, New York, The proposed p~rking lot is to be utitiTed by patrons of the ~sting passenger, vehicle and freight wat~' cra-tier s~wi~ ,~rnich has operated on the immediately adjoining ske since the mid i940's. Potentially sigaificnnt adveme impact~ identified both in fine positive declaration (which Sponsor proposed should be changed by Lead Agency amendment or court determination) and as a result of consultation with the other in,zol-zed agencies and the public, including an identification of those particular aspect(s) of the environmental setting that may be impacted. The potential for an in,ease in tr'~.ffic, and the potential impacts to ~e existing tr~r~c patterns, inc/dence ofu-a~c accidev/~, and the level of sm-Ace of*he adjacent roadway system (iM~{n Road, S.R, 25) caused by the avaitabilky of parking on the proposed lot. Potentiai v{susl [mpa~s caused by the alteration of the existing conditions of the site to a parldmg Iot (including proFosed landscaping and tighzing). Potential lrnpa~s to the goundwater underlying the subject proper~f from the arrdci?ated usage o£~e pro?rrf as a parking m-ca (including contaminants from vehicles, r~harge of stormwater nmo~ mad increased sanilary waste generation ~om 'incre~ed m~mber of patrons). 'D. Po~H~I impac'~s to ~jacent ~-m-face waters from the u~3zation of the subject size as a parking tot. ImpaCts to emisdnz ske conditions (site topo~aphy, amd vegetation) fr~m the alteration of the sire for u~Jizafion as parking (~ciuding site grading and excavatiog Lnstallafion of dr~/nagge conn-ol sn-ucmres? JANE ANN R, KRATZ JOHN ~4. WAGNER ESSEKS, HEFTER ~ ANGEL 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 279 F~IVERHEAD, N.Y. l tgO I'0279 MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. TO: Re: Ail involved agencies, .and individual or interested agencies that have expressed a request to receive the project sponsors draft scope (see attached list) Draft Scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry State Road 25, Orient SCTM$ 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1,. 15.1 & 3.5 DATE: November 6, 1996 Dear Involved / Interested Agency: I have a copy of a letter from Bennett Orlowski, Acting chairman of the Town Planning Board to a you as an "involved or interested agency.;." relative to the Draft Scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry, State Road 25, Orient, SCTM$ 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5. Upon the submission of that draft scope to the Town Planning Board, Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. also submitted a letter under my signature. The purpose of the letter was to explain the context of the site plan application and the draft scope. A copy of that letter is enclosed herewith to assist you in evaluating Cross Sound Ferry's application. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks Encl. cc: Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. Frank Yakaboski, Esq. Laury Dowd, Town Attorney (continued on attached list) MARCIA Z. H EFTER JANE ANN ~, KRATZ ,.JOHN i¥I. WAGNER WILLIAM POWE~ MALONE¥ CA~mELA M. ~1TALIA ESSEK$, HEFTER ~ ANGEL COUNSELORS At LAW 108 EASt Main STREET P. O. E~ox 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 1190t'0279 (516) 369-t700 WATE~ MILL OFFICE ~ONTaUk HIGHWAY P. O. ~OX 570 (516) 726-6633 TO: Re: All involved agencies, and individual or interested agencies that have expressed a request to receive the project sponsors draft scope (see attached list) Draft Scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry State Road 25, Orient SCTM~ 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 DATE: November 6, 1996 Dear Involved / Interested Agency: I have a copy of a letter from Bennett Orlowski, Acting chairman of the Town Planning Board to a you as an "involved or interested agency.,." relative to the Draft Scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry, State Road 25, Orient, SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11ol, 15.1 & 3.5. Upon the submission of that draft scope to the Town Planning Board, Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. also submitted a letter under my signature. The purpose of the letter was to explain the context of the site plan application and the draft scope. A copy of that letter is enclosed herewith to assist you in evaluating Cross Sound Ferry's application. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks Encl. cc: Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. Frank Yakaboski, Esq. Laury Dowd, Town Attorney (continued on attached list) ESSEK$. HeftEr & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LaW November 6, 1996 Page 2 Southold Town: Town Board Zoning Dept. Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1655 Southold, NY 11971 County: Vito Minei, Supervisor Department of Ecology Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Stephen Jones, Director Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 John C. Murray, Planner Transportation Division Department of Public Works 335 Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, NY 11980 William Sickles, Superintendent Department of Parks, Recreation & Conservation P.O. Box 144, Montauk Highway W. Sayville, NY 11796-0144 E$$~-K$, H~'~-TBR & ANGEL C~OtJN~E:LORS AT L. AW November 6, 1996 Page 3 State: George Stafford, Director Coastal Resources & Waterfront RevitalizationDivision New York Department of State 162 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12231 Michael D. Zagata, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Roger Evans, Director NYSDEC Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Darrel Kost, Regional Env. Coordinator Dept. of Transportation State office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Barry Hecht Passenger Transportation Division * NYS Dept. of Transportation W. Averell Harriman State office Building Campus 1220 Washington Avenue, Floor & Pan. 4-115 Albany, NY 12232 Thomas Lyons, Director Environmental Management Bureau Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Bldg. 1, 13th floor Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12238 E$$EK=:, HeftEr & ANGEL COL NSELO~S At LAW November 6, 1996 Page 4 Federal: Dr. Alphonso Tones, Acting Director Division of Agricultural Research - Plum Island U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 848 Greenport, NY 11944 US Army Corp of Engineers NY District Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg. New York, NY 10278-0090 Attn: Regulatory Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 26 Federal Plaza Room 1338 New York, NY 10278 Attn: Response & Recovery Division Interested parties: Thor Hanson, President $outhold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P.O. Box 797 Greenport, NY 11944 John Wright, Acting President North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 Mattituck, NY 11952 E$SEKS. HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW P. O. Box ~tVE~H EAD, N.Y. October 21, 1996 F=. 0 ~ox 570 Planning Board Town of Southo!d c/o Frank J. Yakaboski, Esq. Special Counsel Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isier & Yakaboski P.O. Box 389 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901-0203 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Site Plan and Variance Application Dear Mr. Yakaboski: Enclosed is the "Sponsor's" Draft Scope pursuant to 6 NYC2R Part 6i7.8(b) and (f) (1-5) for the proposed parking lot adjacent to Cross Sound's terminal. The project, as described in the Draft Scope, arises from tke following: 1. Federally-licensed water carrier service has been provided from the terminal site i~kmediately adjoining the proposed parking lot since the mid-!940's. Since 1975 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("Cross Sound"), has operated that service as licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, pursuanc ~o a Federal Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Water Carrier Service, providing passenger, vehicle and freight services as a common carrier by water between New London, Connecticut and Orient, Long Island, New York. After public notice and an opportunity for public comment and participation, the ICC granted Cross Sound's Certificate under the Interstate Commerce Act and National Environmental Policy Act and imposed no restrictions on the service. Since then, Cross Sound has served as an increasingly important portion of the interstate transportation network. Federal law requires Cross Sound to reasonably satisfy public demand for its interstate transportation services, including increased public demand. ESSEK$. HEFT~i~ & ANGEL 2. In Spring, 1994, Cross Sound began to offer a special combination round trip and bus fare (at New London) so that Long Island residents could go to the Foxwoods Casino without having to take their cars onto the vessel and drive them to the Caslno in Connecticut. Those walk-on passengers, availing themselves of that fare and service, made the 3ourney on a vehicle/passenger vessel. If no bus service were provided, a large proportion of the passengers would still make the trip and would take their cars. 3. Starting in the Summer of 1995, Cross Sound provided a seasonal high speed service to accommodate public demand for interstate service, including the Foxwoods Casino- bound and cot&muting walk-on customers, and to provide ample reserve capacity for times when one or more vessels were out of service. In both 1995 and 1996 when the high speed vessel was not operating, a significant number of walk-on passengers utilized the slower and less comfortable vehicle/passenger vessels. 4. When all vessels are operational, the passenger capacity of the vehicle vessels is seldom reached even in the peak season. The capacity of the John H is i¢000; the capacity of the Cape Hene!open is 900; the capacity of the New London is 300; and the capacity of the North Star is 300. The passengers using the high speed vessel could and would be accommodated on the John H or Cape Hene!open, although there would be occasional capacity constraints during peak times of use and potential difficulties if and when any of the vessels was out of service for repair or refurbishing. 5. The Town of Southold, in July 1995, the year after the combination passenger vessel and bus from Orient to Fo~¢oods Casino began, sought an injunction from Justice Henry to stop the passenger service on the high speed passenger vessel ~nd alleged that there was insufficient parking for the passengers who do not take cars on the vessel. The injunction was denied with an admonition to Cross Sound to make an appropriate application to the Town. 6. a) In October, 1995, a site plan and a variance application were submitted to allow the use of the subject parcel, SCTM ¢!000-015-9-3.5 for parking to serve the growing demand by users of all the vessels who do not take their cars on board. b) Cross Sound was and is willing to process a site plan review for the snack bar parcel but not a review which will prejudice its non-conforming rights to park cars on the site at a density and configuration different firom what might be granted if a 1996 application were made. Sponsor's "scope" should be viewed in the context of the foregoing. The "project" is not accurately described in the Positive Declaration. The project to be scoped is a parking lot for ferry service. It is not a proposal for the use of one or more vessels. Furthermore, it appears that the Positive Declaration has pre-judged a nu/uber of matters based on a misunderstanding of the proposal, unfamiliarity with relevant history and background facts, and assumptions that are completely unsupported by data. We hereby request copies of all documencs that were considered or that were created in connection with the Positive Declaration. The type and frequency of service, including the vessels used, is beyond the Town's jurisdiction and outside the ~scope of the Site Plan and Variance Application for the proposed parking lo~. Cross Sound is prepared to go forward with an appropriate environmental analysis of the proposed parking lot, b~ not with an irrelevant and improper analysis of the supposed environmental impacts of high speed vessel operations. No analysis can proceed as long as there are efforts to broaden the application beyond what Cross Sound has itself proposed. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks /m! Enclosure Draft Sco~ing Outline for The following is the Sponsor's draft scope for the preparation of the Dra~ Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Cross Sound Fe~,' parking lot project, prepared pursu,~nt to 6 ~N-YCI~ ]Part 6t7.8(b) of the State Environmental Qu~ty ~Review Act (SEQR). The ourline rha~ follows ntilize~ the required format as ~dentffied in Section 617.8(t')(1-5). 1. A brief description of the proposed action, T.ze app~cant seeks a var{anco and site plan a_~prov~ ro establ-ish mud mainta/n ~ par!~_ng !or for resoles cna 2.5 acre parcel of land (S CTM No. i 0 ,.~), [ec2zed ~mme&ately ~o :~e ~as~ of~e Cross Sound Termina! off :--Load (S.I(25), Orion% To~:n of SouthoId, New' York. The pro~osed parking l_ct is to be utilized by patrons of the ~sr.:ng passenger, re,cie and freight ~rat~ cm~.~ s~-~Mce which has o~Z~ on *-he lmme~ate[y adjoiring she since the mid I940's. Potent~nl]y signifiennt adveme impacm identified berth in ~due positive declaration (which Sponsor proposed should be changed by Lead Agency amendment or court dore=ruination) and a~ a result of e~nsultation wkh the other involved agencies mud the public, including an identification of those parr;.cular mspec:(s) of the en¥ironmenral ~er~ing that may be impacted. T2e potential for ~ Ncrease [n tra_~c, and the potential impacts to emsting War~c panems, Ncidence of irate accidents, and *.he level of s~,~Mc~, of the ad.iac~nt roadway sy~ (_Main B, oad, S.R. 25) caused by the avCoM!ky of parking on the proposed Potential visual impels caused by the akeradon of the e.x/sdng ccn~/~Jons of the site *.o a par~ing !et (lnclud~ng proposed landscaping and lighting). Potential imoa~s to ~e go ,undwater underl,,fing 'Cae m~ect ~'rope~wy 2om r. he arrddpated usage o£the property, ~ ~ parking area (includ;mg conr~min~zs ~om veMcles, r~hm-ge of ~ormwater runoff,., and mcreaaed sanitary w-a~e generation from ~cre~ed m ~mber of patens). Pot~r;~d imps~s to adiacenr m~fface wa:ers ~cm ~e ur~i~?ztion of the subjoin she ~a a pazklng lot. L-n~ac:s r.o ex2sz~g she ccnd~ons (she .'.opc_~aphy, ,,ad vegetafi~n) ,from the alteration oft~e she for ~zation as ?~king (~cluding s:,te ~ad~ng and excavation. [nsr~zticn of drmn~e con,et stracrares, !andscaping, mc.), oroDerdes ~.'cm the ur/i{Ta~don of this site ~ a ?~'~ng &rem The extent and quality of information needed for the pmpm'er ro adequately address e~e.h impact, including an identification of r~!evant e~sdng information, and required ne~w informat/on, including the required methodolo~.~v(]es) for obtaining new information. Existing ~ conditions to be de~ernunec v~tbin the la_~ r~o years, as welt ~ per,dna d~,,~.~_~c cc .s uncenak~n by ~he Tov~m of $ouIhold duzinm 1996. E~sdng depth to _m-oundwazer and' water qua!zr,, ~nz~ bc ....... ~ InvenrorSes of exi~ing ve~emr/om -.-.~i;~o~ ..... and. soil conditions, sh~ be lkcra~re rc,~ew (e.g.U.S. Demu of.~ri~a!mr: Suffo~< Co~ SoE Su~,'~/to co~ on-ske soft befogs). An initial identification of mitigation measure. Proposed imndscaping and Iow-level ti2h~-.,g .'.o minimize ,tls-eel and aesth~ic irnpaczal B. Instr:Jlarion of on-she dram~ge system ro con~-o! stonnwater reno,, Utiiizz~on ofg..~.~vel-~-m-~:ed partdng area to recuce over~l szonrnwater mnoff-on-ske, Con,~olled access ~d e~ess to the ske mud or~,,i?ed parkin=_ plan, to ensure pa:ton safe~. The reasonable alternatives to be considered. Consn-u~on of mu[d-love! pz'.~in~ ~ara:e overtop of ex-i~ng par;king ~reas on ~e ~joining Cros~ So,nd F~.~7/Ser~'ices, Inc. ~rc~exies B. Ftoaz~g, moored parkSng pla~c~--m wS~h r~rno :o snore'2ne. C. No ac'don SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 Planning Board Town of $outhold Town Hall 53095 Main'Road P,O. Box 1179 TOWN-OF SOUTHOLG Southold, New york 11971 October 24, 1996 Cross Sound Ferry Slte Plan Application~ SCTM Nos. 100D-15-9-10.1~ 11.1~ 15.1; & 3.5 Dear Sirs: As you requested, the following constitutes the preliminary comments of Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. ("$CSR") on the October 21, I996 submission by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("cross Sound"). Obviously, if and when a draft scoping document is accepted by the Planning Board, SCSR reserves its right to submit comments on that document. Cross Sound's most recent submission appears to be an effort to undo all of the work that has been done by the Town, the Planning Board and the other interested parties in preparing to conduct the environmental and site plan review necessitated by Cross Sound's intensification of its use of the Orient Point ferry terminal. Cross Sound now asserts that the only issue properly before the Planning Board involves Cross Sound's October 1995 application for a variance to construct a parking lot on SCTH No. 1000-015-9-3.5. Cross Sound argues that "thio analyses can proceed as long as there are efforts to broaden the application beyond what Cross Sound has itself proposed" (Esseks Letter at 3). Cross Sound's unilateral effort to narrow the scope of this Board's responsibilities and obligation under SEQR relies upon a miestatement of both the facts and the governing law and should be rejected. Cross Sound alleges that the Town sought a preliminary injunction in the summer of 1995 because "there was insufficient parking for the passengers who do not take SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOTA CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY cars on the vessel" (Esseks Letter at 2, ~ 5). Based upon that incomplete statement of the record, Cross Sound asserts that they have solved the problem by making an application for additional parking. In SCSR's opinion, Cross Sound has rewritten history. The Town commenced its action in the summer of 1995 because "[b]¥ resolutionr the Plannlnq Board [] determined that the proposed addition of a hiqhTspeed, passenqer-only ferry is a significant change in the nature and intensity of the ferry operation and requires the ferry operation to apply for and receive a revised site plan approval prior to implementing the change in use". Affidavit of George Rftchte Latham Jr., July 17, !995 at ~ 10 (emphasis added). At the time of the Planning Board's resoiution, Mr. Latham's affidavit and the Town's lawsuit, there was no application to obtain ~ variance for a parking lot on SCTM No. 1000-015-9-3.5. Hence, the required site plan application and approval at issue was and is a site plan for the existing and proposed future Cross Sound operation at Orient Point, not, as Cross sound now asserts, solely the October 1995 request for a variance. Cross Sound's position appears to be that it will not submit a revised site plan on ~ts current and admittedly ',non-conforming" use of its facility, nor will it participate in a non-segmented SEQR review of its operations at Orient Point. Such an approach is contrary to the fundamental principles of SEQR. Under SEQR review of proJeots must not be segmented. SEQR defines segmentation as "the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under this part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance" (6 N.Y..~DC 617.2 (ag)). l/ Here, Cross Sound argues that the introduction of the high-speed ~erry, which 1/ The law is clear ~ha~ "[c]onsidering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the ~ntent of SE~R. If a lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it must clearly state ~n its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such a review is clearly no less protective of the environ~ent. Related actions should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible" (~ N.Y. ADC 617,3(1)). What Cross Sound proposes here is. not only an improper segmentation, but in effect a process 'that would shield its~-non-conforming activities from any review. is already the subject of a Planning Board resolution, a lawsuit and a positive declaration, is to be ignored. Cross Sound asserts that only the parking facility allegedly necessitated by its unilateral and unauthorized intensification of the ~se of the Orient Point site througk the introduction of the high-speed ferry should be considered. That effort at segmentation must be rejected. To do otherwise in SCSR's opinion would be to set in motion a ~atally flawed review process that inevitably would be subject to challenge. Cross Sound also argues that the scope of the environmental and site plan review must be limited to only the additional parking lot in part because .,[f]ederal law requires Cross Sound to reasonably satisfy public demand ~or its interstate transportation services, including increased public demand". Again, C~O~s Sound is wrong. In 1995, Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") and effectively deregulated all interstate ferry services. See, e.g,, ICC.Terminati°n Act of ~995, see also 49 U.S.C. S 701(a)} S. Rep. No. 104-76 at 26-27 (I995); and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-422 at 165 (1995). Consequently, Cross sound's ICC Certificate o£ Convenience and Necessity is of no further force or effect and the argument that federal law "requires" Cross'Sound to do anything is, in SCSR'S view, totally without merit. Moreover, CroSs Sound's repeated assertion that state and local environmental and zoning laws do not and cannot reach Cross Sound is also wrong. The Supreme court of the United States has held that state and local governments may exercise their police power in enforcing environmental regulations against entities 'that operate in interstate commerce. For example, in Huron Portland cement Company v. City of Detroi__t, the Supreme Court held that "the Constitution ~hen conferring upon congress the regulation of commerce, never intended to cut the States off from leqislatinq on all subjects relating to the health¢ life~ ~d safety of their ci~izensr though the legislati°n miqht indirectly affect the commer'ce of the county. 362 U.S. 440, ~43-44 (1960) (emPhasis added). The SUpremu Court in Huron expressly held that in the exercise of local police power (in that case a regulation dealing with air pollution), "the states and their instrumentalities may act, in many areas of interstate commerce and maritime activit~es, concurrently with the federal government (Id~. at 442). 4 In the matter before this Board, there can be no question that neither the applicable local zoning or environmental laws, nor the New York State environmental regulations at issue would discriminate against or impermissably burden interstate commerce. ThoSe laws and regulations are equally applicable to all citizens of Southold. More importantly, they are precisely the type of regulation that the Supreme court has determined that state and local governments may enforce against entities engaged in interstate commerce. Consequently, it is SCSR's opinion that Cross Sound's "interstate commerce" argument can in no way serve to limit or to alter the appropriate scope of environmental review required by the positive declaration adopted by this Planning Board in its role as lead agency. Finally, it appears from Cross Sound's submission that its unwillingness to proceed with the complete environmental review required by law is not grounded on any legitimate reading of the facts or of the relevant law. Instead, Cross Sound's position seems to flow entirely from its concern that a comprehensive review "will prejudice its non-conforming rights" (Esseks Letter at 2-3, ~ §(b)). That is not in SCSR's view a legiti~gate basis upon which an applicant may avoid a SEQR review following a positive declaration. SCSR believes that the Planning Board and Trustees should consider whether Cross Sound has ,,non-conforming rights" or is simply engaged in a continuing course of .non-conforming u~age" in violation of CroSs sound's existing site plan and, consequently, in SCSR's opinion, prohibited by law. We urge the Board either to require Cross Sound to submit a complete draft scoping document that addresses ali of the issues relating to the totality of Cross Sound's current and future operations at Orient Point or to drait such a document itself for use at the scoping session. Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. Copies to: Supervisor Cochran ~- Southold Trustees September 16, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Act/ng Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Oflowski: We are writing to support the Southold Town Planning Board's intention to issue a positive declaration on the site plan for proposed changes to the Cross Sound Ferry property in Orient. As you know, the New York State Environmental Quality Review requires the lead agency to issue a positive declaration if the action may include the potential for al least one significant adverse environmental impact. With respect to Cross Sound Ferr,fs proposed action, we wish to specifically address the criteria for detenmning significance in accordance with New York State Environmental Conservat/on Law, section 617.7(c(i-x)): (i) The proposed action may result in a substantial adverse change in ground and surface water quality at Orient Point. The Suffolk County Water Authority has made a strong recommendation that development in the Orient areas be severely restricted to prevent impairment of its fragile aquifer which is already threatened by high nitrates and salt upconing. SCWA has declared the Orient Point and Orient areas to have the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island due to its flat land masses and complete underlayment of saltwater. Any intensification of [and uses, such as the expansion of the ferry terminal's parking facilities to accommodate more than 300 cars, is expected to be detrimental to groundwater conditions. SCWA specifically recommends large lot zoning to prevent any increase in activities at Orient as well as a reduction in vehicular traffic which adds to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants. a non-profit organization for the pr.~Ir~rvatlon of land, sea. air and quality of life Printed on 100% recycled paper Increased ferry operations in the past ten years hate already added to traffic and noise levels along the entire North Fork. The impact that such intensification has had on existing air quali~y must be closely examined. In'addition, the Planning Board must consider the potential for beach erosion which may result from increased ferry trips. (ii) The North Fork lies entirely within the federal/y-designated Fish and Wildlife Service's Northeast Estuary Project (see attachment A) which identifies numerous plant and animal species as being of national or reg/onal significance and management concern on Long Island. S '~ ome examples include these endangered w/ldlife spec/mens: the shortnose sturgeon, the leatherback turtle, the roseate tern, the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the hmnpback and fin whales, the American burying beetle, the Northeastern beach tiger beetle and sandplain gerardia plant. The mar/tflne grass/ands of Orient Point are considered a Sigrdficant Coastal Habitat on Long Island. Obv/ously, the further .grading of the residentiallY-zoned parcel of land controlled by Cross Sound Ferry and the increased vehicular and ferry traffic which would inevitably result from the proposed expansion would alter the area's w/ldlife. (ii/) The residential lot controlled by Cross Sound Ferry (Suffolk County Tax Map #3.5) lies w/thin a Critical Environmental Area as designated by the County of Suffolk (see attachment B). Ail parcels owned or controlled by Cross Sound Ferry are also part of the Peconic Bay Estuary which is a Critical Environmental Area. The Cross Sound Ferry tenninal lies w/thin the watershed area of the estuary (see attachment C) which means that any of its polluting activities will affect the water quality of the bay system. The 1994 Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) Action Plan called for local governments to adopt/and use regulations to min/mize or avoid any new source of stormwater runoff. Sourhold Town has addressed this issue already w/th R-80 zoning on Orient Point. The PEP Action Plan also predicted that careless exploitation of the Pecon/c Estuary system would lead m increasingly irreversible degradation ora once-pr/st/ne ecosystem. An expanded parking lot and increased vehicular traffic at Orient Point would only add to stormwater runoffwhich the PEP Action Plan deems to be the "largest and most sign/ficant source of total and fecal coliform loading to the Peconic Bay." In addition to the aforementioned stormwater runoff, mar/ne pollutants such as off, gasoline, marine paints and debris have severely deteriorated marine life in the Pecenic Bay. It is disturbing to note that when Cross Sound Ferry submitted a site plan application for changes to the property in 1984, it answered "Yes" to question number nine on Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form, "Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" In 1996, the company's answer to question number 10 on the same form, "Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" was "No." (iv) The proposed action represents a material conflict w/th Southold's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted, namely the R-80 zoning designation given to the parcel of land. The PEP Action Plan specifically recommends that local governments control commercial, industrial and institutional land uses so that the impact -2- on groundwater w/th respect to nitrogen contribution is-comparable to that of two-acre residential zoning. (v) Both the character and quality of the important historical, architectural and aesthetic resource known as the Orient National Historic District are severely compromised by the presence in its midst of the Cross Sound Ferry. Since 1984, the company has transformed the site into a transportation hub of the New London metropolitan area, without regard for regulatory and public scrutiny and with little recognition of Orient's hi'gtoric role. By virtue of its insular location, Orient's charm has Preserved 17th and 18th century amhitecture, ambiance and landscape features. For three centuries prior to I984, ferry serv/ce at Orient remained consonant in both size and style with the scale of land uses in the surrounding area. Cross Sound Ferry's largely unregulated departures from/ts 1984 site plan, its current need its cosmopolitan and commercial pretensions for the future are for inter-state parking and glaringly discontinuous with every aspect of the fabric of the Orient National Historic D/strict. The discovery ora double-child burial on Roy Latham% nearby farm (as published in the New York State Archeolog/cal Association Bulletin, November 1962, pages 8f0 offers presumptive evidence that the land which Cross Sound Ferry occupies and has unadvisedly cleared ho/ds sign/ficant Pre-historic and archeological interest. (vi) Increased park/ng will necessitate a major change in the quantity and type of lighting utilized which w/Il have negative visual impact on the surrounding area. (vii) In the ten years since Cross Sound Ferry has built ~ts terminal and expanded its operations, traffic accidents in the Town of Southold have increased by 43 percent, according to Southold Town Police reports. While there is no way to ascertain whether or not these accidents can be attributed specifically to fen-y traffic, it is safe to assume that traffic safety has become a problem and a hazard to human health which can only be exacerbated by more vehicular trips to and from the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at Orient Point. (viii) The Cross Sound Ferry has already substantially changed the use of the Orient site as a recreational resource. Route 25, which formerly served as access to the beach by Orient res/dents for recreation and other uses m addition to the ferry is now monopolized by the ferry use alone. We oppose other changes in use which would result from the completion of the proposed site plan. With reference to section 617.7(iv), we reiterate that changing an R- 80 zoned parcel to a parking lot represents a substantial change of use and intensity of use. Similarly, we underline our argument regardin se ' will m no way have the capaci~,, to ............ [g ctmn 617. 7(iii): the R-80 n~,~ ~-~ °Ul~IOUlI ltS existing state as a t-_:,. , _ ~ .... Area'flit is used as an inter-state parking facility. ~uucal t~nviro~nental We also seriously question Cross Sound Ferry's designation of/ts parking facilities as a public utility use. It should be noted that the parking problems at the Orient Point ferry terminal were created by this privately-owned company and should not be alleviated by any benefits it may garner from/ts self-appointment as a public utility. -3- (ix) Obviously, the services offered by Cross Sound Ferry attract a large number ofpeople to Orient P°int, particularly throughout the summer months. Cross Sound Ferry calculates that each year it carries 900,000 passengers to and from Connecticut. A/though the company has argued that expanded parking facilities at Orient Point are intended only for the convenience of existing customers, more parking will certa/nly make it easier for this passenger load to increase. The proposed action may, therefore attract to Orient Point a l~ge number of people which, might not othervv/se come. (x) The proposed action will most likely create a material demand for other .actions which would again result in one or more of the above-mentioned negative impacts. Expansion ol~Cross Sound Ferry's facilities offers a convenient service for many ex/sting or proposed business interests in Connecticut. Foxwoods Casino, said to be the largest-casino ~n the United States, has resulted in cooperative ventures among the casino, Cross Sound Ferry and the Lon /s/an ' Flags amusement park, have als hop,, g~,~. d~ R~lroad. Another casino as w ,~ ~ ~; o .....o~at~u ~or tzonne~*; ..... · ' ell -o ,, ,,re, ut regnons ~n close proximity to the New London ferry terminal. Additionally, two Connect/cut Ind/an tribes have bought sh/p bu/Iding capacity and plan the construction ofh/gh speed ferries. We can only speculate on where these ferries are planned to be used. Economic expansion in the New London area has already placed great pressure on the Orient Terminal and the East End area. More h/gh speed ferries will require more parking, possibly at remote areas, and w/Il result in diesel busses wearing away at Route 25 and smaller local roads. Increased parking and traffic will undoubtedly require more police to enforce traffic codes. Southold Town currently has a shortage of police officers, and consequently, experiences d/fficulties issuing violations to offenders, particularly in the Orient Point area. This problem will only intensify with expanded ferry service. (xi) Each of the ten preceding points represents a ' ' the ' ' may o,, ~*,~unamy expectecI to result from the propose~P2ct~o°nn. enwronment which ,,~, .......... . . s~gmficant adverse im act Taken collectively, the potential for dramatically, a detrimental environmental impact increases (x/i) In reviewing the site plan for the proposed action, we request that you also consider all segmented improvements made to the Cross Sound Ferry property prior to and including the 1984 site plan. The unfortunate approval of additional employee parking facilities which preceded the advent of the h/gh Speed ferry last year should serve as a reminder that Cross'Sound Ferry has not been em/rely forthcoming W~th Southold Town regarding its expansion plans. FulI disclosure future growth should be expected, of the company's intentions for In conclusion, the North Fork Environmental Council supports the Planning Board's intention to issue a positive declaration on Cross Sound Ferry's site plan. The NFEC also strongly opposes the granting ora use variance on the company-controlled R, 80 parcel of land. Massive traffic problems on the East End can be mitigated ~ow with adherence to current zoning. As an interested party, we ask that you amend Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed'action to include our numerous COllcerns. Thank you. Very truly yours, John F. Wright Acting President eric. cc Southold Town Supervisor Jean W. Cochran Members, Southold Town Board Gerald Goerhinger, Zon/ng Board of Appeals County Legislator Michael Carraciolo Assemblywoman Pat Acampora Congressman Michael Forbes R/verhead Town Superv/sor James Stark C ,~; 'Z.* *~ .,,,.. *_~,.. '~ ' ' State Parkland vi o o o SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Sirs and Madams: 26 September 1996 Enclosed is a copy of a response of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) to the draft Long Environmental Assessment Form and the draft SEQR Positive Declaration on the Cross sound Ferry terminal site plan. This response was prepared and submitted to the Southold Planning Board at that Board's request. We hope that this additional information is useful to you in your agency's participation in the SEQR process. SCSR is a citizen's group formed last year to help the Town of Southold maintain its unique environment and quality of life and Particularly to respond to the potential threat to those qualities that we fear is posed by the introduction by Cross Sound Ferry of a high speed passenger only ferry to service the Connecticut gambling casino business. We currently have some 800 supporters in Southold, are represented by legal counsel and are playing an active role as public Participants in this issue. We intend to be Particularly active in the scoping process and hope that your agency will be deeply involved. Sincerely, Thor Hanson President, SCSR cc: North Fork Environmental Council SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8@80 ~ ..... - ' TO: Involved Agencies FROM: North Fork Environmental Council RE: Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application Town of Soathold DATE: September 18,'i996 The enclosed letter was sent ro the Southold Town Planning Board regarding the Cross Sound Ferry's site plan application for expanded parking facilities at Orient Point. We would like you ro understand our concerns so that your agency may address them in the scoping process for this project wherever applicable. Thank you. a non~p~oflt organlza~lor for the preservation of land, sea. air and quality of life Printed on 100% recycled paper September 13, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo!d, NY 11971 SEP 3 O 1996 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We write on behalf of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR") at your invitation to provide the Planning Board with SCSR's opinions on this issue of public importance. The following represents SCSR~s response to the draft Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF,,) and the draft SEQR Positive Declaration on the Cross Sound Ferry ("CSF") terminal site plan prepared by Charles Voorhis & Associates. We appreciate the Planning Board's adherence to NYS open government laws, which mandate the release of these documents for public comment five days in advance of the hearing. We also welcome the opportunity to express our opinions. While we feel that in general the draft LEAF and SEQR Positive Declaration reach a valid conclusionand raise many of the relevant issues, SCSR would like the final documents to address all of the relevant issues, to be complete and to give full weight to local community concerns for environmental, safety and quality of life issues. Toward that end, it is our opinion that the LEAF should be amended to fully and accurately describe what we believe are additional relevant facts. Further, the SEQR Declaration should identify long-term as well as short-term impacts of the proposed development and should consider likely cumulative effects of additional development and activities at Orient Point. For example, the SEQR Declaration should consider the pattern of progressive development by CSF at Orient Point and take into account the potential environmental impact that could result if that pattern continues into the future. We believe that a full analysis of the impact at Orient Point additionally requires the completion of the supplemental Visual Assessment Form (VAF) (referenced in Part 2, item 11 of the Long EAF entitled Project Impacts And Their Magnitude), and the Coastal Assessment Form (CAF), which is mandatory where, as here, the comprehensive site for review exists in a coastal flood plain or Critical Environmental Area (CEA). SCSR expects the Planning Board to ensure that a properly completed VAF and CAF are made available for public comment in the near future. Parts I, II and III of our comments represent our opinions with respect to Parts I, II and III of the LEAF. Part IV provides our opinion regarding the draft SEQR Positive Declaration. !/ PART I~PROJECT INFORMATION The Description of Action should contain a reference to underwater lands at the site as well as to what we believe has been a recent addition of a dock bridge and rebuilding of the dock to accommodate and to implement the high-speed passenger-only ferry service. More importantly, the project information should include reference to the ongoing intensification of use at the ferry terminal resulting from the introduction of the high-speed service. Further, in keeping with the requirement that environmental assessments look to the total impact of an overall plan and not incremental pieces, the project description would benefit from some statement by the applicant regarding its future growth plans. The project description should make clear that any growth beyond that disclosed in the current l/ We note that the instzuctions for completing the "Project Impacts,, portion of the LEAF indicate that "maybe,, answers should be considered as yes answers. -2- application would require a further application to the Planning Board and a further LEAF. A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. The vacant lot should be listed as zoned under an R-80 designation, with an existing snack bar on the eastern parcel constituting a non-conforming use. 5. We believe that the response is inconsistent with CSF's May 1984 EAF, prepared by En-Consultants, Inc., which states that 5% of the proposed project site has slopes of 10 ~ -15o. Given the proximity to protected waters and wetlands in a critical environmental area, the slope issue may be relevant to questions of runoff and aquifer pollution. 6. The response should be amended to "yes". The project is substantially contiguous to what has been referred as the Kings Highway. 7. The response should be amended to "yes". The project is substantially contiguous to and part of the Long Beach ecosystem, which has been designated a National Natural Landmark. 9. We believe that the response should contain an addendum reflecting the conclusions of the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA"). As set forth in the attached letter, dated September 4, 1996, the SCWA has concluded that: "The Orient Point and Orient areas are the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island because the land masses are relatively flat with complete underlayment of salt water .... "Groundwater samples throughout the eastern end of Southold Town have indiqated high concentrations of nitrates and residual pesticides and herbicides. Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone -3- salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. "These unfavorable groundwater conditions have influenced the SCWA policy of not seeking any well field locations in the Orient areas .... [I3t is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer. "Any intensification of land uses will be detrimental to groundwater conditions. In fact, every effort should be made to maximize open-space acquisitions and adopt strict zoning codes that will prevent any increase in activities at Orient that will impact groundwater conditions. Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the · form of hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants.,, !0. The response should be amended to "yes". The path of the ferry is over the Plum Gut, a listed CEA with major regional importance to commercial and recreational fishermen. 1!. The response should be amended to "yes". As set forth in the attached September 6, 1996 letter of Dr. Eric Lamont, a botanist who has conducted botanical studies on Long Island for twenty years: "Plans by Cross Sound Ferry Co. to increase the parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal may result in the destruction of a globally rare plant population. Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum), is known to occur from sandy beaches at nearby Orient State Park, and suitable habitat for this rare plant also occurs in the vicinity of the ferry terminal. In addition, seventeen other rare plant species have been recently (1991) documented from Orient Beach State Park; some may occur near or at the proposed development site.,, -4- We here attach a copy of the 1991 scientific article "The Vascular Flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York", referenced in Dr. Lamont's letter. NFEC biologists are currently working on a report which will further detail local flora or fauna which may be threatened by CSF's proposed action. Further, the 1991 Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program of the Town of Southold ("DLWRP,,) states that Orient Point is the home to a rare ecosystem and identifies Long Bay Beach, Orient Harbor, and Plum Gut as areas designated by the NYSDOS as significant fish and coastal wildlife habitats, hosting a variety of species that are considered "threatened,, or of "special concern,, such as the Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Diamondback Terrapin, the Eastern Hognose Snake and the Northern Harrier. In addition, the coastal areas to the Town of Southo!d-- including the site at issue-- are in the Atlantic Flyway and provide "valuable breeding and over-wintering areas for shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, raptors and perching birds.', DLWRP at 2-70. As we understand it, the proposal at issue would remove approximately 2.5 acres of open space and replace it with a parking facility. 12. The response should be amended to "yes". The Federal Wetlands map shows the presence of intertidal wetlands on the residential lot of CSF as of August 1995. 13. The response should be amended to "yes". We believe that the termination of Route 25 at the water's edge has always been a visual scenic area and is one of the only open places to view the Atlantic Ocean from the North Fork. 14. The response should be amended to "yes" for the reasons stated in our comment to question 13. 16. The response should list, in addition to Gardiners Bay, what we believe were previously interconnected Long Beach Bay tidal wetlands. -5- 19. The response should list, in addition to the Peconic Bay Estuary: (i) Orient Point; (ii) Plum Gut; and (iii) Long Bay. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I. (a) We believe.that the acreage owned by CSF also includes 4.1 underwater acres. (b) The parenthetical statement of an "approved and pre-existing parcel" should, in our view, state "approved and nonconforming parcel". 3. The response should be amended to "no". We do not understand how previously undeveloped open space that is converted into a parking lot can be said to be "reclaimed,,. 6-7. The responses should be amended to reflect the fact that, according to the NYS Department of Transportation, this must be considered a multi-phase project in light of the incremental steps of the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") variance and the developing DOT plans. !1~. The conceptual plan indicates that the existing snack bar will be removed then re-sited in the existing house on the western parcel. In our opinion that would constitute an intensification of use that will limit public access to the beach at the end of Route 25. 16. The response should be amended to "yes". We believe the increased use of the passenger-only ferry may well increase the volume of solid waste generated at the CSF site. 19. The response may need to amended to "yes" in light of the projected increase of diesel and automotive exhaust that may be associated with the increased use of the passenger- only ferry. -6- 20. The response should be amended to "yes". The current PA system of the Cross Sound Ferry may already exceed acceptable ambient noise levels. 22. CSF's May 1984 EAF states that the pumping capacity of the CSF wells is 15.6 gal/min. 23. CSF's May 1984 EAF indicated anticipated water usage of 2250 gallons in 1984 with a peak capacity of 22,500 day. 25. We believe that approvals are required from the DOS, FEMA, and ACOE because the project impacts federally protected wetlands and underwater areas. C. ZONING AND PLANNINg INFORMATIQb 1. The project may additionally require approval for any present non-conforming use of the snack bar lot. 6. The response should be amended to "no". The master plan, the CEA listing, and Southolds, draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program all appear to support the proposition that development and new nonconforming uses at Orient Point should be severely restricted. 8. The response should be amended to "no". In our opinion, the proposed project is incompatible with the residential and preservation land zoning in effect within a quarter-mile radius. 10. The response in our view should be amended to "yes". As noted above, the Suffolk County Water Authority has concluded that "Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. Since the cost of Ia public water supply] system would be extraordinary due to existing high nitrates and other contaminants and the narrow band of fresh water constantly -7- threatened with salt upconing, the SCWA believes it would be best not to provide a public water supply at this time. But, to support this policy, it is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer.,, SCSR submits that the proposed project may result in substantially increased pumping of fresh water and may ultimately require the installation of an "extraordinarily,, expensive public water supply. If that were to occur, the project may require the authorization of water districts. 11. The response should in our view be amended to "yes", because the increased volume of traffic and passengers that may result from the project could require increased fire and police protection. 12. Although question 12 has been left unanswered, it is our opinion that the response should be "yes" to reflect the generation of significant new traffic by passengers utilizing the high-speed passenger-only ferry. PART II-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUD~i IMPACT ON LAND !. Although the LEAF identifies a potential large impact from construction on slopes of 15% or greater, the LEAF fails to identify whether or not the impact can be mitigated by a project change. SCSR respectfully notes that the slopes on the residential/ snack bar lot originally had inclines greater than 15% but those inclines appear to have been leveled. IMPACT ON WATER 3. Although the LEAF identifies a potential large impact from the construction on the Peconic Estuary and Orient Point, the LEAF fails to identify impact on the adjacent -8- protected CEA areas of Plum Gut and Long Beach Bay and fails to state whether or not the impact can be mitigated by a project change. 5. Although the LEAF identifies small to moderate impacts on surface and groundwater quality from discharges, stormwater/ construction permits, and possible sanitary uses, the LEAF fails to identify the potential large impacts from groundwater contamination that may result from the following: (i) increased vehicular traffic contributing to groundwater pollution in the form of additive emissions, including hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants (as identified in the attached September 4, 1996 letter of the SWSA); (ii) increased pumpage of water to serve the increased number of passengers, threatening to upcone salt and cause the permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer (as identified in the attached September 4, 1996 letter of the SWSA); ~(iii) increasing parking of automobiles situated in the 100 year floodplain, threatening a discharge of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel into.the waterways in the event of storms, hurricanes or other flooding. IMPACT ON AIR 7. We believe that the identified increase in on-site and off-site vehicle use, includfng increased passenger car, bus, and ferryboat traffic, may have a potential large impact on local and regional air quality. IMPACT QN PLANTS AND ANIMALR 8-9. The response to both should be amended to "yes". As set forth in our comments to the response to question 11 of Part I, threatened species which may be affected by the planned construction include the Seabeach Knotweed and the Northern Harrier--an effect which is by definition a Potential Large Impact. Moreover, the proposed action may substantially interfere with the ecosystems at Orient Point, Long Bay Beach, and Plum Gut, affecting other species that -9- are classified as "threatened,, or of "special concern,,, namely the Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Eastern Hognose snake and Diamondback Terrapin. There may also be an impact on the regionally important fishing, shellfish, and hatchery areas adjacent to the ferry site. SCSR respectfully brings to the attention of the Planning Board the fact that the 1993 study of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, conducted pursuant to County legislation reviewing over 30 Long Island ferry studies, confirmed a 1981 prediction that the Orient Point terminal was of finite capacity and, due to its location in a fragile CEA, the potential damage to the environment should preclude any expansion at the CSF site. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCEs: !1. We believe that the visual impact of the size and location of CSF's proposed parking lot and lighting systems requires the completion of the supplemental Visual EAF referenced in this section. IMPA T T I ~_~ AR HAEOLO ICAL RESOURCES 12. The response should be amended to "yes',. Orient Point has long been a historic destination for local tourists separate and apart from any ferry activity. The DOT administers a state land grant from 1897 that was created to insure a separate wharf public use. This grant included a still applicable covenant for a separate roadway named "Dock Road". It exists on maps east of the historic Kings Highway. Moreover, the state road of Route 25 has existed in its entirety since postal route surveys were completed in the 1790s. This is evidenced by the stone road marker noting "New Suffolk-30 miles" located at the south-western end of the Route 25 extension. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIOb~ -!0- 13. The response should be amended to "yes". The end of Route 25 has always been a visual scenic destination where local residents and tourists visit. It is one of the only places to see out to the Atlantic Ocean from the North Fork and it also serves as a strolling and bathing beach complemented by a refreshment stand. The neighboring CSF expansion may interfere with or discourage this long- established use. In addition, traffic congestion in general threatens to discourage local tourism. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. (a) The response should be amended to identify a Potential Large Impact from the alteration of present patterns of movement of people. The end of Route 25 has always been a scenic destination for tourists and scenic DOT parking spaces have been in place from at least the 1940s. CSF's expansions may alter this long-established local tourism use. (b) The response should be amended to identify a Potential Large Impact from major traffic problems. CSF's introduction of a high speed ferry service may increase the amount of vehicular traffic along Route 25 to Orient Point. A comprehensive and impartial town-wide traffic study is urgently required to assess the full impact--both present and future--of CSF's proposed expansion. We believe that such a study must coincide with and inform the SEQR process. (c) The LEAF does not specify the nature of the Potential Large Impact identified in 14. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTE 16. This section should also reference any planned P.A systems at the ferry terminal. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTII -1!- 17. The response should be amended to "yes". The increase in the number of cars that may be stationed on the flood plain will increase the risk of oil, gas, and other chemical leakage into the groundwater. The risk is especially high in the case of hurricane, flooding or other inclement weather conditions. In addition, the intensity of vehicular traffic may threaten public safety by increasing the risk of accidents, including accidents with pedestrians or cyclists. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY 18. The LEAF identifies a Potential Large Impact from a change in density of land use but fails to identify whether the impact can be mitigated by a project change. SCSR respectfully submits that the impact lies not merely in increased density of use but also obstruction of public access to the beach areas and scenic vistas lying at the end of Route 25--one of the few areas in the North Forth permitting an open view of the Atlantic Ocean and one regularly used by the local community as well as seasonal tourists. .PART III -- EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT~: SCSR respectfully notes that the LEAF lacks the required evaluation of impacts for each of the potentially large impacts identified in Part II. As the LEAF is in this respect fundamentally inadequate, SCSR reserves its right to publicly comment on Part III until the draft LEAF contains a full and complete evaluation of the importance of impacts as mandated by law. -12- PART IV -- DRAFT The SEQR Positive Declaration should in our opinion reference the following specific reasons supporting the Positive Declaration in addition to those identified in the draft: (i) The proposed action may threaten the contamination or depletion of the fragile Orient Point acquifer, the only source of potable water for the community. (ii) The proposed action may require the creation of an expensive public water supply and may necessitate the creation of new water districts. (iii) The proposed action may significantly increase non-point source pollution of surface and groundwaters. (iv) The proposed action may adversely affect threatened or rare species in the fragile, tidal- wetlands ecosystem, including the Seabeach Knotweed, Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Diamondback Terrapin, the Eastern Hognose Snake and the Northern Harrier. (v) The proposed action may adversely impact fisheries, shellfish, and hatcheries in the marine environment at or adjacent to Orient Point site or the adjacent waters. (vi) The proposed action may impair the environmental characteristics of the Plum Gut and Long Bay CEAs. (vii) The proposed action may result in the loss of public parking and beach access at the end of Route 25, rendering historically scenic views of the Atlantic Ocean inaccessible. (viii) The proposed action may severely limit or preclude future public access to the New York DOT tandlease options. -13 - Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. -14 - HAROLD DOANE WATSON 700 Plum Island Lane Orient Point, NY 11957 OP 516-3234862 NYC_2t2-420-0547 FA_,'< 212-420-0793 E-MAIL 75260.3157@Compuserve. Corn John Hoizapfel, Chairman and Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold June 10, 1996 Dea} John Holzapfe! and Town Trustees, I am writing to provide you with my research into some of the environmental, land-use, and site- plan issues concerning the Cross Sound Ferry Terminal at Orient Point in Southold, New York. Changes to the site, including intensity- of use, have set in motion the SEQRA process which I strongly support. What concerns me is that examination of official materials reveal that previously a serious lack of careful attention by government representatives has limited opportunities of the local communities concerns being addressed and prevented informed decisions. While this particular document is directed to, and asks specific questions of, the New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation, your reading should confirm that these specific questions have implications that need to be restated with-in each responsible agency. I am a concerned citizen who is not offering the technical conclusions of a land-use professional. This stated, I am aiso the owner of a growing communications technology business. I know that in businesses, my long-term success will live-or-die by how well I design and support my business plan. Using my understanding of this process for comparison, my review of previous officiai action at the ferry, terminai sire, shows an un-coordinated effort to implement safeguards. These same efforts have been severely compromised by an what almost seems to be a co-ordinate ignorance of the same t 1 ' safeguards, t ask for your support to insure that prior o undertaking the new SEQRA, these safeguards, designed to protect the local environment and community, must be carefully re- examined by ail parries involved. Page 2 My conclusion is that this site requires on-going special management. The effects of past actions may best be judged the continuing debate. Negative environmental and quaiitT- of- life results have occurred not for lack of valid regulations, but from legal requirements that have been ignored, or not given serious consideration of their intended support of the public good. I have been appealing for years for a careful examination of ail existing regulations as relates to the Cross Sound Ferry Terminal, by officials in Southold Town, Suffolk County, New York State and the Federal Government. Each body has a mandate for stewardship of the local environment and community of Orient Point. This mandate includes the responsibility to work together in the public arena, for the public welfare, with open public communications. I am desirous of achie¼ng a true consensus of where Orient Point is headed, and a true consensus of what aspects to encourage or discourage. I know that this is achievable with a serious application of the SEQRA process. Past approaches that consisted of un-coordinated efforts have ignored information, and not achieved a public co-ordinate examination of the ferry terminal site. A sustainable long- term solution for Orient Point can only occur when all inter-agency missions, policy and specific regulations are fully reviewed. A consensus based on a complete, responsible search and discovery of all of the facts is needed to encourage a common understanding and a willingness for compromise aker all of the issues are disclosed. I welcome your comments and hope that you will become a supporter to a full hearing in determining the future of Orient Point. Please feel free to call me with comments or questions. [Please distribute this to associates.] Sinc ely, ?"~PIarold D. W~on / D:IWPDOCS\DECCVR05.WI?D HAROLD DOANE WATSON 700 Plum Island Lane Orient Point, NY 1 !957 OP 516-~_o-~862 NYC 212-420-0547 FAX 212-420-0793 E-MAIL 7 ' ' 5260..~ i 27~Compuserve. Corn May ~3. 1996 ~. Louis A. Chmrmla, Regional Manager~ Bureau of Marine Habitat Pmtecnon~ New York State Depa~ment -- of Environmental Conse~ation Building 40- SU~, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Dear Mr. Chiarella, i have received a copy of the results of your investigation of Cross Sound Ferry (CSF) operations at Orient Point in Southold, New York. I appreciate your timely response to our lengthy conversation the prior week, but your letter i~maores mention of several of our major discussion points that you said would be answered by your site-visit. As I had suggested, a complete and accurate picture on which to base a judgment should include the historical record of public stewardship. Your investigation did not include any reference to the greater permanent impact of specific CSF actions that we discussed. My inquiry still is open. Your review stated that these actions are undertaken within DEC permits. Shouldn't these DEC permits, limited, in-scope to fauor needs of commerce, equally insure that their cumulatiYe effects will not cause the incremental erosion of the intended land-use limits created by the century-long stewardship of Orient Point? This response to your letter includes a summary of my research to date. I am also forwarding this same document to Southold Town officials, and the Department of State for their o;vn jurisdictional response to my questions. REQUEST FOR REVIEW Page 2 My primary request was for a confirmation of the scope of each open DEC permit within the &~wroved 1984 ferry terminal site, and the apIplicability of those DEC permits covering actions on the two eastern ]parcels-- one with a non-conforming use and the other a residentially zoned parcel. My specific request was for an investigation into the official status and current use of the southerly portion of these easterly]parcels, located between the coastline and a ]parallel dirt road that demar/cs a small earth bluff. This bluff is a rare feature on the bavside coastal area. Both of these features are well documented in governmlnt records. It is my belief, we speciflcically discussed, that a closer re-examination Will show these original features constitute the historical benchmark for the high water mark, as well as the defining border of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area outlining the landward limit of Natural Protective Features Zone ]protection. rfthe information I present continues to be neglected in determining official rulings, events now occurring wilt through default permanently alter Southold's environment. Already, the non-conforming parcel include significant alteration since 1992. On the larger residential parcel, original land features existed undisturbed until early this year. As a result of increased operation and the high- speed passenger ferry, CSF has undertaken related maintenance and rebuilding activity that, if accepted, will alter this area forever. Some might argue that NOT undertaking these activities could be considered a potential hardship limiting CSF expansion. Realistically, regardless of any subsequentl restrictions, undertaking these activities, without first determining full legal complimnce, is surely a legal self-inflicted hardship of CSF's own making. DOCU2vlENTATION Page 3 As my own research indicates, a clear chronology of Southold boundaries, topography, vegetation and elevation can be established for all of the parcels that make up this contiguous site, both long before and after CSF action. I would hope ~hat your carefuz revzew of this information will change your current opinion of conditions at this site. Based on observations, records discovery and conversations with numerous N~YS and Town officials, ~ hope to give you a clearer undbrstanding of how your determination will critically affect the future. The primary documents I reference are listed below: Al/are available of~ciallv New or pertinent close-up details are ncluded as enclosures. (1) NYS Office of General Services- Patent Land Grant of 1893 and map (2) Detail of Oysterponds Museum aerial phOtograph dated 1949 (3) US Geological Survey Map dated 1954 (4) FEMA map of flood plain elevations date unknown (5) NYS Coastal Erosion Map dated 1988, drawn on ]974 map corresponding closely to the DEC baseline year, (6) Detail of Southotd Town Aerial photography map dated 1989 (7) Cross Sound Ferry terminal site-plan dated 1984 (7) National Wetlands Inventory Map dated 8/28/95 (8) Photographic records taken by myself on-site in December i995 and ' January i996. (9) CSF site-plan map submission dated November 9, 1995 (10 CSF pictures with preliminary Southotd site-plan of March 1996. (11)CSF site-plan map re-submission dated April 8, i996 N-YS PA i'I~NT LAND GRANT Page 4 A short history of the specific site establishes that the physical ferry terminal operations have officially been limited to the western side of the Route 25 Extension. My research through the NYS Of Sce of General Services shows that an enforceable, legal 1893 NYS Patent Land Grant partially defines the operation of the western site. This grant includes four acres of underwater 1ands, former wetlands and beach. Closer examination also reveals that this grant ofpublic lands extends up to the high water mark as recorded. _The original NYS grant was required to permit special, but limited, actions including filling and dredging of wetlands/ocean bottom in the construction of a commercial wharf. This grant is a remarkable example of the historical establishment !and-use principles. NYS early land-use planning principles were applied here to insure that ferry operations would be available and contained on-site. During the 1940s, inclusive of other patents, NYS accepted this patent as completed. Based on NYS law, this essentially pants 95% of rights to commercial ownership of the original constructed area, but decrees that the then undeYetoped portions reflect 95%public ownership, durisdicn'on is not clear to me, but may be the part of the confusion, along with the l2ossibly overlapping Andros Patent r~ghts, that 7 have encountered when speak~'ng to New Fork State and Southold Town officials? BENCHMARKS OF BOU~-DAPdES AND ZONES Page 5 This land grant establishes irs northern boundary as the then high-water mark on the Patent. (See patent map.) Today this same high-water mark boundary still extends into the eastern parcels as the Coastal Erosion Hazard 'Area. In viewing the Orient Aerial Photograph of i 949, this coastal zone exists with visible shore vegetation, shore depression, and small bluff with dirt road. As recent as August 1995, the National Wetlands Inventory maps define the areas southeast of this Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as" marine-intertidal wetlands ", "comprising unconsolidated shore with sand", while "subject to zrregular tidal flooding': Doesn't this description require protection by DEC and SouthoJd Trustees ? To the north of the Grant land above the high-water mark, an 18 foot-wide access road called Dock Road was included as parr of this gram to guarantee access and. accommodate local ferry commerce. ( See FEMA map.) The separate but parallel Route 25 Extension had already existed for at least a century as confirmed by observing its own historical stone postal mite marker. (I have not found any map listing this historical final mile marker.) Located just East of the Route 25 Extension, Dock Road exists as part of the DEC baseline from 1974 through 1984. Do you ]mow of any official ruling that changes this aspect of a still enforceable ,~atent ? Page 6 PLANNm~D SEPAKATION OF PUBLIC AND COfVh-MERCI~ TRAFFIC After 1984, the Dock Road still exists, but as the exit traffic lane on the approved 1984 ferry terminal rebuild, as well as many other maps. It is currently in use by CSF for parking and additional staging, which t believe does not conform to the approved site-plan or restrictions in the patent and deed. After completion of the terminal. CSF usurped private land to create a shortcut that directed traffic off this original road and directly onto the Route 25 Extension. Southotd has records of e~omplaints from the property owner to confirm this. Then in 1990, CSF purchased this small parallel small strip of land squeezed in between Dock Road and the Route 25 Extension. To my'knowledge, no approvals were sought or given for this important change, and this parcel is still unlisted on any site-plan. Does not the surrender of intended use of Dock Road as the public's primary access and taking the unapproved use of the Route 25 Extension allow or require lawful modo-~cation of the Patent Land Grant as well as a site- plan modification? This initial use by CSF clearly conflicted with adjoining land ownership rights. its continued use still contradicts the land-use evidence. The historical documented facts show that for nearly a century, all ferry commerce was designed to be conducted within a contained commercial area. in particular, this was intended to prevent commercial ferry use from impacting local tourism on the Route 25 Extension. The purchase of this strip of real estate should not constitute an automatic acceptance of the change of property use. A lack of enforcement has had profound effect, and will soon cause permanent impact, on all activities to the east. The fact is that the Route 25 Extension and the areas to the east have always ~nctioned as a primary scenic public destination for Southotd Town. trW~ere do the DEC flermits recognize this important distinction in determining the impact of acrzons, ffermitted or otherwise? Shouldn't DEC oversight require informing the NYS DOT? Page 7 THE SCENIC POINT The area ro the east of the Route 25 Extension is well loved and accepted by Southold citizens and local tourists as a scenic destination. This is confirmed in Southold's Master Plan and inventory of significant vistas. "The Point" provides public access to scenic views of Plum Island and the bay. Early official land planning recognition was given by the NYS DOTthat resulted in support of thi s area. This recognition includes, to this day, short-term NYS DOT parking for thi~ public. To further confirm the intended separation of the eastern land, a~tditional space was allocated by the DOT for a required motorist mm-around area at the end of Route 25-- a requirement ti2at was and remains incompatible with ferry traffic exiting onto the Route 25 Extension.. North of this scenic view, a privately operated snack bar has se.wed locals and tourists for at least half-a-century. The parcel's current snack bar, now owned by CSF, replaced a hot dog stand, circa 1930, that advertised its scenic public views. I differentiate the historical public from guests of the then operating Orient Point Hotel, as the current public must also be differentiated from the commercial patrons of CSF. (See US Geological Survey Map and ORIENT aerial photograph.) tn the 1984 terminal rebuild on the western parcel, the CSF EiS stated use of this lot would continue as a Snack Bar, with limited short-term parking for these patrons. All of the official changes that have taken place over the last century have continued support for this public vista. Are subsequent actions orpermits required to give weight to the local community's continued historical use as well as statements in a site-plan EIS? Page 8 DREDGE SPOILS UTILIZATION ON NON-CON-FORMING LAN-D Compounding the dismay of local Southold citizens, the incremental usurping of this vista began in the late 1980s, with the CSF's stockpiling of dredge spoils on the snack bar property that often blocked these long established scenic public views in Southold. Have results of CSF actions in using dredge spoils to change a welt-established local use Forced the DEC ro ignore its mandate of balancing the needs of commerce with j2reservation of public access ro vistas? Based on my inspection of Aerial Photo~'aphy Maps, in recent vears dredge spoils have been stored at the unimproved southern and eastern edges of the non- conforming snack-bar property. I must assume this work was done under a DEC general maintenance permit that the DEC Duty Analyst noted expired in 1992. Did this maintenance ,permit allow spoils intended for upland storage to be used for the permanent alteration of the features and elevation of the southerly portion of the snack-bar parcel? ~Zhat became of DEC enforcement of the requirement that spoils be removed and [and restored to orzginal conditions as exz~ted in your baseline year of 1972 and after? If permanent, why weren't t,he results of this action listed in the scope of maintenance permits? Page 9 ALTEtLA_TION OF RESIDENTIAL LAND WITH DP_EDGE SPOILS In 1990 the CSF began using an additional adjoining eastern parcel, under a DEC permit, to "place dredge spoils for storage upland." Upland means north of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. This boundary is located on maps near an un- named dirt road on this adjacent residential property. Visible on the i893 Patent Land Grant map and later documents, this dirt road still runs from near the northeast grant marker through both present day eastern parcels to the end of Orient Point. A small earthen bluff, a rare feature on the bayside coastal area exists to the immediate south.. It is my belief, as we specificically discussed, that a closer re-examination will show these original features constitute the historical benchmark for the high water mark, as well as the defining border of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area outlining the landward limit of Natural Protective Features Zone protec~on. Now the dredge spoils were placed on this residential parcel. This is property owned by personal family members of CSF owner, J Wronowski. It is not owned by the corporate entity of Cross Sound Ferry. This former farmland is zoned R-80 residential. Southold Town has not issued a variance to re-zone this parcel Marine-Il, or combine it into the site-plan of the terminal property. Southold officials requested in 1990 that CSF submit a site-plan, requiring zoning changes for using this area for .dredge spoil storage. To date, only a preliminary plan has been filed. NOTE: that your letter refers-- incorrectly-- to both tots as "Dastkrn parcels of the Ferry property." ! assume the above action took place under the two stated DEC maintenance dredge permits that expired in 1992 and on December 31, 1995. Do DEC regulations allow dredge spoils to be stored off-site on the residentially zoned, former farmland described above? Jf so how can you say that there have never been any DEC ]vermit violations by CSF? Page i0 A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OPERATION In November 1994, the CSF applied for and received approval for a new 69 car capacity parking lot to the west of the existing terminal. A DEC permit also was issued for the same lot that your letter states is work comr~leted. The filing declared this space to be for employee and overflow parking. Southold assumed this would allow CSF to clear-up the problems associated with your described "eastern parcels." Ail recent history has proved this wrong. Did the new DEC Permit issued for this action qualify any of this work as needed to correct conditions elsewhere on-site? Jr, as Southold Town determined in withhoiding finai approval on this lot. CSF did not disc Jose their intended use of this lot as accommodations for new increased operations of the High-Speed Ferry, how can the DEC consider this parking lot permit both completed and in compliance? UNRESOLVED SITE-PLAN AND MULTIPLE PARCELS CSF introduced its high-speed passenger ferry in July 1995, and then would not agree to come in for a full site-plan review for all its parcels, causing Southold Town to file for an injunction. The outcome is still pending in the courts. At presem, the result is traffic conditions that can become unsafe with the smallest of uncontrolled and unanticipated increases. Our community sees that the environment and qualiW of life have begun to suffer permanent harm. How can we help the DEC recogmze that small permitted actions are being used and extended to implement announced CSF business plans, larger in scope than approved for this site, that g*,taranree serious impact? The DEC permit for dock improvements, approved in February, and amended in May of t 995, allowed dredging and rebuilding actions that resulted in a steel bridge-ramp for entrance to this contested high-speed fen'y. CSF built a parking lot, added a bridge on its dock, and added a high speed ferry~ without Southotd Town approvals for any oftthese actions, other than the "employee/overflow parking tot." Yes, the permitted actions occuring prior to Southold determination could be stated to have been in compliance. The DEC position after the announced determination, should have questioned continuing these DEC pemdts. In particular, it was these peri;fits that allowed CSF to continue to implement actions that thwarted Southotd Town's determination that CSF consent to full legal compliance of both the high-speed ferry introduction and a full site-plan review. Can ,knowledge of pending legal action, combined with continued work this spring on complete rebuilding of the high-speed dock truly be said to be in full compliance? Can you really state that all other recent permits are also in full compliance? Page 12 COMPLIANCE WITH UNAUTHORIZED HIGH-SPEED FERRY OPERATION By July 1995, al! available land within the viciniw of the ferry terminal was subject to parking, whether permitted or not. This use was due to combined increased regular ferry passengers and the new passenger-only higA2-speed ferry operations. Illegal parking included areas between the dredge spoils on the residential lot. Many police complaints were filed, resulting in a temporary ceasing of illegal parking on this parcel. Along with this violation, Southotd Town's additional complaints record that the CSF continued to store spoils on this re;sidential lot until the end of t995. See copies o£ JUX. Y !995 photographs taken bv me. Did the DEC permit allow this continued upland spoils placement outside of legal Southold Town regulation, and does the DEC still consider CSF in compliance at that time? Zf Southold's complaint is valid, why did you. _Ur. Chiarella. tell me in our original conversation that the CSF has always been in full compliance on all its permits? Page 13 1996 ACTIONS UP TO NLARCH PRELLMINARY SITE-PLAN By the end of December 1995, CSF had moved the remaining spoils from the upland areas to the southern area of this residential parcel, distinguished separately on ail official maps. I assume this action was a CSF effo~ to clear-up Southold Town's complaint ofunapproved dredge spoils storage on unapproved land. The spoils were moved from the upland onto an area that does not conform to any DEC permit definition specified as upland storage. As t stated earlier, this is an established Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, listed on o£ficiai maps, setting the DEC baseline. This material was placed within this zone in a traditional dike-and-fill method. The center of this ring of spoils was then filled in with NEW spoils that resulted from NrEW dredging from maintenance and in preparation for dock replacement and rebuilding of the high-speed ferry slip. Documents and observation show the area's etevation prior to this thrill is estimated to be six or more feet below the upland elevation in this zone. I observed and photographed this action. (See photocopies and pre-1995 elevation maps.) By the New Year, this area had changed visibly. During this period I notified the DEC, and the Town that this action was occurring, but was told that this was only permitted maintenance. Did the specific DEC permit, that expired December 31, J995, allow CSF to continue to allow dredge spoils to be stored off-site of the ferry terminal? On residentially zoned R-80 land? When CSF moved the remaining spoils at the end of the year, did the same permit allow new placement as thrill in an area that federal, stare and town documents confirm is a coastal zone requiring protection? 1996 ACTIONS IN DOCK REBUILDING PRIOR TO _NEW SITE APPROVALS Between December i995 and March 1996, CSF began excavation and dredging around the eastern high-speed ferry slip in preparation for the rebuilding which continued until May 1996. The rebuilding under a February 1995 permit was still in progress on your visit as you stated. This permit clearly states as a spedial condition that "any debris or excess materials from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area (upland) and removed to an approved upland area for disposal. No debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or protected buffer areas." In your letter your mention this, but the actual area of placement was not an upland area in February 1995. It could only be considered as upland after the new' infill elevation was created by CSF using these dredge spoils bv CSF in clear violation of DEC permit and Southold Town determination of no work on site pending legal determination of site-plan. How can the DEC issue a dock permit, &t2ecifying spec~c upland storage and removal of spoits and debris in February J995, further amend it in May t995, and at the same rime specify "upland placement" in an area that was clearly not upland in 1995 or i9967 1996 "PRELIMINARY" SITE-PLAN SLrBMITTED Page 1996 "PRELIN~FNARY" SITE-PLAN SUBMITTED In March 1996, after repeated delays and threat of legal injunction by Southold Town arising out of the CSF's launch of its passenger-only high speed ferry, CSF submitted a preliminary sire p lan. This document is available from Southold Town. It does nor show any wetlands setbacks or for that matter even the Coastal Erosion Hazard Are~. It shows that CSF has now used DEC permitted dredge spoils ro infill the whole of the southern portion of"eastern parcels of the ferry? properz?./', as you incorrectly describe them, prior to legal approvals. Their submitted documem seeks approval for "grandfathered actions", without surrendering ro Southold authority to regulate specific actions, including the high speed ferry, and the eastern Snack bar non-conforming use. It also requests that CSF be allowed ro join both eastern properties into a four hundred plus car parking lot. The important note in this CSF submission is their stated incorporation of all of the unapproved incremental site build-out that has occurred. I believe, having reviewed all of the information available, that these actions include: not implementing an approved rerminal site plan, usurping private land and then an established public scenic vista, infitl and damage of protected inter-tidal wetlands within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and continued non-conforming land use and expected use of R-80 property outside of local planning laws. In the CSF resubmission in April, it added a note that Southold required property- tine setbacks upland. The only other significant change was the noted question as to determination of wetlands setback, from the existing high-tide mark. Do the CSF and the DEC believe that the !and buildup between the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and the coast comprising the ~rntertidat ?~etlands, are from natural or artificial accretion that has taken place during the last three months, or is it from 1984, or maybe from 19727 Documentation shows it to be natural and has existed in its pre-J996 state for at least 50 years. Page 16 THE WHOLE SITE In April, after my complaints to the DEC, Richard MacMurray President of Cross Sound Ferry, called me to inform me that "we have a pem~it for the whole site." [ ask again what defines "the whole site"? W'hen did the infilled area become to be considered "a DEC regulated adjacent area';that is now "permitted to be utilized for uptand dredge storage material? How can you reconcile your statement that "there are no violations of the Tidal Wetlands Act at this facility" with the fact that the CSF also recently applied for a Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit? If you examine the photos submitted with their site-plan, you will see clearly that infill actions have occurred in the coastal zone established as a wetlands intertidal area marked to the north by a bluff defining the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Now, the concrete and metal debris is being added on top of this fill. Will this debris AND THE INFJLL be required to be removed and restored? CSF stated in their site-plan submission that the terrain and access to surrounding property' required equivelant base-mapping using aerial photogramemetric methods to accurately determine conditions including elevations. I must assume the above is required for the CSF to now depict a level terrain, and to suggest that no wetland areas now exist. This is based on examination of end-of-March photos CSF submitted with its site-plan. These photos depict a level terrain. They include complete infill of all areas in dispute, along with no "upland" spoils. Your statements lend support to the presented site-plan as fact, ignoring the reality presented in other records. [ assume current work at the ferry terminal site is covered in the Iatest permit for dock replacement expiring in 1997 and a permit for general maintenance expiring in ]999. Should they have been allowed to be executed this year, a year in which, unapproved high speed ferry use and all of the legal-status issues of multiple CSF actions are undecided? Page 17 THE "POINT" OF STEWARDSHIP CSF informed the Connecticut DOT in November 1995 that their market potential has changed the scope of its operations. CSF expects Connecticut casino gambling to create a market for six million cross-sound passengers. Orient Point now has 750,000 passengers, nearly at the site-capacity of just over one million established by the t981 NYS Long Island Ferry Study. To insure a balanced solution all parties need to accept full disclosure of the facts and agree to work together. As citizens of the same regzon, we need your department and the DEC ro assume its responsibility as the leader in advocacy for the conservation of this special Jimited ecosystem. If not, in the near future, will the DEC's final action be ro tell the public that any environmental conservation solution for Orient Point and Southold has past? I thank you for your attention. My observation of the site is clear. As a concerned Orient Point resident, I have learned to view this small area as a microcosm of the complex issues of conservation affecting our larger environment. This document reflects my contribution to a better understanding of this history. I hope that it helps to enable a consensus for a real solution to this growing problem. I offer my continued assistance in any way possible. Please feel bee to call with your response or questions. Sincerely, Harold D. Watson cc: Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board Southold Town Attorney Southold Planr&ng Board Southotd Zoning Board of Appeals NY Deaartment of State Southold Citizens for Safe Roads ~ MAY--l~--96 TUE 85 :~2 P' REG1 BMHP NYSBEC 5 444 029? P. 01 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY~ Stony Bro°k, New York 1 I'/90-2366 Phone (510! ~.-029~ ~ Fax # (516) 444-0297 M~chael D. Zagata Commissioner May 10, I996 Mr. Albert Kmpski, President Town of Southold Trustees P~O. ]aox 1179 Sbuthold, NY 11971 ' At Dear Mr. K~ski: This letter is to kfform you of the results of my inYestigation of violations alleged by Mr. Harold Watson concerning the Cross Sound Ferry. I inspected the site on May 3, t996 to determine if any vielations of the NYS Tidal - Wetlands Act were occurring at the ferry terminal. At that time, only work on the steel pier was in progress. That work is covered under permit 14738-1027/00002~0 which expires 2/28/97. Ail debris from this project must be removed from the NYSDEC regulated adjacent area upon completion of the project. The debris is currently being stock piled in the area permitted to be utilized for upland dredge material storage. The dredge material is author[zed as currently exists on the eastern parcels of the Ferry prope.~y, This activity was authorized under permit !0-88-1164 which expked on 12/31/95. Excess material is being utilized by NYS Parks to nourish the beach and dunes along Orient State Park. The Ferry was also authorized to construct the partd~ tot on the western parcel under permit I4738-1027/00001-0. This work has been completed. A perm/t also exists for mai~tenacne of'the entire facility 10-844)257 wb/ch expires 7/3t/99. t did not find any permit non-compliance or violations of the Tidal Wetlands Act at this facility. Sincerely, Louis A Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection Charles Hamilton Mr. Harold Watson 04/16/96 12:49 8860 594 3028 CT DOT NE 2 ~002 Reft Ruth presented Alternative 8, rail from 1-95 Westerly to Fox-woods, paired with a Route 2A by-pa~. This alternative w~s originally presented as just 1-95 to Foxwoods, but Ruth proposed adding the link to Westerly back in, based on the ¢onvez~at/on eaxlier th the meet/or about the knportance of connection to Amtrak. Ruth stated that the ¢ormeedan between casinos would be made with shuttle buses over the new Route 2A by-pa~. Ruth stated that the idea behind breaking Alternative l I into its compcment pieces was to te~t each link separately, then to test it all together_ Marcia Vlaun asked i~ these ~mnenis could be btmwa~ irst, and then rail. RuSk re,ended ~hat they could, with the exception of the Hew England Central ~ which would not be canver~ed to a busway, then converted back to rail. Marcia suggested addLng a Route 24. by-pass m Alternative 10, New England Central Rail She stated that she want, ed to hear ~on on a northern vs. a southern by-pass. Brace Garrett suggested carrying both forwaxd in the study. At th/s point, the MAC took a break ~r dinner. When the MAC zeconvened, Edith Netter introduced Phil Michalowski from the Cross Som'td Ferry Company. ~ came m rite MAC meeting to talk about the Crc~s Sound F~a-~"$ role in fransportation issue~ in the region, how its service aHect, Foxwoods, and what its bature plans are. .C.ross Sound Ferry Service Phil stated that the ferry operates [ram New London to Orient Poln~ on Lon$ Island, New York. Phil stated that there i~ a three million person market on each end of Lke trip. The ierry carried $~0~000 ' passen§er vehicles last year~ and al~tost one million p~ssenge.~. Phil s~ted that the ~gh-sp ~eed ferry service has changed the complexion of the demand for service by providing a broader marke~ than jus~ people who wa-u~ or need to bring their auto,mobiles an the ~rip. Ph/1 estimated the impact on Route 2 to be a reduction of 70,000 people using the road -qr~ce ~une 1995. These trips were diver~ed to mass transi~ instead. The service cart/es appmx/,mately 4,000 people per week Pi~ ~.ted that the Cross Sound Ferry is entirely privately Financed. Fuh~re ferry improvement pisr~ include: a terminal in Montauk, Long Island, possible termin~ in other Long Island towns that Nrve expressed interest and new technologies for a newer m~d ~aster fleet. Phil stated that i/anyone had questions, he could be reached at (203) 248-6300. b.g!~eement on Alt~mafive~ Ruth Bo~signore stated that Altemat/ve 1/s the no-bu/ld alternative. It must be cart/ed forward i~ the MIS and EIS processes. That 1eaves 1t alternatives for the MAC to select for ~ second-level screening. Ruth stated that/n pra~m~ng each alternative, she would focus on what problems the alternative was meant to te~t or solve. Ruth stared that the e~rly alternatives deal with roadway improvements designed to address future demands. ~: Ruth statccI ttmt Altermtive 2 would widest Route 2 to ~ lanes Ix-om 1-95 to Fox'wood% and would tie into the section helng widened by the Pequots. The altemat/ve also proposes a southern by-pass of Route 2A. The support/rig components include mul~nodal and tmmc management impmvement~ to round out the system. Ruth ~tated that the ~ lanes on Route 2 could be four general purpose travel lanes, or could be 2 general pm'po~e lanes and two HOVflms lanes. Both options w/Il be tested. Ruth reminded th~ MAC that the s~c~ion of Route 2 from Route 78 to 1-95is already programmed to be widened by CormDOT. ~]~ stated that 't_he widening of Route 2 to ~ou~ lane~ is of ~a~ concern ~ NO~ S~o~ stated ~t he d~ not ~e ~t ~e r~d~y ~ have ~ cap~ or~e ~w that V~ ~s project~ ~r it once it ~ ~de~ to tour ~. Wi~ ~ ~e ~~ ~d dgvewa~, ~e capad~ of 0 0 Z -< F ~ 0 cio_ 0 Z > 0 Z "I] m ~ co -< © 0 -.t ~, 1~ ---4 I'-' m i'-- GOOSE; BR¥ CIVIC RSSOCII:ITIOn, BOX 11"71 Mrs. JeanCochran SOUTHObD, [I. ¥. 119"71 Town Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall September 4, 1996 Southold, NY Dear Madam Supervisor: t am the Chairman of the Beach Committee of the Goose Bay Estates Association. The Goose Bay Estates Association is a Civic Association composed of 57 property owners (see attached map) whose primary purpose is to maintain the private roads, beautify the common areas and beaches and the overall enhancement of the recreational and environmental value of the Association owners properties. The Association is imerested in having maintenance dredging performed on the inner channel in the area marked on the map and placing the clean spoil back on the beach and bank as beach nourishmem m eroded areas. The channel was over 5 feet deep at low tide at one time and up to 9 fee~ in other areas, now it is 1~1 1/2 feet deep at low ride. This shoaling diminishes the swimming, boating, fishing and other recreational enjoyment of the residents. (the subsequent storms since Hurricane Bob each winter has further eroded the shore banks and some of the tree roots are exposed along the shore in question) In addition, the channel is presently completely blocked at the end of Pine Avenue at low tide. This blockage is stopping the natural flushing of Goose Bay and has increased unsafe navigation. What we are proposing is that the cost of this modest dredging project be shared equally with the Town of Southold and the Goose Bay Estates Association's members. To the best of my knowledge, tNs channel has been dredged '*5th taxpayer's dollars. I have been in contact with John Costelto of Costetlo Marine Contracting Corporation, who indicated that environmentally acceptable dredging and placement of the spoils (primarily sand as beach nourishm'ent) would benefit the Town by flushing Goose Bay, rebuilding the beach and enhancing the recreational usage for the residents of the Association. In addition, it was estimated that there is sufficient additional sand such that the Town of Southold may find it useful to replenish other Town beaches with the sand removed from this area. 1 am sure you will a~ee_ this is a wo~hwhi!e project and ~ would like to request your input on how we might mutuaiN proceed [ can be reached at the address below or September 13, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We write on behalf of Southold citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR") at your invitation to provide the Planning Board with SCSR's opinions on this issue of public importance. The following represents SCSR's response to the draft Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF") and the draft SEQR Positive Declaration on the Cross Sound Ferry ("CSF") terminal site plan prepared by Charles Voorhis & Associates. We appreciate the Planning Board's adherence to NYS open government laws, which mandate the release of these documents for public comment five days in advance of the hearing. We also welcome the opportunity to express our opinions. While we feel that in general the draft LEAF and SEQR Positive Declaration reach a valid conclusionand raise many of the relevant issues, SCSR would like the final documents to address all of the relevant issues, to be complete and to give full weight to local community concerns for environmental, safety and quality of life issues. Toward that end, it is our opinion that the LEAF should be amended to fully and accurately describe what we believe are additional relevant facts. Further, the SEQR Declaration should identify long-term as well as short-term impacts of the proposed development and should consider likely cumulative effects of additional development and activities at orient Point. For example, the SEQR Declaration should consider the pattern of progressive development by CSF at Orient Point and take into account the potential environmental impact that could result if that pattern continues into the future. We believe that a full analysis of the impact at Orient Point additionally requires the completion of the supplemental Visual Assessment Form (VAF) (referenced in Part 2, item 11 of the Long EAF entitled Project Impacts And Their Magnitude), and the Coastal Assessment Form (CAF), which is mandatory where, as here, the comprehensive site for review exists in a coastal flood plain or Critical Environmental Area (CEA). SCSR expects the Planning Board to ensure that a properly completed VAF and CAF are made available for public comment in the near future. Parts I, II and III of our comments represent our opinions with respect to Parts I, II and III of the LEAF. Part IV provides our opinion regarding the draft SEQR Positive Declaration° k/ PART I~PROJECT INFORMATION The Description of Action should contain a reference to underwater lands at the site as well as to what we believe has been a recent addition of a dock bridge and rebuilding of the dock to accommodate and to implement the high-speed passenger-only ferry service. More importantly, the project information should include reference to the ongoing intensification of use at the ferry terminal resulting from the introduction of the high-speed service° Further, in keeping with the requirement that environmental assessments look to the total impact of an overall plan and not incremental pieces, the project description would benefit from some statement by the applicant regarding its future growth plans. The project description should make clear that any growth beyond that disclosed in the current ~/ We note that the instructions for completing the ,,Project Impacts" portion of the LEAF indicate that "maybe" answers should be considered as yes answers° -2- application would require a further application to the Planning Board and a further LEAF. A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. The vacant lot should be listed as zoned under an R-80 designation, with an existing snack bar on the eastern parcel constituting a non-conforming use. 5. We believe that the response is inconsistent with CSF's May 1984 EAF, prepared by En-Consultants, Inc., which states that 5% of the proposed project site has slopes of 10-15%. Given the proximity to protected waters and wetlands in a critical environmental area, the slope issue may be relevant to questions of runoff and aquifer pollution. 6. The response should be amended to "yes" The project is substantially contiguous to what has been referred as the Kings Highway. 7. The response should be amended to "yes". The project is substantially contiguous to and part of the Long Beach ecosystem, which has been designated a National Natural Landmark, 9. We believe that the response should contain an addendum reflecting the conclusions of the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA"). As set forth in the attached letter, dated September 4, 1996, the SCWA has concluded that: "The Orient Point and Orient areas are the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island because the land masses are relatively flat with complete Underlayment of salt water. ,,Groundwater samples throughout the eastern end of Southold Town have indicated high concentrations of nitrates and residual pesticides and herbicides. Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone -3- salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. "These unfavorable groundwater conditions have influenced the SCWA policy of not seeking any well field locations in the Orient areas. [I]t is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer~ "Any intensification of land uses will be detrimental to groundwater conditions. In fact, every effort should be made to maximize open-space acquisitions and adopt strict zoning codes that will prevent any increase in activities at Orient that will impact groundwater conditions. Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants." 10. The response should be amended to "yes~'. The path of the ferry is over the Plum Gut, a listed CEA with major regional importance to commercial and recreational fishermen. 11. The response should be amended to "yes". As set forth in the attached September 6, 1996 letter of Dr. Eric Lamont, a botanist who has conducted botanical studies on Long Island for twenty years: ,,Plans by Cross Sound Ferry Co. to increase the parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal may result in the destruction of a globally rare plant population. Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum)~ is known to occur from sandy beaches at nearby Orient State Park, and suitable habitat for this rare plant also occurs in the vicinity of the ferry terminal° In addition, seventeen other rare plant species have been recently (1991) documented from Orient Beach State Park; some may occur near or at the proposed development site-'~ -4- We here attach a copy of the 1991 scientific article "The Vascular Flora of orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York", referenced in Dr. Lamont's letter. NFEC biologists are currently working on a report which will further detail local flora or fauna which may be threatened by CSF's proposed action. Further, the 1991 Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program of the Town of Southold ("DLWRP") states that Orient Point is the home to a rare ecosystem and identifies Long Bay Beach, Orient Harbor, and Plum Gut as areas designated by the NYSDOS as significant fish and coastal wildlife habitats, hosting a variety of species that are considered ,,threatened" or of ,,special concern" such as the Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Diamondback Terrapin, the Eastern Hognose Snake and the Northern Harrier. In addition, the coastal areas to the Town of Southold-- including the site at issue-- are in the Atlantic Flyway and provide ,,valuable breeding and over-wintering areas for shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, raptors and perching birds." DLWRP at 2-70. As we understand it, the proposal at issue would remove approximately 2.5 acres of open space and replace it with a parking facility. 12o The response should be amended to "yes"° The Federal Wetlands map shows the presence of intertidal wetlands on the residential lot of CSF as of August 1995. 13. The response should be amended to ~'yes". We believe that the termination of Route 25 at the water's edge has always been a visual scenic area and is one of the only open places to view the Atlantic Ocean from the North Fork. 14. The response should be amended to "yes" for the reasons stated in our comment to question 13. 16. The response should list, in addition to Gardiners Bay, what we believe were previously interconnected Long Beach Bay tidal wetlands. -5- 19. The response should list, in addition to the Peconic Bay Estuary: (i) Orient Point; (ii) Plum Gut; and (iii) Long Bay. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. (a) We believe that the acreage owned by CSF also includes 4.1 underwater acres. (b) The parenthetical statement of an ,,approved and pre-existing parcel" should, in our view, state ,,approved and nonconforming parcel". 3. The response should be amended to "no". We do not understand how previously undeveloped open space that is converted into a parking lot can be said to be ,,reclaimed". 6-7. The responses should be amended to reflect the fact that, according to the NYS Department of Transportation, this must be considered a multi-phase project in light of the incremental steps of the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") variance and the developing DOT plans. 11. The conceptual plan indicates that the existing snack bar will be removed then re-sited in the existing house on the western parcel. Fin our opinion that would constitute an intensification of use that will limit public access to the beach at the end of Route 25. 16. The response should be amended to "yes". We believe the increased use of the passenger-only ferry may well increase the volume of solid waste generated at the CSF site. 19. The response may need to amended to "yes" in light of the projected increase of diesel and automotive exhaust that may be associated with the increased use of the passenger- only ferry. -6- 20. The response should be amended to "yes". The current PA system of the Cross Sound Ferry may already exceed acceptable ambient noise levels. 22. CSF's May 1984 EAF states that the pumping capacity of the CSF wells is 15.6 gal/min. 23. CSF's May 1984 EAF indicated anticipated water usage of 2250 gallons in 1984 with a peak capacity of 22,500 day. 25. We believe that approvals are required from the DOS, FEMA, and ACOE because the project impacts federally protected wetlands and underwater areas. C. ZONING ~nklD PLANNING INFORMATION i. The project may additionally require approval for any present non-conforming use of the snack bar lot. 6. The response should be amended to "no". The master plan, the CEA listing, and Southolds' draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program all appear to support the proposition that development and new nonconforming uses at Orient Point should be severely restricted. 8. The response should be amended to "no". In our opinion, the proposed project is incompatible with the residential and preservation land zoning in effect within a quarter-mile radius. 10. The response in our view should be amended to "yes". As noted above, the Suffolk County Water Authority has concluded that "Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. Since the cost of [a public water supply] system would be extraordinary due to existing high nitrates and other contaminants and the narrow band of fresh water constantly -7- threatened with salt upconing, the SCWA believes it would be best not to provide a public water supply at this time. But, to support this policy, it is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer." SCSR submits that the proposed project may result in substantially increased pumping of fresh water and may ultimately require the installation of an ,,extraordinarily" expensive public water supply. If that were to occur, the project may require the authorization of water districts~ 11. The response should in our view be amended to "yes", because the increased volume of traffic and passengers that may result from the project could require increased fire and police protection. 12. Although question 12 has been left unanswered, it is our opinion that the response should be "yes" to reflect the generation of significant new traffic by passengers utilizing the high-speed passenger-only ferry° PART II-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE IMPACT ON LAND 1. Although the LEAF identifies a potential large impact from construction on slopes of 15% or greater, the LEAF fails to identify whether or not the impact can be mitigated by a project change. SCSR respectfully notes that the slopes on the residential/ snack bar lot originally had inclines greater than 15% but those inclines appear to have been leveled. IMPACT ON WATER 3. Although the LEAF identifies a potential large impact from the construction on the Peconic Estuary and Orient Point, the LEAF fails to identify impact on the adjacent -8- protected CEA areas of Plum Gut and Long Beach Bay and fails to state whether or not the impact can be mitigated by a project changem 5. Although the LEAF identifies small to moderate impacts on surface and groundwater quality from discharges, stormwater/ construction permits, and possible sanitary uses, the LEAF fails to identify the potential large impacts from groundwater contamination that may result from the following: (i) increased vehicular traffic contributing to groundwater pollution in the form of additive emissions, including hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants (as identified in the attached September 4, 1996 letter of the SWSA); (ii) increased pumpage of water to serve the increased number of passengers, threatening to upcone salt and cause the permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer (as identified in the attached September 4, 1996 letter of the SWSA); '.(iii) increasing parking of automobiles situated in the 100 year floodplain, threatening a discharge of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel into the waterways in the event of storms, hurricanes or other flooding. IMPACT ON AIR 7. We believe that the identified increase in on-site and off-site vehicle use, including increased passenger car, bus, and ferryboat traffic, may have a potential large impact on local and regional air quality. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8-9. The response to both should be amended to "yes"m As set forth in our comments to the response to question 11 of Part I, threatened species which may be affected by the planned construction include the Seabeach Knotweed and the Northern Harrier--an effect which is by definition a Potential Large Impact. Moreover, the proposed action may substantially interfere with the ecosystems at Orient Point, Long Bay Beach, and Plum Gut, affecting other species that -9- are classified as "threatened" or of ,'special concern", namely the Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Eastern Hognose snake and Diamondback Terrapin. There may also be an impact on the regionally important fishing, shellfish, and hatchery areas adjacent to the ferry site. SCSR respectfully brings to the attention of the Planning Board the fact that the 1993 study of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, conducted pursuant to County legislation reviewing over 30 Long Island ferry studies, confirmed a 1981 prediction that the Orient Point terminal was of finite capacity and, due to its location in a fragile CEA, the potential damage to the environment should preclude any expansion at the CSF site. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. We believe that the visual impact of the size and locatiOn of CSF,S proposed parking lot and lighting systems requires the completion of the supplemental Visual EAF referenced in this section. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. The response should be amended to "yes". Orient Point has long been a historic destination for local tourists separate and apart from any ferry activity. The DOT administers a state land grant from 1897 that was created to insure a separate wharf public use. This grant included a still applicable covenant for a separate roadway named "Dock Road". It exists on maps east of the historic Kings Highway. Moreover, the state road of Route 25 has existed in its entirety since postal route surveys were completed in the 1790s. This is evidenced by the stone road marker noting "New Suffolk-30 miles" located at the south-western end of the Route 25 extension. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION -!0 - 13. The response should be amended to "yes". The end of Route 25 has always been a visual scenic destination where local residents and tourists visit. It is one of the only places to see out to the Atlantic Ocean from the North Fork and it also serves as a strolling and bathing beach complemented by a refreshment stand° The neighboring CSF expansion may interfere with or discourage this long- established use. In addition, traffic congestion in general threatens to discourage local tourism. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. (a) The response should be amended to identify a Potential Large Impact from the alteration of present patterns of movement of people. The end of Route 25 has always been a scenic destination for tourists and scenic DOT parking spaces have been in place from at least the !940s. CSF's expansions may alter this long-established local tourism use. (b) The response should be amended to identify a Potential Large Impact from major traffic problems. CSF's introduction of a high speed ferry service may increase the amount of vehicular traffic along Route 25 to Orient Point. A comprehensive and impartial town-wide traffic study is urgently required to assess the full impact--both present and future--of CSF's proposed expansion. We believe that such a study must coincide with and inform the SEQR process. (c) The LEAF does not specify the nature of the Potential Large Impact identified in 14. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. This section should also reference any planned P.A. systems at the ferry terminal. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH -11- 17. The response should be amended to "yes". The increase in the number of cars that may be stationed on the flood plain will increase the risk of oil, gas, and other chemical leakage into the groundwater. The risk is especially high in the case of hurricane, flooding or other inclement weather conditions. In addition, the intensity of vehicular traffic may threaten public safety by increasing the risk of accidents, including accidents with pedestrians or cyclists. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. The LEAF identifies a Potential Large Impact from a change in density of land use but fails to identify whether the impact can be mitigated by a project change. SCSR respectfully submits that the impact lies not merely in increased density of use but also obstruction of public access to the beach areas and scenic vistas lying at the end of Route 25--one of the few areas in the North Forth permitting an open view of the Atlantic Ocean and one regularly used by the local community as well as seasonal tourists. PART III -- EVALUATI N F TH IMP RTANCE OF IMPACTS SCSR respectfully notes that the LEAF lacks the required evaluation of impacts for each of the potentially large impacts identified in Part II. As the LEAF is in this respect fundamentally inadequate, SCSR reserves its right to publicly comment on Part III until the draft LEAF contains a full and complete evaluation of the importance of impacts as mandated by law. -12- PART IV -- DRAFT SEOR The SEQR Positive Declaration should in our opinion reference the following specific reasons supporting the Positive Declaration in addition to those identified in the draft: (i) The proposed action may threaten the contamination or depletion of the fragile orient Point acquifer, the only source of potable water for the community. (ii) The proposed action may require the creation of an expensive public water supply and may necessitate the creation of new water districts. (iii) The proposed action may significantly increase non-point source pollution of surface and groundwaters. (iv) The proposed action may adversely affect threatened or rare species in the fragile, tidal- wetlands ecosystem, including the Seabeach Knotweed, Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Diamondback Terrapin, the Eastern Hognose Snake and the Northern Harrier. (v) The proposed action may adversely impact fisheries, shellfish, and hatcheries in the marine environment at or adjacent to Orient Point site or the adjacent waters. (vi) The proposed action may impair the environmental characteristics of the Plum Gut and Long Bay CEAs. (vii) The proposed action may result in the loss of public parking and beach access at the end of Route 25, rendering historically scenic views of the Atlantic Ocean inaccessible- (viii) The proposed action may severely limit or preclude future public access to the New York DOT landlease options. -13- Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. -14- O~ 90 $9 Mr. Bennett Orlowsld, .Ir.. Chakman Southold Planning Bo,ard Town ~11, 53095 Mare Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 Review of Lang EAF. Cross Saund Fen7 SCTM No. 1000-15.9 I0.1, 11.1~ 15.1 & 3.$ Dem' Nb. Ortowski: September 9, 1996 Az per ~e y?ur request, we have complete, d a prellmi~zy review of the ~ove referenced project m accordance with your l~tte:c. Tasks a?.td completed activiti~.s are identified follows: 2. 3'he pm'eel has been field inspected by C. VA, and the L~AF bus been reviewed and amended as necessa-,-7. A copy of_~e ~s attached. ' /~.he/~re Part//LEAF c Part II T.~AF checklist h~ been completed ~nd is also attached. Additional ~or~-don concerui,~g our ~udings is included below. E~mironrnental and Planning Cor~ideration~ The pm'eel has been impected and envi~onrncntal refe~enc, es concemi~.~ the site and a~-eahave been consulted. The s~te conm~ of a ~vu~l of &2 acres, mclud~g four (4) tax .p=ceh which comp~e the entire Cross Sound Feny property as well as additional wk~ch ma.y b.c incorporated into the site forpr.oposed .e.y~knsfom Th.e projea involves a request. tot szte plan _appr. oval to provide additional parlfi~g to the ems~g ferry ~ern~nal. T~ p .n.~,.ary reason fdr,~e ~xp.a~,ion. is to accommodate incre~¢d demand for Park/ng that lms oeen generatea oy.tne mausm,, of.a high speed passenger only ferry serv/ce, in zadition tO the ex/s~ing vehicuhr ferry service. . ' Physical alternative is proposed to the 1.1 zcre p .arcel which contains a. Snack Bar, and ~ addi~onal 2.5 acre parcel to the e4s..t of the erasdng.termmal ',vhich m vacant. 'An a/tcmauve plan has been prepared which comprehenswely plans site/mgrovements and in .eludes all four pareeh as Well as l~,d of New York State as.soda,ed with Route 25. The site is located in a CEA, and adjacent the Peconic Bay ~sV~.~y, a~.d is located in p.roxim/ty to County land and a State Park. The water resources assoaated with the site are sensrfive, and include beach are? and associated upland. The site h~as lim2ted access potential as a result of ~e te,.,tu.ation of New Yo. rk State Route 25. A,.cess'ea~t of Grcenport on Route 25 ~ comu'mne.d given exhtmg road size, la,~e wid;h and potential for improvements. ~ .mu~t be balanced with ~e ntral nature of the area, and impact upon adjacent comrnumues...L~d .uSe comp. ati'o/lit7 of the expanded site is of concern, a~ regards the request for parldng within residentially zoned areas and operation of existing bike trails. In/ras=ucmre, on-site improvements and ser,'iees which currently exist should be analyzed to dcte~',,,ine adeq:aacy to serve the proposed 'use. :" Page 1 --~ ~mc'r~ COUNT~t¥ ROAD, SUITE 2, .MILLE~ Pt,Ca, NY 1~764 · (516) 33~-1455 * FAX 33~-8046 Cross So'nd Fe_,-ry, Orient Use of the site for passenger fern/parking is known to cause overflow aud si.~nific~nC excess dem~,,d for parking. In addition,.proposed activities on site are expected to increase the intenstty of use of land. ~ increased intensity of use will cause pomnt/al impact upon the'env/ro.men~. A 1/st of environmental and pl.~-~-~ impact comideritions/s as follows: ' ' L 10. Thc project is a ~ I action, ~Mch is more Iilccly to rcquire th~ preparation of a Draft ElS. In adctition, th~ project L~ located adjac~t to tho surface waters of Osrdlners Bay, which compris,'s a pordo~ o£ the Peconic Bay F. zmary, and li~s wirh~ thc Orient Point Critical Em~ronm~ataI Area (CEA), Th~ propoicd project maylmpalr thc eavlronmct~.al chara~e_~tics of~;~ CEA. In ad,-l;aon, the project i~ in proximity to thc Orie~ Beach State Park and 48 + actcs of Cotmty owned Thc propo~,.xi action will cau.~ a g~;i~,-~,~t iacrcz.~ ~ th~ intensity c~ land u~ on thc project as a fi.mctlon of thc expanded parltlna demand for pariiug ia connection with ferry operationi and on-site traffic circulation for parl~,,i acr~ Th~ proposed action may change the n~l and usa o£ Pablic and pedestrian tr~n!portatiou $¢rvic~ (hw2,,a;-g existing bike Craft), and may incrcaso the demand for other cor~ml~,~i~ s&rvice.s including £=¢, polic~, rccrcatio,,~ facili~s and utilities. The proposed action will ca~c a ~;~,"~-t incrca.se in th~ number o~ vcMclc trips which ~ti~;~, off- si£c infrastructure gacilitics primarily incluolng cx~tlug ~r~,~portation systems. The Project may adversely ,'h~-~¢ noise and air quality as a fttuction of incrcazed traffic, and/or .may substan~lllt iacreaie solid wa.q~ generation. Existing and proposed skc dra.inag6 mu~t _~"~lyzcd and controlled. Incrclscd 'intensity of gtc usc for lggh speed ~ew/$civic~ will increase the ~¢ 0£ on-sito £aciliti¢.% pardo,l~dy sanitary flow and water ~ and ma), rca,It in an adverse imPact upon the cnviron~cut. Thc project may impact visual a~l ae.sth~c resource, particularly as rcgarcls l;~d~ and use during both day~,~e and ~ttlme hours. Thcpropos~l project may ca~ stash indu~g aspects asso~a~ed vAth th~. proposed project. Ia addl ' .t.~. the itudy ofmitigation of pote~r;~! anvironme:ctal impacts and altcrnatlvcs would bc facilkated by thc preparation of a Dralt TI~ projcc~ involves multiple agency jurl.sdlcfious and tw. rmits, and thc comprcho~ivc review, of Po~ impacta would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft EISa. Impact of p~--"%nger onlyjc£ boats on marlae The proposed project,may result ~n one or ~o.re potential imp.acts upon. the ,en, v~?, onment ~ noted above. As a. resiflt, fi..the P.l,annm~ Bo.ard ~ m agreement, ~t ~s re~c,.om~a, e.naea mat a ~'ositive Declaration oe issuea mr tins pro~ect, oasea upoa me reasons ouumee avove. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call eno: Long ~ Pa~ I & II Dralx Posttive Declaration CHARLES VOORHI,,S,. 82~ASSOClATES, INC. ,,.~,?.,~,,, .,.f,:,-~.-..,v, ENVIRONMENT, AE.AND P~NNING CONSULTANTS Page PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION . .. Prepared by Proiect Sponsor ,'~OTICE: This document ~s designed to assist in determ,ning whe:h~.r ;he ac;ion pro]:osed may have a s~Emhc~n~ on the environment. Please ~mpJete {he entire form, Parrs A through ~. Answers ¢o ~hese ~ue~:icns wit] as ~art of the application rot aprrovaJ and may be subject co iur:her verification and public ~eview. Prowde in¢orma~ion you believe will be needed to complete Par~ 2 ~nd 3, I: is expected :hat completion of the full EA~ will be ~erendent on information currently available and will hOC/nyc new s:udles, re~earch or ipve~tigatlon. If information requiring such Additional wor~, ~ unavailable, so indicate ~nd spec each ins~nce. Exoansion of off-stree~ 0arkin~ f~ci!iti~s a: exls:ir.~ ferrT' ~rminal S/S Main ~oa~ ~uesc of ~a=minal) and E/5 Main ~a= ',~as~ of ~erminal) AOORE~ ~/O William W, ~sseks, ~so,~ ~sseks. Eof=ar & An~e! ~ [190! NAM~ OF OWNER (1t al/ferent) ~ SUSaN[SS T~L~PNON~ ~¢me as above '--,., ~ ( ) ADDRESS '" a pa:cei :hat contains an exis=in~ ~rav.el ~arkinE area, Zf :he var!zncm is granted, :he a~b~r of. spaces vii! increasm from ~9 :o 80. :his 1.193 acre parcel is zoned M. ?letse complete .EaCh ~uestlo~--lnd;cate N.A, if nat applicable ~~ ~/~ A. ~lte DeScription Physical ~et:ing of overall project, both developed ~nd undeveloped areas. 1. Present [and use: ~Urban ~lndus:riat' ~Commercial ~Residential [~uburban) ~Rurai ~Fores: ~Agriculture . ~Other 2. To,al acreage of project ar~a: 2.~98 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE l.lg3 acres ¢~:Z) Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural 0nc{udes orchards, cropland, pas:ute, e~c.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Ro,c~¢ ea.,7.h or ~Jll},(e,ar:h .-'d.~ravel_ . ~oa~s, oui,oing$ ana omet pav~ su~aces . ~the~ (IndicaLe wpeL beach an~scaoe a grass · 3. What ~s predominant soil WP~s] on ~ro)ec: site? Eaven loam, PReS ~NTLY AFTER COMPLETiC L.iL acres 0 act 0 acres O act 0 acres. 0 ~cr 0 acres O act 0 acres 0 · 7§ acres 2.20 · OB acres .08 · 91 acres .gl ac' a. Soil drainage: ~wetl drained 75 °4 of gte ~Moderacely well drained % of · Poorly drained '25 ' % of site ' b. tf any agricultural land is involved, ho~v many acres of soil are ctassified within soi! group '.. through 4 o~ :h~ Land Classification System? ~.6g acres. {See ~ ,~YCRR 3701 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site~ ~Yes ~.~o a. What is de,th ~o bedrock? ~ +//~/~¢n feet) Registers of .~istoric Places? ~Yes WNo . - wh~ is the ~epth of the water :abl.~ _~-F~ (in ~eeU Is site Incased over a prima~:.pdncip~i, or sole sourc~ a~uffer~ ~Yes Accor~in~ :o Jos~:h icmbardi, T~chnician Identify each ~pec~es BNo Oescribe '.s :he ~roje~: site presendy use~ by :he ¢ommumcy o:' ne~orhoa~ ~s an open spa~e or ~esrea:~on ~rea; ~,No If yes. exolain' Opes ~he ~resent site include s~nic views ~nown to be ~Yes Streams w~chin or c~nci~uous to ~rojec: a~ea: ~/A a. Name of Scream ~nd name DE River CO which it is 15 Lakes. ponds, wedand areas within or contiguous co' project ~rea: a. Name Garc~ners ~av ~. S;ze (In acres) 17 iS :he site served by existing public u~i;itie~l ~Yes · a) ~f Yes, does.: sufficient ¢aOaciW exi~: :o allow connec~ioM ~Yes ~) If Yes, will improvemenu be necessary co allow connection~ ~Yes q~. Is abe site located in an agricultural dis~ic: certified pursuant :o AgrJcui:ure and M~rke~ L~w Sec:ion 303 and 304? ~Yes ~No ' 1D. Is :he s~te toe, ced in or substantially conti¢uou~ co a Critical ~nvi~nmencai Area des~gnace~ ~ursuan~ of :he ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6~ ~Yes ~No (~econtc ~y ~s:u&:7} ..- 20. Has ~e s~te ever been used for the disposal o~ solid or hazardous wa~:es~ ~Yes Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of ~oject (fiji in dimensions as a~oroDr~a:e} a. Toca/ contiguous acreage owned or controlled by prelect sponsor b. Project ~creage :o be CeveJooed: 3,59~ acres micJal[y: c. Projec: acreage :o remain undeveJooe~ ~one ~cres. d. Length of projec~ in miZes: RA (ff aDOtopriate) e, if ~e ~rojec: is an expansion, indicate ~ercen: of exoans~on orooose~ . 220 %; f. Number of off-street parkin$ sgaces exiscin$ 22! g. Max/mum vehicular :rips generated ~er hour "'~ h ~f residential: Number and ~voe of housing units: ~/A One ~mHy Two FamH~ l~ic~aHy U/:Jma~eJy 6,~68 6, *68 acres ultimo:ely, (i, e. :'approvecl & pre?exit:ins hetght: - width; !eng:h. 88 ft.. .~. ~ow much natur.~l material (i.e., fOCi(, ear:h, e:¢.l will be rems,p.¥ect from the si:~; 9/'0:'~ tons/cubic v.~rds ~. If ye~. For what inten~., ~ur~ose is ~e sic~ ~ein~ recl~ime~, pa~.~ ~. Will co,soil ~e s~c~ile~ for reclam~ionl ~Ye~ c. Wil~ up,er subsoil be Stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes 4. How many ~c~es of vegecnfion (trees, shrubs, groun~ covers) will be remove~ from s/ce? acres. 5. W~II ~ny mature forest (over ~00 yeat~ o1~] or ocher locally, impo~nc vegeca~n be removed by ~Yes 6. If ~ingte phase proiec: Anticipated period of construction _ 7, If multi.lahased: a. Total number of pha~es an.ticip~ced., ~ (numbed. b. Anticipated date of commencement ph~e I., c. Approximate completion da:e of final phase .... month d. l~ phase 1 functionally del~endent on sub~ecluent phase,,t ~Yes Will blas~:ing occur during construc~ioni' C~Ye~ ~No months. (including demolition). year. year. Number of iobs generated: during construction none ~; after projt~ is co,~plete Number of.jobs eliminated by ~is Proie~ none W~II ~rojec: r~uire r~loqacion of any ~rojecu or f~cilities~ ~y~ INo If yes, explain ~2. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? C~Yes a. if yes, indicate type of waste (sewage industrial otc.}. -~nd amount. b. ~ame of water body into which effl~ent wiU be discharged . 13. Is subsurface liquid waste dlsp~saj involved? ~Yes ~No Ty~e ~4. Will su~ace,~rea of an existing water body increase or ~ecre~se by ~roposaff ExO/ain 15. Isproiec~ or ~ny p~on Of proiec~ Ioca~e~ In ~ ~ year floo~ plainr .., ~, WHI the project generate solid'waste~ b, ~Yes if yea, what is the amount per month tons ~ ~,~T'b"~ /~'~ /f- ~'~'~ If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? C~Yes C~No if yes, give name ; location Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal ~ystem or into a sanitary landfill? ~Yes If Yes, explain r 17. Will :he project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes. what Js the anticipated rate of disposal? _ b. If yes. what ~s the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides/ ~Yes ~Yes tons/month. Years. 20. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes ~No ~rojec: produce ol~erating noise exceeding the Ioc~t ambient noise levels? ~Yes 7.1. Will pro/et: result in an increase in energy use~ lYes C~No rf yes , indicate type(s) 22. ~f water supply is from wetb. indicate pumping caaaci~. , ~/A gal[ons/~inute. 24. Does project involve Local. St~e or Federal fund~ng~ ~Yes ~No '; If :Yes. explain 4 25. Approvals Requ~recl.. City. TOwn. Village Board ~'Ye~ C~:v, Town, ¥illa~e Planning 8oard BYes City, TOwn Z'oning $oard ~Yes' C~:¥, County Health Departmen~ ~Yes Ocher Local Agencies E,U£folk Cr.v ' ~Ye~ Ocher ,~egional AsencJes ~n~ns co. yes S~a~e ,~encies ~SD~C ~Yes federal A~encies ~Yes C. Zoning P nn ng Information 0oes proposed ~c~ion involve ~ p~znning or zonin~ decision? ~f Yes. indicate decision required: ~rNO eno TYpe $i~e Pla~ .~onin$ Ac:ion T~da~ ~e:iand C~No ~subdivision Submittal Date _Pending · pend!n~ ~.:onlng amendment e:'oning variance ~special use '~newlrev~sion of master plan ["tresource management plan ~other 2 whac is the zoning c~assification[s]of the sicel H%: & Whac is the m~imum ~ocencial development of the site if developed as a~rm~ed by :he ~resent zonJng~ n M-~ oarceL & 219 soaces on R-80 oarceZ What ia ~e proposed zonin~ o~ :he site~ ~ What is ~e maximum potential development of :fie site if developed as permitted by :he C=r~en: orooosal relre~en:s ~ ~eveio~men: Is ~e Proposed ac:ion consisten* w ..... · ~ ~n cae ~ecommendea b~es in 3d Wh? are thel~redom~nant ~and u -~l ~ ---: ....... . . ~ted local land use plans? eyes ~ ~ , ? , ~men:a n I M , . d~s of rooo ed action la ~e ptopo&ed ac:ion compatible with ad~oinin~sur~undin~ /and uses within a ~ mile~ ~Yes tf :he proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many loU are proposed? a, W~a: ~s the minimum Jot size propos~[ ~ Will proposed a~:~on re~uire'~nV authoriza:ion(~J for the formation of ~ewer or water dis=icu~ ~Yes will :he aroposed action create a demand ~ot any.communi~ provided semites (recrea6on. education. f~re procec:ionj[ ~Yes ~No ' ~. If Yes. i~ existing :apacj:y sufficient co handle projected demand~ ~Yes ~No ' ' WiJI :he proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels~ ~Yes ' a. If yes. ~s the existin8 ~oad ne~ork adequate to handle the additional traffic? ** ~Yes · ~ see aC:ached !eC:~: from Ounn Engineering · At:ach any a~dk/ona~ information as may be nee~e~ :o c~arifv your Oroiec:. I~ there a~ or may ~e any a~e~se. ,moac:s associa:e~ with your proposal. ~lease discuss :nee. ~~res which you ~to~o~e to Verffic t on AOOIIc-n~/S~On$OF N~e ...... ~.c. as a~en: ~o: :~e a~piicant/soonsor' ~-,~~~ (Joseoh Lomba=~i) 7kfe Technician '' ' '"" acco is in ~he Coastal Area. and you are a s~ate a em . c t~s assessment, g ~ om~Jete the Coastal Assessment Form bef~te "~+r ~ Responsibility o~ Le~ Agency General Information (Read Carefully] · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my re~ponse~ and determinations been reasonable~ The reviewer is not ~xpec~e~ ~o be an expe~ environmental [denti~ing ~t an /m~ac~ wiJi be potentially large (column 2) does noc mean ~hac i~ is al,so necessarily sisnific=nt. Any [~rge impact must be evaluated in PART 3 ~o de,ermine significance. Idenci~ying an [mpac= in column 2 simply · sks ~C ic be looked a[ luther. The E~ampl~ provided ~re ~o ~ssist ~e reviewer by showing Wpes of impac~ ~nd wherever Possible the ~hreshold magnitude ~a[ would ~gger a response in column 2. The ex~mpl~ ~re generally applicable throughout ~he Sc~e and for most situations. ~u[ for ~y specific project or site o~e~ ~am~ies and/or lower ~hreshoids mey be appropriate for a Potential Large Jmp~c~ response. ~us requiring evaJue~ion in P[~ 3. · . . ,.r The imp~c~ of e~ch prolog, on eech ske, in each Ioc~Ji~, will ve~. Therefore. the examples are illustrative have been offered ~ guidance. They do not con~itute ~ ~ustjve list of imp~c= ~d thresholds m answer each The number of ~ampJes per question does not indicam ~e impo~nce of each In identifying impact, consider long term, short m~ and cumJafive e~fec~, ln~ructions (Read c~mfullyJ Answer e~ch of ~e 19 que~ons in PA~T Z Answer Yes if there wiJi be any ,~aybe ~nswers should be considered ~ Yes answers~ Jf ~nswenng y~ :o a quos:ion ~en chec~ ~he ~pproptia:e box [column 1 or 2) to indic~[e :he potential s~ze im pact. If impact ~reshoid e~uals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but chreshoJ~ ss lower th~n ~ampJe, che~ column 1. . .. :.~. If reviewer h~ doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact ~ potentially ~arge and proceed to PART If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the pro,eot to a small to moderate ~mpacL also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is no: possible.: Thi~ must be ~plained in P~ff 3. · IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the propos"ed ac:ion result in a physical change to the project site? Ezample.~ :hat would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rbe per 100 foo= of length], or where the general slopes in :he project area exceed i0%. · Consu'uc:ion on land where the depth to the water table L~ less ~han · Construction of paved perking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Cons:ruction on land where bedrock is'exposed or generally within 3 feet o{ existing ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one I=hase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes chat would remove more than 1.000 tons of natura~ material (i.e., rock or soil} per year. · Construction or expansion of a sani~:ary landfill. · ConstructJo~ in a designated floodway. =..W;J! ~ere be an effec= to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site~ Ii.e, cJiHs, dunes, geologica! formations, e:c.)~NO [~YE$ e. Specific land forms: . I 2 Small to Potential Can !mpaot ae Moderate i Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Projec~ Change n [] [] [~Yes '~'-:No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~' ~Yes ~NO IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action ~ffecl; ~ny water body designated as protec:edl (Under Articles 15, 24. 25 o~ YES ~mpl~s ~ would apply to column 2 Develogable ~rea of si~e contnins a'pro[ected w~ter body. Dred~in~ more th~n 100 cubic promc~ed stream. ~x~e~ion o~ utility dis~Jbu~on f~cilides ~rou~ ~ prote~ w~ter body. ConsCruc~on in ~ design~[~ freshwater or ~id~J wedand. Other imp~cu: ~~ Will ~roposed ~cfion ~ffec:'~ny non-pro[et:ad ~iscJ~ ~ n~ body 0f water~ :. ~O ~YE5 Ezam~les th3~ would ~p~ly A 10% increase or decre~e in the surface ~rea of ~ny body of w~er or more th~n a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of wacer that exceed10 ~cres of suHace are~. O~e~ impact: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater' ' quality or quantity/ '~NO Examples that would apply to column 2 ' · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water th&t does not have approval to serve proposed Cproject} action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Constru'ction or operation causing any contamination 'of supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely a~ect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities whi.ch presentJy do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Ac:ion would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Actiua will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natucal conditions., · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons, · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or 'sewer services. · Prol=osed Ac:ion locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other ,mpact5: . WiI! proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or ,Luff, ace water runoff? ~NO ExamoJe~ *j~nt would a. pply tO column 2 ' 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] Can ImpAct Be Mitigated By Project Change l"'lyes ~No []Yes []No ~]Yes i"iNo , i ~Yes ~No [-]Yes [-;No' ~Yes. ~No ~Yes []Yes C'IYes ~Ye$ ': C':No CgYes 17~Nc * Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with exis:in8 draioage patterns, · Proposed Ac:ion will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impact: ~ ~,~ ~ ~~ , IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed ac:ion affect air qualityi' l-lNO ~E5 E~amples *.hat would apply to column 2 · Proposed Ac:ion will idduce %000 or more vehicIe ~ps in any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour, · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed S lbs~ per hour or a heat source ~roducing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed ac:ion wil[ allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action wiU allow an increase in ~e density of indus:rial deyelopment within existin& indus:rial areas. IMPACT ON PLANTS AJ~D ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endai~ezed speciesi' ' ~0 OYES ~=-mpies th~: would apply to column 2 · RedUction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal lis:, usin& the site, over or oear site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat · App!ication of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than! for agricultu.rat I~urposes, · other impacts: , 9. Will Proposed Ac:ion substanaaIly affect non-threate~e~ or non~ndangered specie~ ~ ~YE$ Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · PropOSed Action would substantially interfere wiLh any resident or migrato~ fish, shellfish or wildllfe specie~. · PropPsed Action re~uire~ the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over ~00 ye~r~ of age) or other locally iml~ortant vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURC:E$ 10 ' Wi!l the Proposed Action affect agricultural landrq~,~esi' OYES Eza~pies that would apply to column 2 · The proposed ac:ion would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land Cncludes cropland, hayfields, pasture, 9ineyard, orchard, etc.) Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] O' [] [] [] [] O [] [] [] [] [] [] Potential Large Impact [] [] 0 C~ [] [] [] O [] C [] Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change ~Yes []Yes I--)Yes ~Yes O~es DNo C]Yes ['~Yes F'~No ~Ye: [~Yes --~Nc '[]Yes []Nc ~Yes []N'c []Yes linc · Construction activity would excavate or Compact the soil profile of agriculturaJ Iand. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of asriculturaj land or, if located in an AsricultutaI District. more th~n 2.5 acres of a~r~culturaJ land. · The ~roposed ~c~ion would disrupt or ~revent instaJlztion of agricultural land management system~ (e.~., subsudace drain lines, outfet ditches, strip crogpinsJ; or create a n~d for such measures [e.g. c~use a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runo~) · Other impact: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 17. W/Il proposed ac:ion affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EA,: Addendum in Sec'Jon~'1, Appendix Examples that wouJd apply to column 2 * Proposed land uses, or project componenr~ obviously different from or [n sharp con~rast to current surrounding: land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.' · Proposed land uses. or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic quailtJes of that resource. · Project components that wlZJ result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be impor~n[ to the area. * Other impacts: ,,~r~"'~TT,~z, u'/s'~//h_ ~ IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. WiII Proposed Action impact any site or sa'ucture of,historic, pre- historic or paJe0ntolo~:ical impor~nce~ " ' ~NO ~YES E~mple~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurrin~ wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on :he State or National Register of historic · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as'sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impact~: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND REC~EATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect :he quanrJtV or quality of existin8 or future open ~p~ces or recreational oppo~unifies~ ~ ~ Examp[~ tho: would apply to column 2 ~O ~YES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oppo~unity. A major reduction of an open spaqe Important to the community. Other impac:$: g Small to Moderste Impsct Pot~'ntial Can Impact E~ Large Mitigs:ed By lrnpac: Project Chang ~ r-) C'~Yes · ~ ~Yes C~mc [] C'l Yes [] ['-]Yes [] ~Yes ~N~ ~]Yes [] C'lYes IMPACT ON TRAN.,SpORTATION 14 Will there be an effec: t.o axis*in8 transpor:a~on systems1 r~NO /~$ Ezample~ that would apply to column 2 · Alt:era(ion of present patterns of movement of peop!e and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY " 15. Will 13roposed action affect the. community's so/~;f fuel or enerity supply{ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Prcoosed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of . any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ener~ transmission br sup~oiy ~stem to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or co serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other ~mpact~: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Wifl :here be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as of :he Proposed Action? ["INO ' Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital school or other sensitive facility. · Odors wiiJ occur routinely (more th&n one hour per dayJ. · Proposed Ac:ion will )0roduce opera:in& noise exceedin~ the local amSient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed A~tion wifl remove natural barrier~ that would 'noise screen. · Other impac:s: /a~c.~/,-~.~_ .z~,? /.4/~.,f'c?'~ IMPACT ON PUSLIC HEALTH... 17. Will Proposed Action affec: public health and saf.~ E~ampie~ that would apply to column 2 · Propdsed Action may cause ~ risk of explosion or releaJe of hazardous substances (i.e. off, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etcJ in the event of accident or ur~set conditions, or there may be a chronic iow level discharge or emission. · ~roposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous was:es" in.any. form fl.e. t~xl~, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of fiquified natural gas or other flammable liqulds. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance Within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impact: ,Small :o Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 'ID Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change i-lYes []Yes []Yes []No []Yes []No []Yes [~Yes [~yes ¥es ~Yes ~No ~Yes r'~No []'res ~NO ~"JYes. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD I~. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing comnLun, icyi r'~amples Chat would ap[0Jy co column 2 []NO · The permanent popular:ion of the city. town or village in which the project i$ located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expendltures or operating services will increase by more :hah 5% per year as a result of this project, · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or · Proloosed action will cause a change in the density of land usa. · Pro!oosed Action will replace or eliminate existin$ facilities, structure~ or areas of historic importance to the community. ' Development will create a demand for additional community services (e,g. schools, police and fire. etc.) · Proposed ^c"Jon wili set an impor:ant precedent for future projects. · Proposed Ac:ion will create or eliminate employment. · Other' impacts: Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large JmDact 19. Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy relat~ed~, to potential adverse environmental impact$~' Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change [~Yes ~Ye~ ~No r'lYes []no I"lYes {~No []Yes ENo ['~Yes ~-lNo If AnY Action in Part. 2 Is Identified as a Potimtial Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine th.e Magnitude of impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMP.ACTS Responsibility of Lead Agem.-r Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(~j is considered to be potentially large, even if the ;mpact(s) may be mitigated. . Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified In Column 2 of Pan 2: " i. 8riefty 'describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable] how the impact could be mifigat~,d or reduced to a small to moderate impact.by projec: change(si. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it 15 reasonable to conclude that :his impact is ,mportant. : To answer the question of importance, consider:. "' · The probabilit~ of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · its irrevers~bility. Including ~ermanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled * The regional consequence of the impact · les potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact (Continue on attachments} 'SEQR POSITIVE DECL&RATION NOtice of Deter-,ination Of Significance .Address: Date: Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Town Ha~ 53095 Main Road ~outhold, New York 11971 September ,1996 Thia .n_ofice ~ i$.sued pursuaa__t tq.Part 617, of the imple.menfiag regulafiom pertai.nfiag to Article 8 (~.tat~ ~nviro~mental Q~nl,ty Review) of the Eavironmemal~C0mereation Law. The lead agency ha~ detemaiaed that the tarovosed action described'below will have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Bnvironmental Impact Statement ' must be prepared. Title otAcfion: SEQR Status: Project De$criptiom Location: Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application SCYM No. i000-15-9,10.1, 1.1.1, 15.1 & 33 Orien%,New York Type I Action The subject apph.'catioa ~volves a r?quest for sit? plaa approva~ to provide addiuonal p~ .l.ckng. t9 apr, eviouslY approved f. enT. term/nal on Rt. 2.5 m Orie. nt, ia order to o n gemerate.c oy me incI~!on of a high speed pas.senger only :~rty semc~ to thc ex~tmg vehicuIar ferry' servi~e. $ubj¢ct_t~roperty is located at the end of NYS aout~ :~, Orieat, NY. Reasons Supporting This Determination: ' This detcrm;,,~on is is$ued ha fill consideration of the Criteria for Determ*,ation of ~ignifi_callce coI;tained Lla 6 ~'i~'~.Part 617.7, the Long Environmental Assessment Fo~'m and Il and the following specific'reasons: .. Page 1 or2 Cress $ouud Ferry Pos/five Declara~on 1. Thc pro~cct is a Type I actlo~, which is more llkcl¥ to require tie preparation of a Dra~ ElS. addkiou, r.~ projca h located ad~ac~ul to. the surface waters portion of Cbc Pecon/c Bay F. stuarys aud 1i~ w/th;, of Garcl~r~ Ba¥~ wtdch compri,~s a ~t~ Or/~ Po/~ Critical F.u~oum~ (.CEA). Th~ .propo_~! project ma), impair tho ~'omacntal characte, ristica of th;, ·. cue projecI is in proximity to ~h~ Ori~ Bea& ~.~. ~..u __~ ...... CEA. Ia addlr,on, $--.~ · ~.,.. ,m~ '~o. acres o£ r,~un~y owned land. 2. Thc proposed acfian will cat, se a si~nifica~ increase in r~ intcn.sit~ o~ land tts~ on ~ ~j~ ~ito, ~a funciion of r.~ expanded parking, demami ~or parking in once.on ~ fen7 0t~afions a~d 3, u-a~c circulation for parki~ ~ police, ~'~ .), a~a ma), mcreasa ~ demand for oa~r commuui~ serviCea i~lu' .~ ~rc, recre~o~l facili~es and The propos~ action ' ' , ' ' ~ ca~.s~ a ~ iu~¢ase ia to ~mbcr of vehicle aps $. TI~ project ma}' advcr~l), cha~ge =oise ~ .~ air Cl~3~i~ as a ~crioa . subs~aafiall), iucrca_~ solid waste gea~raIion.~ Existing ofiucr~.sod Wa/ftc, ami/or may con~rolle, d. . ami proposed si~¢ dralnag~ ~ust' be ;malyzca oad 6. ·,T.r~:m~ed ~c=s~ of skc u~c fo~ ~ speed fczz7 ~ w~ incma~ r~ ~e of on. site 7. partleularly saz~itary ilow ~d water use~ a~d may r~ul£ in a~ adverse impact upon flae ~viro--,eat. b_.Tch~h.e project ma¥impact visual a~d ae~thegcre, sourc~ partiagarl a~ re ' dayt;"~ aug nigh~tlmg hours. ), gard~ lighting, ami use during ~. -ra.~. proposed proj~x may cause gro~.h iaduci~g ~ aa-~ociate~ addigoa, rt~ study o£ mili~ation 0f'"n ,~.~ .__.~ ....... . tt~ propgsad pr0~ect. In b), rSe ~ r-ten,.,., ,-,-,,u~ar. ai ,mpacr~ and alternatives WOuld bc facitlta ..~ preparation of a Dralt ~IS . 9. The projea iaVOlv~ m~tipl~ ag~a¢7 jurisdictioa$ andpe. rm~ ~md r.~ e, omprche~vc review 0f pot'-atial impacts wo, a4 b~ facilitated rirough tl~ preparation of a Draft Iii& 10. Impact of pa.sseagcr oaiyiot boats oa mar~ cavlroam~:~. For Further I. afoia~ation: Mr, Robert G. Kassner Con:act Person: Plamfiug Board Town of Sour. hold $3095Main Road, P,O. Box 1179 SOuthold,. New York 11971 (516) .765-1938 Copies o1' this Notice Sent to: outhold Town Board $outhold Town Building Den~,-~,~,,,- _~outaoia 'iowa ~oard of Trustees ~Su~'__olk C_0unty_Depanment of Hcal~ Services ~us.o..x _county _Uepamnen~ of Public Torks ~.=~.~o~ County Department of Parks . ~, z ~ ~eeppc~ of Sra~, Coastal Resources: & Wa~e~f~on: l~viuliz~on Dillon 0f/ice .N_Y._S _D_e of Env=o-~-emal Conservafi0- Afb ...... : ~ l~ ~ Off o£Pa{,ks, Recreation and HiS~oric'Prescrvai/on · · U.S. Dept. of AD4~c~n~.e U.S. Ar{ny Corp O£EnDn=crs Federal Emergency Managemcm Agency SouIhold Town Cie. rids Bulletia Board Applicam FEDEILAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Region II Jacob K. Javits Federal B~lalng 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1337 New York, New York 102?8-0002 Mr. Bernard Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: we received and reviewed the project proposal and the Environmental Assessment for the Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot. This. serves as a reminder. Since all or a portion of the project is in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the project shall be constructed in compliance with the Local Flood Damage Prevention Law for the Town of Southold. In addition, if there are any federal funds' involved, the Lead Agency must complete a floodplain review as required under Executive Order, 11988, Floodplain Management. If you have any questions or need additional infozamtion, please call Bill Southard, Regional Floodplain Management Coordinator at (516) 444-0405 or Mary Colvin of my staff at 9212) 225-7200. Sincer~ .~~ Pi ccia.no, ~-M~i~ation Diviszon Director cc: Fred Nuffer, NYSDEC Bill Southard NYSDEC, R I RZ~O~A- Dm.~C?OR Augus: 26, 1996 STATE Of NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAU(;E, N.Y. 11788 JOHN B. DALY COMMISSIONER Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box i179 Southold, New York 1197i Cross Sound Ferry Route 25, Orient Point Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed your request concerning additional parking for the referenced project. We concur with your position that the Southold Planning Board should assume SEQR lead agency status. NYSDOT is discussing this project with interested parties (i.e.: a meeting was held on August 21, 1996) since there are other related issues to be addressed. Thank you for continuing to advise us of the progress of this proposal. Very truly yours, FRANK PEARSON Planning & Program Management ~_ NewYork State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ~ The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza .~w YO~K S~A~ 1~ Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238 Bemac~ette Castro Commissioner August 30, 1996 518-474-0456 Human Resources 518-474-0453 Fiscal Management 518-474-0061 TDD: 518-486-1899 Bennett Or!owski, Jr. Acting Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for sending us a Lead Agency Coordination Request for additional parking at the Cross Sound Ferry terminal. As neighbors, we appreciate being advised of any projects which may affect Orient Beach State Park. Upon review of the information provided, it does not appear that any of the parking alternatives are adjacent to, or would affect, park land. Thus we would have no approval over the action and~wou!d not be an involved agency under SEQR. We have referred the information to the Field Services Bureau of the agency's Division for Historic Preservation who could advise you as to whether there may be cultural resources in the project area. As,-the State recreation agency, we do wish to express concern regarding the possible modification of the Route 25 right-of-way (ROW) for parking. As a bike route which also links to a bike path in our park, we would ask that any use of this ROW not obstruct bike access. Again, thank you for notifying us. We remain an interested agency with respect to the project and ask that we be provided any notices or relevant documents as you progress through the planning process. Sincerely, M. Pamela Otis Associate Environ. Analyst Environmental Mngt. Bureau cc: Ruth Pierpont, Director, Field Services Ray Dobbins, Park Manager Tom Lyons, Director, Environmental Management An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency United States Agricultural Department of Research Agriculture SerVice North Atlantic Area Plum Island Animal Disease Center P.O. Box 848 Y~ Greenport, New York 11944 - 0848 AugUst 8, 1996 Mr, Bennet Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Planning Board Office Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Reference: Lead Agency Coordination Request Project Name: Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Orlowski: This i's in response to your letter dated 3uly 31, 1996 where the Cross Sound Ferry proposes to provide additional parking at their ferry termi nal. 1. ]urisdiction in the action described. This Agency has no jurisdiction in the proposed action. 2. Interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency. This Agency has no objection to your Agency assuming lead agency status for the proposed action. 3. Issues of concern which we believe should be evaluated. · The site lighting design should address the impact of local residents and consider the impact on marine operations in the area. · The stormwater discharge point from Property 10.1, just east .of our property, is in our property. Please address all future correspondence regarding this matter to my attention. If you have any questions, please contact me at (S16) 323-2500 Extension 210. Sincerely, Assistant Center Director for Management CC: A. Torres, PIADC 3. Crew, NAA Fax: (516) 323-2507, (FTS) 649-9295 STATE Of NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, NY 12231-0OO1 August 7, 1996 Mr. Robert O. Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Lead A~ency Coordination Request Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Kassner: Thank you for submitting the above mentioned Lead Agency Coordination Request to the Department of State (DOS). Please note that the DOS is not interested in assuming Lead Agency status but does not obiect to the Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency. If during ~he course of your review it is determined that a federal permit or federal funding is required for any portion of the proposed project, please instruct the applicant to submit a Federal Consistency A~sessment Form (FCA_g) and supporting information to the U.S. ACOE/NY and to the DOS. Upon receipt, we will determine if the submitted information is adequate to commence a formal review of the project. If you have any questiom, do not hesitate to call me at (518) 474-6000. Coastal Resources Specialist Consistency Review Unit Div~iofi of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Rcvitali?ation c. U.S. ACOE/NY' - James Haggerty file ~1~ printeo on recycled paper TOWN OF SOUTHOLI~~~' ~ .?/~' DRAFT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM FEBRUARY 1991 PREPARED BY: CASHIN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS PLAINVlEW, NEW YORK THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT (GRANT-IN-AID AWARD NO. NA-82-AA-D-CZ-068) FROM THE OFFICE OF OCEAN ANO COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AI~ ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE COASTAl. ZONE MANAGEMENt. ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED. TI'lIS REPORT WA~ PREPARED FOR THE NEW yORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. gRAFT should not be located within 1,000 feet of saline waters or within 300 feet of each other. Large diameter production wells may require greater spacing, tn addition, USGS suggests greater utilization of field tensiometers {soil moisture meters) to regulate irrigation and conserve water. The amount of available groundwater in Southold is comparatively small, and all reasonable measures should be taken to conserve the supply and to control withdrawal, especially during periods of below normal precipitation (Crandall, USGS, 1963). The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has recently completed the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources ~ Plan {1987), which addresses current groundwater conditions and analyzes future water supply problems. Based on an analysis of expected growth rates, water demands, consumptive use rates, and recharge rates through the year 2020, the SCDHS has determined that future development will not have a substantial impact in terms of the quantity of groundwater that will be available for the Town of Southold, except in the hamlets of Orient and Orient Point. SCDHS suggeststhat tight land use controls over future development are needed to ensure an adequate future water supply in these two areas. Due to the relatively low density of development in Orient, it may not be feasible to develop public water supplies. Rather, other groundwater protection measures are needed, such as the granting of zoning variances for uses which require less water usage than uses permitted under the current zoning. Additional SCDHS recommendations for the entire area of Southold are contained in the analysis section of this document (Section 2.4}. Groundwater Quality Although SCDHS does not anticipate significant future Town-wide water quantity problems, localized water supply problems may arise during periods of prolonged drought. In addition, localized water 2-16 feeding in these fields, as well as nesting and roosting cover for certain species. Abandoned agricultural fields which have reverted to meadows or shrubby fields, provide some of the most diverse upland wildlife habitats in the Town of Southold. These old fields serve as a natural transition zone between the upland woodlands and cKoplands or wetland areas, and thus support a wide variety of wildlife species. For several seasons after abandonment, latent weed seeds germinate along with propagules from the last crop planted. Within several years, seedling pioneer trees take root in the abandoned fields adding further height and vegetative diversity. In terms of providing food and cover for wildlife, the benefits of preserving upland vegetation increase when natural buffers are retained surrounding wetlands and agricultural fields which otherwise would lie direc{ly adjacent to conflicting land uses. Large contiguous blocks of natural vegetation are more valuable than narrow strips; however, strips which connect two otherwise separated fields or woodlands are valuable in terms of providing travel corridors for wildlife. In mostcases, vegetated strips wider than 36 feet provide additional habitat values above their Utility as corridors {Forman and Godron, 1986). The different vegetation types occurring in the Town's LWRAsupport a variety of wildlife. Among the most common are the Eastern Cottontail and the Raccoon, both of which are found in a variety of habitats, including woods, wetlands, and dunes. Gray Squirrels are also common, though they are found primarily in areas with deciduous trees. Red Fox are fairly abundant, living primarily in woods, shrubs, and dune areas. White-tailed Deer are common in those areas of the Town where there is sUfficient vegetation for cover, and are often seen browsing in agricultural fields. Other mammals occurring in Southold include Moles, Opposum, Shrews, Mice 2-69 and Bats. There are a number of mammals which were common in Southold in the early part of the century, but have become rare in recent decades. These include the Woodchuck, Muskrat, Mink, and Striped Skunk. The Town of Southold supports a rich variety of birdlife, including both nesting and migratory species (Szepatowski Associates, Ibc., its location within the Atlantic FlYway, the April 1987). Due to provide valuable breeding and over-wintering Town's coastal areas areas for shorebirds, waterfowl' wading birds, raptors and perching birds. Raptorial birds common to the upland woods and open field areas include Red-tailed Hawks, Kestrels, Northern Harrier (Marsh Hawk), Barn Owls, Screech Owls, and Great-Horned Owls. lhe Northern Harrier is listed as a ,,threatened" species on the NYSDEC List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of New York State. Similarly, the Barn Owl, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Bluebird, · Grasshopper Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow, all of which inhabit the upland areas in the Town are listed as ,,Species of Special Concern". Over 50 species of upland gamebirds and perching birds either breed in or migrate through the lown of Southold. One additional species of "Special Concern" '- the Eastern Hognose Snake, inhabits the sparsely vegetated sandy meadow and woodland areas in Southold (Szepatowski Associates, Inc., April 1987). 2.2.10 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats lhe Town of SoUthold LWRA contains several important ecosystems including beaches, freshwater and tidal wetlands, creeks, salt marshes, and other surface waters. These ecosystems support diverse and often large wildlife populations, many of which are of commercial or recreational value. Clams and scallops are commercially taken from bay waters. Recreational finfishing is popular in the coastal waters throughout the Town. 2-70 The bay and harbor surface waters and adjoining wetlands and islands in the Town serve as wintering grounds for many species of birds, breeding grounds for others, resting stops for migrating species, and permanent homes for other resident species. The population size of the various waterfowl species is influenced by water quality, changes in wetland areas, intensity of adjacent land use, and by habitat loss or alteration. The Offshore waters of the bays and Sound also support a diversity of fish, crustacean and molluscan species, and are important feeding areas for many bird species. The offshore waters are biologically and hydrodynamically coupled to the coastal bays, harbors, and creeks. Therefore, any degradation of offshore waters or declines in fish species will ultimately have adverse impacts on the coastal embayments. The converse is also true. In 1972, the federal government passed the Coastal Zone Management Act. The purpose of this Act was to promote the proper protection , and development of our nation's coastal resources. In 19B2, New York State passed its own Coastal Management Program {CMP}. Included under the State CMP was enabling legislation to protect, preserve and restore coastal fish and wildlife habitats. The habitat protection policy not only protects important species, but also the areas in which these species live, either seasonally or permanently, to meet an essential portion of their life requirements. Coastal habitats across New York State were evaluated and rated by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) as to their State-wide significance based upon general criteria. These include: e Population Level - a large portion or significant concentration of a fish or wildlife population depends on the habitat for at least some part of their life requirements (e.g. - nesting areas for shore birds or spawning areas for fish); 2-71 · Species Vulnerability ' a vulnerable species -- one which is listed as endangered {E}, threatened (T), or of special concern (SC} in New YorkState -- depends upon the habitat; · Human Use - the fish and wildlife resources are valuable for human uses including commercial, recreational or educational uses (e.g. -commercial bay scallop fishery; ornithological research station); and · Ecosystem Rarity - the habitat or ecosystem type is rare in the State or region {e.g. - undeveloped barrieK beach, wetland ecosystems, or dune formations). Upon s~tisfaction of one or more of these criteria, and following a series of public hearings, a habitat received a State designation of significance. Once designated by NYSDOS, a habitat is protected througha regulatory process of consistency reviews for State and Federal actions affecting coastal areas. As a result, proposed actions that are determined to significantly alter or destroy a designated habitat or impair the viability of the area as habitat may not be approved. In addition to the NYSDOS review role, other State and municipal agencies that regulate activities requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS} are required to ensure that designated significant habitats will be preserved and protected. The Town of Southold, through the preparation of this LWRP, is required to protect such designated habitats. The NYSDOS has designated the following eighteen areas within the Town of Southold as significant fish and coastal wildlife habitats. As previously indicated, the biological, commercial and recreational value Of these ar~as was one of the primary factors determining their protected status. 2-72 D AJ::T area is important as a habitat for various fish and wildlife species. The habitat is a confirmed nesting area for diamondback terrapin {SC) which are relatively uncommon on the north shore. This species lays its eggs on the sand beaches bordering the marsh. The tidal creek and salt marsh provide feeding area cover for the terrapin during this nesting period (April-July}. Piping plover {T) nested on the beach in 1983 but not in 1984 or 1985. The importance of the beach as a habitat for piping plover is not well documented. The tidal marsh serves as important feeding area for the terrapins, shorebirds and other wildlife. The creek is also important for various species of marine shellfish and finfish. Little Creek is one of the best areas in the town for crabbing and is also locally important for clamming. Long Beach Bay is located on the northern fork of Long Island, one mile east of the hamlet of Orient, in the Town of Southold {Figure 2-5). This approximate 1,300-acre significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat includes Long Beach Bay the adjacent tidal salt marsh areas, and Orient Beach State Park, which is comprised of a long, narrow, sand peninsula protecting the bay area. Most of the open water area of Long Beach Bay is less than six feet deep at mean low water. Long Beach Bay and Orient Point Marshes comprise a large and relatively undisturbed coastal estuarine ecosystem. Areas such as this are rare in New York State, and provide habitat for a diversity of fish and wildlife species. In 1984, approximately fifteen pair of osprey (T) were reported nesting in the Long Beach Bay area. This is one of the largest nesting concentrations of osprey in New York, and 2-84 the potential exists for additional nesting pairs at,this site. Almost all of the nests are located on man-made platforms placed around the perimeter of the bay. A variety of seabirds, shorebirds, and wading birds use this area for feeding or for stopovers during migration. This area is especially significant as a feeding area for herons, egrets, and ibis which nest on Plum Island. Long Beach Bay is also an important waterfowl wintering area in Suffolk County. Aerial surveys of waterfowl abundance in January for the ten year period from 1975 to 1984 indicate average concentrations of over 300 birds in the bay each year, including approximately 240 scaup {900 in peak year}, and 70 black ducks (300 in peak year), along with lesser numbers of mergansers, bufflehead, goldeneye, and mallard. Diamondback terrapin (SC) are frequently observed in the marsh. Fish and wildlife recreational activities in the area that are important to the residents of Suffolk County include waterfowl hunting, fishing, and birdwatchingo Bay scallops are abundant in Long Beach Bay, contributing to a commercial shellfishery of significance in the northeastern United States. Also, the bay is one of the top three areas of significance for clams in Suffolk County. 12. Mattituck Inlet Wetland The Mattituck Inlet Wetland habitat area is located north of the Village of Mattituck on Long Island Sound, in the Town of Southold {Figure 2-5). This significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat consists of an approximate 60-acre tidal wetland and creek. Mattituck Inlet, located north of the wetland, is a deep water inlet, with ~trong tidal flushing, that enters Long Island Sound. Mattituck Creek extends south of the inlet for about one additional mile, and supports 2-85 moderate residential and marina development° The wetland habitat itself is undisturbed; the majority of the wetland is owned by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Small, undisturbed tidal wetlands with good flushing are unusual in northern Suffolk County. The Mattituck Inlet Wetland has a high primary productivity which supports a large variety of fish and wildlife species both in the wetland itself and around the mouth of the inlet in Long Island Sound. Osprey {T} nested on the state wetland propertyin 1984 and 1985 and feed in the wetland and on the creek. One pair of piping plover {T} nested on the beach to the east of the inlet in 1984 but the extent of use by this species is not documented. The wetland also serves as an important habitat for a variety of other wildlife as well as marine finfish and shellfish. Surf clams, hard clams and mussels have been harvested in or adjacent to the habitat area but there have been pollution problems due to marina activities, and consequent shellfish closures° 13. Orient Harbor Orient Harbor is located near the eastern end of the north fork of Long Island, in the Town of Southold {Figure 2-5}. This area is approximately 1900 acres in size, consisting primarily of open water area in the harbor, along with an undeveloped tidal wetland area on its north shore. Water depths in most of the harbor are generally less than 20 feet below mean low water. The harbor is bordered by much undeveloped land, including Orient B~ach State Park to the east and south, and low density residential development on the west. 2-86 Orient Harbor is generally representative of the Peconic Bays ecosystem in being a broad expanse of moderately shallow water. This habitat type is unlike the very shallow bays on the south shore of Long Island or the relatively narrow bays on the north shore. The tidal wetlands area adjoining Orient Harbor are an important component of this ecosystem, contributing to the biological productivity of the area° Orient Harbor is an important habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species. From November through March, Orient Harbor supports wintering waterfowl concentrations of regional significance° Mid-winter aerial surveys of waterfowl abundance for the ten year period from 1975 to 1984 indicate average concentrations of over 500 birds in the area each year {1,825 in peak year}, including approximately 360 scooters (1,695 in peak year), along with lesser numbers of scaup, black duck, common goldeneye, bufflehead, red-breasted merganser, oldsquaw, canvasback, mallard, and Canada goose. In 1983 and 1984, Orient Harbor was also inhabited by at least one nesting pair of osprey {T}, which utilized man-made nesting platforms located in the salt marsh north of the harbor. The potential exists for additional nesting pairs at this site. Diamondback terrapin {SC) have also been seen here but the location of their nesting sites and the importance of this area to the species is not well documented. Orient Harbor is a productive habitat for marine finfish and shellfish° This area is one of the top scallop producing areas on Long Island, supporting a commercial shellfishery significant in the northeast region of the United States. The harbor also serves as a nursery and feeding area {from April-November, generally} for many estuarine fish species, and is an important spawning area for weakfish, winter flounder, and scup. 2-87 14. P1 um Gut Plum Gut is an area of open water located between Orient Point and Plum Island, in the Town of Southold (Figure 2-5). This significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat is a deep channel {over 60 feet in depth), approximately one-half mile across, and bordered by steep underwater slopes rising up to the relatively shallow Midway Shoal (less than 20 feet deep}. This approximate 500-acre area is the primary opening in the underwater ridge separating Long Island Sound and Gardiners Bay, and is an area of very turbulent tidal exchange. Plum Gut is on the ferry boat route from Orient Point to Plum Island and New London, Connecticut. Plum Gut represents a very unusual physical environment in New York State. The deep, turbulent waters and shoals combine to produce a productive and diverse habitat for marine fishes. Significant concentrations of many species forage in this area, including striped bass, bluefish, tautog, summer flounder, and scup. Plum Gut is one of the two major migration corridors for striped bass, which move into Long Island Sound in spring enroute to their breeding grounds, and returnto southern overwintering areas during the fall. Plum Gut is a~'so thought to be the major corridor for Atlantic Salmon returning to the Connecticut and Pawtucket. Rivers in New England in the early spring. As a result of the abundant fisheries resources in the area, Plum Gut is one of the most popular areas in the northeastern United States for recreational fishing, with heavy fishing pressure occurring throughout spring, summer, and fall. Much of this pressure is brought in by charter boats from Greenport, Connecticut, and Montauk Harbor. In addition to sportfishing, the commercial trap net fishery and lobster fishery in Plum Gut are of regional significance. 2-88 2.2.11 Critical Environmental Areas and Environmental Quality Bond Act Land Acquisitions A Critical Environmental Area (CEA) is a specific geographic area the possesses exceptional or unique characteristics which deem the area environmentally significant. In 1978, New York State implemented the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA}. Under SEQRA, local governments have the ability to designate specific geographic areas within their boundaries as Critical Environmental Areas. Once a site receives such designation, any action proposed wholly or partially within the CEA must be treated as a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA, and undergo a series of governmental reviews and public hearings before the proposed action can take place. A Type I action is an activity that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment that requires the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form {EAF). Although actions proposed within a CEA do not always receive a positive declaration from the Lead Agency thereby requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement (ELS), these actions are more likely to require an EIS than actions proposed in areas not so designated. Land areas are recommended to receive CEA designation if they fulfill one or more of the following criteria: m lhe land is identified as a benefit or a threat to the public health or public safety (e.g., benefit water supply reservoir, threat abandoned l~ndfill); · The land area is determined to be of social, cultural, historic, recreational and/or educational importance (e.g., historic building, waterfront access); 2-93 The land area possesses an inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change and may be adversely affected by such change {e.g., groundwater aquifer, endangered species habitat); and The land area is a natural environment which possesses -~ignificant ecological and aesthetic character (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, undeveloped open space}. Using the criteria listed above, local governments typically nominate a group of land areas for CEA designation. Following a series of public hearings, at which time the characteristics and boundaries of these areas are discussed, these land areas are classified as CEA's and are filed with the NYSDEC Department of Regulatory Affairs. This agency maintains a listing of all of the State's Critical Environmental Areas. Critical Environmental Areas Within the Town of Southold The creeks and inlets in the Town of Southold have been identified as the most aesthetic and ecologically productive resources. Consequently, almost all of these waterbodies have received CEA designations. Southold Town and Suffolk County have judged the following 22 areas as qualified CEA's (Figure 2-5). It should be noted that, in whole or in part, many of these areas have also been designated by New York State as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (as indicated by the asterisk). Significant habitats were discussed in Section 2.2.10. 2-94 Land Area ~ Date Brushes Creek Southold Town 2/90 Cedar Beach Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Corey Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Cutchogue Harbor and Southold Town 3/88 Wetlands* Dam Pond Southold Town 3/88 Deep Hole Creek Southold Town 2/90 Downs Creek* Southold Town 3/88 Goldsmith's Inlet Southold Town 2/90 Goose Creek Southold Town 2/90 Hall's Creek Southold Town 2/90 Hallocks Bay* Southold Town Inlet Pond Suffolk County 2/88 Little Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Mill Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Peconic Bay and Environs Suffolk County 9/88 Pipes Cove Creek Southold Town 2/90 Orient Creek Southold Town 3/8B Orient Point Suffolk County 2/88 Richmond Creek and Beach* Southold Town 9/88 Robins Island* Suffolk County 3/88 West Creek Southold Town 3/88 *EQBA discussion 2.2.12 Scenic and Visual Resources The visual quality of the coastal waterfront is a significant resource of the Town of Southold. The scenic quality of the coastal landscape plays a vital part in attracting visitors, residents, and businesses to the waterfront areas. It is important to protect those positive scenic qualities which enhance the viewer's recreational experience and the quality of life for residents, as well as develop plans to improve any degraded vistas or resources within its jurisdiction. The'~existing scenic and visual settings of the Town are significant resources for residents and visitors. 2-95 The landscape can be described in terms of its basic physical components: land and water, vegetation, and structures. The land and water component consists of the rolling terrain, bluffs, dunes and beaches, inlets and ponds, creeks and streams, the south shore bays, and the Long Island Sound. These features are mostly in their natural condition which contributes to the beauty of the waterfront. In some places, the land has been altered in such a way as to degrade the scenic quality of the landscape. Dredging for marinas in many of the creeks, and bulkheading have replaced some of the natural organic curves of the water's edge with straight architectural forms~ The vegetation component includes trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Most of the vegetation in the Southold LWRA consists of tidal wetlands, freshwater marshes, agricultural lands, undeveloped fields, pine and oak woodlands, and transitional vegetation. The extent of this natural vegetation helps to obscure development that is in contrast with the natural landscape. The structural component of the landscape includes man-made objects such as buildings, roads, and power lines. Southold is fortunate in that development along the coastline has not been intensive. Although there are many structures that are visible from offshore locations, most of this development is residential in natureand for the most part is not significantly obtrusive. This is further benefitted by the extent of woodland vegetation that exists and acts to screen upland development from view. There are many wide stretches of undeveloped shoreline in the Town, particularly along the northshore. There are also no industrialized areas containing large, prominent structures. Offshore views of the Town are, therefore, very positive. 2-96 There are many significant vistas along the waterfront. The northshore affords spectacular views of the Long Island Sound, particularly from the bluff areas. The south shore embayments offer a variety of views of offshore islands and land masses, and the Great Peconic, Little Peconic, Southold, and Gardiners Bays. The elements that give these vistas importance include: the visibility of the water; conspicuous foreground, mid-ground or background features; and the composition of elements in the view. Viewed f~om offshore waters the coastal area of the Town is breathtaking. Many of the south shore embayments provide excellent anchorages and are popular areas for sailing and cruising. These areas are visually accented with sandbars and shoreline woodlands that highlight the viewsheds. The prominent bluffs on the northshore dominate views and lessen the visual obviousness of shoreline development. Overall, the scenic and visual quality of the Town is excellent despite the fact that development is affecting the Town's aesthetic character° Southold has existed for many years as an area of widespread agricultural activity, with vast areas of rural and undeveloped land. Over the past ten years, the Town has experienced an upsurge in development. In some areas commercial and residential develJpment has taken on an obtrusive and incongruous appearance, with the construction of structures and signage that are not in concert with the rural and historic character of the Town. Many of these commercial structures remain vacant and have adversely impacted the physical appeal and social character of certain areas. The preservation of the aesthetic, historic, and scenic character of the Town is important to the continuance of its attraction as a quaint, agricultural and waterfront community. Efforts shodld be taken to balancegrowth and development with the desire to maintain the rural character that has existed here for many years. Development should be guided 2-97 and regulated through the use of design standards anU review to achieve this goal. Generally, it is assumed that positive coastal vistas and visual resources evoke feelings of serenity, tranquility and harmony. Positive visual elements are uncluttered, ordered, simple and congruous with existing natural amenities. Positive resources include lush, vegetated marsh areas, thriving fish and wildlife habitats and populations, and man-made structures which conform with the historic and rural character of the Town, the natural shoreline, and coastal features. In direct contrast, negative visual elements appear cluttered or haphazard, obtrusive, and incongruous with the natural setting. Negative resources include signs of pollution, overcrowding, neglected or deteriorating structures, and land uses that actually degrade or result in discord with the natural environment or the rural, historic character of the Town. The scenic and visual resources in the various sub-areas of the Town's LWP~Awere evaluated based upon their positive or negative characteristics. A few areas are noted as unclassified. These are areas where the impacts of land use activities have resulted in a more subjective impact. For example, although a deteriorated or intensively utilized area or structure may possess nostalgic character or add to the charm of an historic waterfront community, such structures or areas may actually detract from the overall visual quality due to this existing physical condition or intensity of use. In these cases, the beauty is literally in "the eye of the beholder". 2-98 Sub-Area I Positive: Sound Avenue (Suffolk County) - In recognition of its cultural, scenic and historical importance dating back to the American Revolution, in 1975, the New York State Legislature established Sound Avenue as a significant scenic and visual corridor in Suffolk County. Any development activities that occur in this area should be undertaken and designed in conformance with the significant visual nature of this area. Breakwater Beach (Mattituck Park District) - Breakwater Beach is located just west of Mattituck Inlet. This beach contains and provides visual access to the highest bluffs in the Town (Mattituck Hills -160 feet above mean sea level). On and off-site views in this area are quite picturesque and should be preserved. · Negative: Mattituck Tank Farm and Asphalt Plant (Private) - The Mattituck Tank Farm and Asphalt Plant are located near the mouth of Mattituck Creek {adjacent to Luthers and Naugles 'Roads). Presently, the unfenced and unscreened sites contain several very large and abandoned above-ground storage tanks, and are strewn with litter and rusting garbage. Efforts should be made to improve the visual quality of these sites through appropriate redevelopment action. Unclassffied: There are a number of private lots located directly across from the Old Mill Inn on the eastern side of MattituckCreek (Tax Map Section 106, Block 4, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Presently, lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 contain neglected structures used primarily for the fishing industry. In addition, lot 2 contains a private home in an advanced state of disrepair although probably habitable. All of these structures have the potential for revitalization. 2-99 Sub-Area 2 Positive: Peconic Dunes {Suffolk County/Private) - Peconic Dunes is located between Goldsmith Inlet and Great Pond. Presently, this lO0-acre site houses a 37-acre Suffolk County camp as well as several private homes. Primary and secondary dune formations, with elevation changes of over 100 feet, allow Peconic Dunes to be one of the most unique and aesthetic ecosystems in the Town. Naturally, the site abounds with wetlands, diverse wildlife, and lush vegetation. Currently, the dunes are restricted from the public due to private ownership and the presence of the County camp. Protection of this significant ecosystem is of high priority to preserve its scenic and environmental character. Goldsmith Inlet {Suffolk County) - Goldsmith Inlet is one of two inlets in the Town located on the Long Island Sound; the other one is Mattituck Creek. Unlike Mattituck Creek, this inlet is 'owned and protected by Suffolk County. As a result, the inlet is basically undeveloped and is not used for power boating. Goldsmith Inlet supports a great variety of wildlife and native vegetation. Consequently, the area provides many hiking and fishing opportunities for Suffolk County residents. This facility offers excellent views of the Sound and surrounding area and should be maintained and protected. Sound View Avenue {Suffolk County) - Sound View Avenue begins at the Southern edge of Goldsmith Inlet and continues eastward, representing the southeastern border of Sub-area 2. This corridor offers scenic views of the Long Island Sound and runs through wooded duneland and historic estate property..Consequently, Sound View Avenue is one of the Town's most aesthetic'roadways. The visual quality of this roadway should be protected. Future development proposals should be reviewed with consideration given to the preservation of viewsheds and scenic quality. 2-100 Unclassified: Kenneys Beach, a private facility, is an intensely developed area of tightly packed, small bungalows, located directly north of Great Pond. This area is highly prone to erosion, and the nature of development activities has impacted visual quality. Sub-Area 3 Positive: Horton Point Liqhthouse {Southold Park District) - The Horton Point Lighthouse is located on a nine-acre landscaped site at the end of Lighthouse Road, overlooking Long Island Sound. This historically significant lighthouse has been converted into a museum and is open to the public. There are picnic tables located on the site but extensive use of the park and its amenities is limited to certain hours. The site offers spectacular vistas of the Sound and is a resource that should be maintained and protected. Sound View Avenue/County Road 48 (Suffolk County) - Sound View Avenue begins in Sub-Area 2 and continues in a northeasterly direction, merging with County Route 48. This stretch of roadway offers excellent scenic views of Long Island Sound and is bordered by thick native vegetation. The visual quality of this portion of Sound Avenue should be preserved. Future development that may occur in this area should be reviewed with consideration given to the preservation of viewsheds and scenic quality. Negative: Inlet Pond County Park {Suffolk County) - Inlet Pond is a 36-acre site located north of the Incorporated Village of Greenport, with access provided from Route 48. This site offers tremendous scenic value due to its acreage, high bluffs, large areas of wetlands and thick forests. However, Suffolk County has not properly controlled access to, or maintained conditions on, this site. Consequently, portions of Inlet Pond are strewn with debris including garbage and junked cars. In addition, four-wheel 2-101 NFEC PAGE .Eric Lamont, Ph.D. Botanist 717 Sound Shore Road, Rivcrhead, N.Y, 11901 Tel: 516F/22-5542 Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, N,Y. 11971 5 September 1996 RE: Potential Negative Environmental Impacts and the Proposed Development by Cross Sound Ferry Co. Dear Sul~rvisor Coct~ran: to in~ thc parking facilities at tho Orient Point terminal may Plans by Cross Sound Fe .n~j CO,; ..... z-~,~,~on Scabeach Knotweed (Polyg, on.~.,, resui, th, des=c.on o,. g/a~cm) is known t? ~c.ur l~'o~m_~Jt~2.~it, of ~a2~f;rry t~nninal. In addition, seventeen inabitat for thi.~ rare p,l~h-it also occm~ other rar~ plant spemes have l~n recently documented from Orient Beach State Park; iota, may occur near or at the proposed development site, · r the uhli, aaon, Enclosed ~s a copy o ............. ~: ~ao~ ,~,;,h Dr Richard Stalter zrom ~t. jonn s Long Island, New York," wnlcll . ' al studies on Long Island induces me..t.o state th_at thc e.n, tire~ niversity, Twen~ years of bo ~t~__. ~U~tem ~) of ~e Or/ent peninsula sup?o? .mc ~,~_,_~_~[v~e~i~ o ~;11 Environmental lmpac, ~o~olc[. Therefore, I urge you ~o aec~are m= n~,- ..... -the vicinity of the Orient Statement before any ~levelopment occurs anywhere near Point f~rr~ ierminal. If I may be of fut._her assisianc~ please do ~ot hesitate to cont?¢t me. S~cemty. F.,ric Lamont, Ph.D. ~,nclosm'~s SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Michael A. LoGrende, Chain'~arl/CEO Matthew B. Kondenar, Secretary · Melvin M. Fritz, M.D., Member James T.B. Tripp, Member Eric J. Russo, Member Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (516) 589-5200 Fax No.: (516) 583-0370 September 4, 1996 · North Fork'Environmental Council 12900 Route 25 · "Mattituck, New York 11952 Attention: Debra O'Kane .~Dear Ms. O'Kane, In answer to your questions regarding groundwater conditions in Southold and most particularly Orient and Orient Point, the Suffolk County Water Authority has closely monitored groundw:ater quality in those areas for nearly twenty years. Our observations have followed those of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services whose monitoring program for the North. Fork dates back to the fifties. The Odent Point and Orient areas are the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island because the land masses are relatively fiat with complete underlayment of saltwater. Very little clay barriers exist in these areas that could serve as an aquifer protection from surface pollutants above or saline waters below. As a result all surface pollutants can ·easily penetrate upper soil strata directly impacting the freshwater aquifer.~ .. G~0u~i:Jwa~e~' samp~S'thr~3ugh0u't ~he eastem end o.f Southoid Town have indiCated'high'C°ncentrations: ~f. nitrates and'residual pesticides and herbicides. AnY sustained pqmping of'water in these areas will upcone salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. Tliese unfavorable groundwater conditions have influenced the SCWA policy of not seeking any well field locations in the Orient areas. Originally it was believed that the best way to insure quality water fpr the families at Orient would be to establish a public water supply that could monitor all pumpage and treat where necessary. Since the cost of such a system would be extraordinary due tq existing high nitrates and other contaminants and the narrow band of fresh water constantly threatened with salt upconing, the SCWA believes it would be best not to provide a public water supply at this time. But,' to support this policy, it 'is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer. North Fork Environmental Council -2- September 4, 1996 Any intensification of land uses will be detrimental to groundwater conditions. In fact, every effort should be made to maximize open-space acquisitions and adopt stdct zoning codes that will prevent any increase'in activities at Orient that will impact groundwater conditions'. Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff;'fOrmation of phthalates and combustion pollutants. I hope this letter answers you[ questions. Please do not hesitate to call for further informati.on. Sincerel~ Timothy~ Authority 3ounsel TJH:MLG~dmm F. M. Flynn P. O. Box 144 Southold, NY 11971 - 0144 (516) 477 - 0698 August 14, 1996 Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P. O. Box 797 Greeport. NY 11944 - 0797 Re: Cross Sound Ferry's Proposed Parking Expansion Dear Members of SCSR: I submit for your attention lengthy, but I belie;ce pert~nent,,eomments concerning the captioned matter. It is my opinion that the fundamental issues involved at this time are those of jurisdiction and the integrity and competence of the town officials assuming preeminence in a proceeding so vital to the future of Southold. It appe~ars to me, up to this point, there is a passive acceptance that this matter is to be resolved, at the local level, by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. That a matter of such importance be delegated to unelected, officials, unaccountable to the electorate, appears to me to be utterly incongruous. This is particularly tree in the case of both these boards which, in the past, and on the public record, have proved to be untrustworthy if not duplicitous. With respect to jurisdiction, I believe what is sought by the ferry company requires a change of zoning. This requires legislative action involving an amendment to the Master Plan and such action is solely the prerogative of the Town Board. I find support for my contention in the Southold Town Zoning Code; a compendium of principles and regulations which the Town Board is enjoined to administer.and enforce. '- Section 100 - 10 states as its basic Purpose: "the protection and promption of the public health, safety and welfare." More specifically, Section 100- t0 F clearly recites as a Purpose: "The gradu~al elimination of nonconforming uses.". Obviously, the granting by the ZBA'of a use variance for commercial parking in a residenti,al zone would create a new nonconformity countermanding the stated goal of elimination. By so doing the ZBA would contravene a specific purpose of the C~de. Section 100 - 10 also cites among its purposes: D. "~ The prevention and reduction of of traffic conjestion so as to promote efficient and safe emulation of vehicles and pedestrians." E. "The maximum protection of residential and historic areas." The Town Board, the Town Attorney and the board's outside courteel have been strangely passive in this matter as well as in previous aspects of the Cross Sot~d Ferry's operations. Why? Successive Town Boards have been loath to accept their responsibilities to administer and enforce the Town Zoning Code and have abdicated their sworn duty by yielding power to these unelected officials. While this is an an obviously expedient political ploy, it represents a transparent effort to disclaim accountability to the electorate. A concomitant result has been the piecemeal deterioration of Southold's ambience by a number of questionable, frequently illegal, actions by the referenced agencies. Since the Planning Board and Departn~ent, as well as the ZBA, are appointed by the Town Board, it, in its capacity as promUlgator of the Town Code, cannot avoid ultimate responsibility for the actions of these agencies. I believe that voices, other than my obviously ineffectual one, should bring this to the attention of all concerned residents. The Planning Board and Department, as well as the ZBA, are thoroughly discredited agencies of town government Their past actions, as evidenced by public records along.serve to indict them. They have, time and time again, proved themselves to be malleablle to political pressure and amenable to special interests. The ZBA, for years has been rezoning the Town of Southold in the guise of issuing" use" variances. It issues them, profligately, to the politically well- connected without regard to the strict burden of proof imposed on the applicant by the law. Anyone who has observed the actions of the ZBA is aware of the wholesale number and types of variances granted. This despite ~ the. injunction in the New York State Enabling Act for Town Zoning that the right to grant variances is to be "sparingly exercised in rare circumstances." As to the previous roles of the Planning Board and Department, I believe their actions, as evidenced by the public records, have not only thoroughly discredited them, but opened them to charges of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance for which they should be prosecuted. I do not make these charges lightly and, as I have info,,~ed the Town Board, I stand ready to substantiate them in any venue. Their combined actions with respect to the previous approval of expanded parking on the Cross Soued site have demonstrated gross incompetence, c~r worse. By approv~ing a partial plan for the project, they have they have incompetently, or to all appearances willfully, disregarded SEQRA regulations regarding segmentation" The SEQR Handbook states: "The State Environmental Quality Review Act clearly directs lead agencies to address the overall action even if the agency's jurisdiction or involvmentat any time may be of a limited nature. Except in special circumstances, considering only a part, step, or component of an overall action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. Such an approach which is referred to as" segmentation" fails to consider the combined impacts of the various related components of the action." Not only, in my opinion, did the Planning Board ignore this regulation in its previous related action, but it appears to have attempted to do so again in the subject instance. In a Traveler - W.at~man article, in its July 4, 1996 edition, site plan reviewer Robert Kassner ~s reported to have said that he: "thought the board could accept the site plan and then later attach an addendum which would include a complete site plan for the entire Orient site." The obvious inference is that the Planning Board was prepared to consider as partial site plan. What confidence can we, as residents of Southold, have in planners who display such an evident disdain for regulations imposed by New York State law? Even more egregious, in a broader context, are the actions of the Planning Board and Department as evidenced by their approval of a recent travesty of a" Site Plan" "Submitted on tlehalf of the Port of Egypt. The" Site Plan" was fradulently advertised in the required" Public Notice" in that it did not disclose the the full extent and purpose of the project. Nor did it acurately, or completely describe the surrounding ownerships. Despite my having informed the Planning Department of these discrepancies prior to the" Public Hearing'b ~l~t was made to correct the misinformation provided to the public. The purported" Site Plan" provided literally no plan at all for a portion of the project for which approval was granted. Approval of the" Site Plan" entailed approval of parking facilities which deliberately ignored the Zoning Code's specific requirement that parking spaces be related on a one-to-one ratio to boat capacity. The accepted "Site Plan ,' provided for 122 parking spaces for: "Marina in-water slips with accessory swimming pool." Even without provision for swimming pool parking, the owner has an advertised capacity of 150 in-water slips. (3) More outrageous, if possible the accepted plan provided for only 10 parking spaces for dry-boat storage,'*survey conducted by the NFEC, under the aegis of the Town Board, indicated at least 165 such dry-stored boats. The obvious effect of such an approval is to impose no limitation on the number of boats at a marina directly contravening the Code's specific intent to confine boat capacity to one per parking space. Even then, to create the clearly inadequate number of parking spaces, the applicant resorted to the subterfuge of attempting to count 28 parking spaces in a metal baoat storage building, a clearly incompatible and illegal use. Further the property involved is in a flood plain areayet, the plan purported to prov~i~te parking slpaces within 2 or 3 feet of MHW. I have been unable to find any evidence of involvment by the Board of Trustees in a matter which should have been of considerable concern to them. In approving the" Site Pla,T the Planning Board accepted testimony by the applicant that he had a long term lease on a portion of Old Main Road. Basrtl on my experience, I expressed my doubts to the board. I subsequently ascerta'ined from the Deparment of Transportation that the applicant actually had only a thirty- day permit, renewabl;e~ or canncelable~at the option of the DOT. Not only wa:as the status of the property misrepresented, but such a permit hardly justifies the erection of improvements in the area, and the relocation of OLd Main Road as the applicant has done. There is much more to be said regarding the change of use for a nonconforming property, the question of the actual ownership of the entirety etc. I have disafssed thins matter at some length to alert you, as to the character of the agency on which the Town Board expects you to rely. As to the" Public Hearing ", it was no less than a" Star Cham_ber. ['. proceeding, the outcome of which had been decided pr. hr to, and regardless of pul~llC comment. The board completely ignored my cntac~sm as well as my detailed written submission. The chairman lectured me as to the board's right to waive parking requirements, but convieniently n~neglected the specific limitation which states that such waivers: "will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and provisions of the Zoning Code." The chairman also had the effrontery to state that the board had made a practice of such waivers in the past; a clear and deliberate trangression of Code regulations. He also stated that the subject plan was less objectionable than the one previously approve by the board. If it was objectionable, why was it approved? In fact, the approval of the previousl plan was also patently illegal. (4) The monetary effect of the approval of this" Site Plan" is to grant the applicant the utility of, and, hence, the value of approximately two acres of commercially zoned, waterfront land.. Board member Mr. Orlowski has been quoted as promising Admiral Hanson: "a fair and open process. I gurantee that." In view of the Planning Board's previous actions, are we fools enough to believe any of its representations ? Even more ominous, as a harbinger of the Town Board's attitude, and of its creditability, is that it has been fully informed of the Planning Board's depredations and has had its attention called to the public record substantiating these allegations. It has refused to act. In my opinion, this lack of action could well place members of the board in the posistion of co conspiritors. What light does this cast on the Town Board's purported espousal of fair and open government and dedication to due process'/ Further, the Town Board should be taking the lead in combatting this outrageous assault on Southold's rural character. The Zoning Code, which board members have the sworn duty to enforce, states that, in accordance with Article 16 of Town Law, its purpose is to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare. Are not these issues involved.`? Of what use is a Town Board which shirks the primary function of government.`? Rather than be in the forefront of the opposistion to the Cross Sound Ferry plan, the Town Board has displayed a strange ambivalence or, more accurately, a reluctance to take a stand on behalf of the rights of residents. Our supervisor has maintained that she is maintaining what she characterizes as an" impartial" attitude. Why ? where, may ! as .k~w~9,u,l,d_~ South Fork towns be today vis-a-vis the ferry company had their officia'Is,,§[f~l~Xveak-kne~0;} attitude .? These other towns are quite content to see S'~uthold bear the entire brunt of this assault, including traffic originating from within their own confines. The Town Board must be flushed out. The public must be made aware of its craven attitude and its transparent reluctance to fulfill its obligations. Is the board cowed by the monied, and politically influential, interests involved ? Do these factors explain why the board appears content to rely on the feeble efforts of the Town Attorney and retained counsel ? Returning, for a moment, to the legal standar~ the ferry company must meet to qu~llify for a" use" variance, the apphcant must claim" unnecessary hardship The applicant must demonstrate: 1)" Under applicable zoning regUlations the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence." (5) 2)" That the alleged hardship relating to the peoperty in question is uniqe and does not apply to a su[!stantial portion of the district or neighborhood." 3)" That the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood." 4) "That the alleged hardship has not been self-created." It is obvious that Cross Sound cannot meet these legal criteria for a use variance. Its only viable alternative is to seek a rezoninqwhich places it square'¥ in the scope of the Town Board's jurisdiction. This is a~posistion I have maintained from the onset. The application is motivated by greed and any alleged hardship is self-created. The courts have held that the prospect for increased profits constitutes no basis tbr granting a~ase variance. The coml~any is obviously profitable based upon its own statements of increased revenues generated by passenger vehicle and truck traffic. The application to add additional facilities to service gambling casinos and an amusement park is an obvious attempli to create increased profitability. Any allegationof hardship is self-created in the pursuit of exorbitant profits. In short, if my writing style permits, the ZBA is cons~ined to reject, summarily,, any such application for a use variance. ~ The adverse effects of increased traffic etc. on the entire Town of Southold, let alone Orient, are s(~ well known as to be hardly worthy of comment at this time. As to the benefits the ferry company cites as accruing to Southold as the result of its operations, I contend that thes%'i¥~m normal tourist travel and truck transportation. I believe no objections have been raised to their continuance. Much the same benefits are derived by the State of Connecticut in addition to increased corporate taxation. Southold, on the other hand is expected to bear the burden of the increased cost of road maintenance, police etc. As to the benefits to be derived by Southold from transient gamblers, this prospect is chimerical. I would hardly characterize gamblers rushing through Southold to meet a ferry sc,~_dule, and returning with largely depleted pockets, as representing a boon to Southold. They represent a hazard. The fe~ company has not been forthcoming in confining its source of potential customers to easterly Long Island and Connecticut. Are not the millions of residents of Queens and Brooklyn also residents on Long Island and, as such, should at least some portion of them be included in traffic projections ? Ms. Wachsberggr is entirely correct when she characterizes the application as an arrogant attempt to reduce Orient to the staus of an off-shore parking lot lbr a gambling operation for the benefit of a foreign corporation. Additionally, what (6) other forces, other than the existing franchisees are engaged in the proposed expanded operation ? As to Cross Sound's stance that the town cannot interfere in matters of interstate commerce, I believe this is a straw man erected by hired guns to intimidate a weak local administration. Commer~is defined as the buying and selling of goods, especially when done on a large scale between cities, states, or counties; ~ade. I cannot conceive of the decadent practice of transporting gamblers as a legitimate function of interstate commerce. This is~ all the more hue when recent studies have indicated that gambl!~, has an adverse effect on society as a whole and, more particularly/on those least able to afford the addiction. In my opinion, in view of the obvious purpose of the expansion, this is a matter of "home rule'. As Admiral Hanson has stated,the ferry company has conceded that by applying for a local pemdt rather than implementing, ff it considered it feasible, the ruthless process of bypassing Southold officials entirely. In conclusion, this will not be an easy fight in view of the forces, financial and political, arrayed agaist the interests of the residents of Southold. This is particularly so as evidenced by the lack of support so fL demonstrated by the Town Board. It is critical that the public be made aware of the Town Board's reluctance to assume its proper role and responsibilities and that the board, as elected officials, are those whom the public will hold responsible fbr any cataclysmic results. This is a matter which requires a concerted show of de~rmination by all residents and cannot be undertaken" on the cheap ". It requires a show of force and the retention of the best councellors and experts available. cc: NFEC FEMA- Mitigation IT~CIUCII~ itek T~llOuGi~l MTE¥1~irL"f~O# FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program ~e H~d Mitigafon ~ Progr~ (HMGP) ~ created in November 1988, by Section 404 of ~e RobeRT. Stafford Disaster Relief ~d Emergency Assist~ce Ac~. The ~GP aSsis~ States ~d local co~6es in implemem~g long-te~ mitigation measles follo~ng a Presiden~al disaster decimation. ~e objectives of ~e HMGP ~e: ~ TO prevent ~c losses of lives ~d prope~ due to dis~ters; ~ To ~plemem State or local ~tigation plus; ~ To enable ~tigation me~es to be ~plememed d~ng a State's or co~iW's i~ediate recove~ bom a dis~er; ~d ~ To provide ~g for pre~ously ident~ed ~tigation measles ~at benefit ~he dis~ter ~ea. To meet ~ese objectives, FE~ c~ ~d up to 75 percem of~c eligible costs of each project. ~e Sm~e or loc~ cost-shoe match does not need to be c~h; in ~nd se~ices or mate~als may also be used. Wi~ ~e p~sage of~e H~d Mitigation ~d Relocation Assis~ce Act of 1993, Feder~ ~ding ~der ~e HMGP is now based on 15 percem of~e Federal ~ds spem on ~e Public ~d Individual Assis~ce progr~s (m~us a~s~ative expenses) for each disaster. The ~GP c~ be used to ~d projects to protect either public or p~vate prope~, so long as ~e projects in question fit ~n ~e S~te ~d loc~ gove~cm's over~l ~on ~ate for ~e dis~ter ~ea, ~d comply ~ prog~ g~delines~ ~tiga ' gY.... ~--~ :--~111a~ *~e ac-uisifion or relocation of ro'ects ~at may ve mu~u m~,u-~ -, Exmples ~f p ~J . -~ ~,finina of e~sfin~ s~c~es to protect s~cmres ~om n~o-prone ~e~, ~tg .7-~----z-~ them ~om ~e dmges; ~d ~e development oI ~mte or IO~t to protect buildings ~om ~e dmages. Eligibili~ for ~ding ~der ~e ~GP is limited to State ~d local gove~ents, ce~in private non-profit org~mtions or institutions ~at se~e a public ~ction, Indi~ ~bes or au~ofized ~bfl org~mtiom, ~d AI~ Native villages or org~mtions. order to avvly for HMGP project ~ding, applic~ts mint work ~ough &eir ~me, since ~e State is responsible for seaing priorities for ~ng ~d admi~stefing ~e pro~m. ~ HMGP Success Stories ~ ~How Can I Learn More? Updated: July 15, 1996 1 ofl 08/30/96 23: ot'2 FEMA - Mitigation How Can I Learn More? To learn more about hazard mitigation measures that you can take to reduce your risk from disasters, continue looking through FEMA Internet Site, or contact your local building and planning official, emergency manager, or floodplain manager. You can also contact the FEMA Regional Office nearest you: FEMA Region I (serving CT, NH, ME, MA, RI, VT) J.W. McCormack Post Office Courthouse Bldg., Rm. 442 Boston, MA 02109 tel.: (617) 223-9540 FEMA Region II (serving NJ, NY, PR, VI) 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1337 New York, NY 10278 tel: (212) 225-7209 FEMA Region IH (serving DC, DE, MD, PA,VA, WV) Liberty Square Bldg., 2nd Floor 105 S. Seventh St. Philadelphia, PA 19106 tel: (215) 931-5608 FEMA Region IV (serving AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) 1373 Peachtree St., NE, Ste. 700 Atlanta, GA 30309 tel: (404) 853-4224 FEMA Region V (serving IL, IN, OH, MN, WI) 175 W. Jackson Blvd., 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 tel: (312) 408-5518 FEMA Region VI (serving AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) Federal Regional Center 800 N. Loop Denton, TX 76201 tel: (817) 898-5104 FEMA Region VII (serving IA, KS, MO, NE) 911 Walnut St., Rm. 200 Kansas City, MO 64106 tel: (816) 283-7061 FEMA Region VIII (serving CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 710 Box 52267 Denver, CO 80225 tel: (303) 235-4970 FEMA Region IX (serving AZ, CA, HI, NV) 08/30/96 23:27:55 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICI4-~RD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT oRLOWSKI, WILLIAM J. CREME2S Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE k TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EtS Determination of Significance September 16, 1996 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southoid Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM#: 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Location: E/S State Rt. 25 at Orient Point SEQR Status: Type t ( X ) Unlisted ( ) Description of Action: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Or ent: in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. Page 2 SEQR Positive Declaration - Cross Sound Ferry September 16, 1996 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the P!anning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Cross Sound project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding the following issues: 1. The project is a Type 1 action, which is more likely to require the preparation of a Draft ElS. In addition, the project is located adjacent to the surface waters of Gardiners Bay, which comprises a portion of the Peconic Bay Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The proposed project may impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA. In addition, the project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48+ acres of County owned land. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the intensity of land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded parking, demand for parking in connection with ferry operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking access. The proposed action may change the need and use of public and pedes- trian transportation services (including existing bike trail), and may increase the demand for other community services including fire, police recreational facilities and utilities. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips which utilize off-site infrastructure facilities primarily including existing transportation systems. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid waste generation. Existing and proposed site drainage must be analyzed and controlled. Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry service will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an adverse impact upon the environment. 7. The project may impact visual and aesthetic resources, particularly as page 3 SEQR Positive Declaration - Cross Sound Ferry September 16, 1996 regards lighting, and use during both daytime and night time hours. The proposed project may cause growth inducing aspects associated with the proposed project, in addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft ElS. 9. The project involves multiple agency jurisdictions and permits, and the comprehensive review of ,potential impacts would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft ElS. 10. Impact of passenger only jet boats on marine environment. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order to provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures. For Further information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 Southotd Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Dept of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources &Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Dept. of Transportation - Albany & Hauppauge offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency PLANNING BOA_RD OFFICE TOW!q OF SOUTHOLD AGENDA Seotember 16, 1996 Soecial Planning Board Meeting Southold Town Meeting Hall 4:30 p.m. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 F~LX (516) 765-3136 Telephone 516) 765-t938 SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Designation: 5s~,,e ~ Cross Souno Ferry.- This site alan is to add additional parking to a previously /X.~,c,/ aooroved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient. SCTNI~ 1000-15-10.1.11.1. 15.1 & 3.5. Oeteminations: Cross Sound Ferry-SCTM# 1000-15-10.1 11.1, 15.1 &3.5. To: Southold Town Planning Board Since 1992, the Southold Town Trustees has administered the Coastal Hazard Zone, and it continues to be within our jurisdiction. At Orient Point, in the area of the site plan for Cross Sound Ferry, Trustees' jurisdiction also extends specifically from the high-water mark to a distance of 75 feet inland. A determination of a wetland line should be made in coordination with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS Department of State. The Trustees respectfully request that the following concerns be addressed in the course of the ongoing SEQRA process: 1. Coordination with NYS DEC, which has jurisdiction within 300 feet of the water and coordination With FEMA, whose mapS indicate floodplain dimensions and borders. 2. Coordination with NYS Department of State to assure their policies are followed. 3. Permitting history of the Cross sound Ferry vis-a-vis dredging, placement of soils, and what may be infill and accretion into wetlands areas. 4. Although the CFS owns 4.1 acres of underwater land, this land and its use should be examined in any review of plans for intensification on the property in question; the underwater land was omitted from the current siteplan being reviewed. 5. At the time that CSF applied for and was granted permission to develop the 69-car parking lot, several permits and amendments were issued by NYS DEC to "maintain the dock." In truth, the development at this time was much broader, including but not limited to the construction of a bridge tower and replacement dock to enable passengers to get on and off the high-speed ferry. The Trustees assert that a portion of the work done, was done without an application to the Trustees, and that application has still not been received. The construction of the high speed docking structures and the dredging activities require both Town wetland and CEHA permits. 6. This is a Critical Environmental Area and as such proposed development must be approved and conducted in accordance with stricter guidelines. 7.The Trustees are also concerned with the unanswered questions of the effect of the pioposed action on increased runoff and pollution from the Main Road into the storm drains on the adjacent property of the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Laboratory into Gardiners Bay. 8. The high-water mark has changed in this area, as evidenced by aerial photographs from decades ago, and has changed as recently as this past winter with continued accretion of beach land to the east of the ferry docks. 9. It appears from tax maps that there is a section of public land that sits in the middle of CSF's project - will public access to this property be guaranteed? We are eager to contribute to this process, and look forward to having our comments included in the findings of the Town Planning Board. Please feel free to contact the Trustees for any amplification. Thank. you. Southold Town Trustees OGS-RPP~U 51B 4?4 0011 P, 02 OGS-RPP&U 518 4?4 0011 P.O1 PU~.YMOND w. J©HN J. DATE: TO: TEL~HOi~ TEL~DHONE -- F.~.X O~FFiCE NU~ER O~ PA.~'F.~ TE~d~$PL~WED (L~CLUD~T~IS~E) -~ '~ ~ ~o~1 ~ "0~$ ... C~DMMIT'~'$D TO TOTAL CU$'~OMER SATISFACTION'. 518 4?4 0011 P,02 TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLA~' ~ -, : ~ :- ~, Z~b~t~ BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFiCIALS: I AM CON-~t'iNCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC iS THE MOST DANGEROUS ,~ND IM_MEDIATE TI-IREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT gaND QUALITY OF LiFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHO!.D TOW~N OFF!CIAI~, TIlE DAMAGE Wtl J. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. t T~REFORE URGE ALL TOW]~' OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF TI-IE PASSENGER FEi~RY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND H_AS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW P,_ESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT TIlE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAK.E Pt~BLIC AN EFFECTiIt"B ENFORCEM~ POLICY. WORK TOGETI-!ER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY RE'VYEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORFffNT POhNT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, pLANNhNG BOARD, ZONING BOARD APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: ~L:["f DEA~. TOWN OFFICL4J-,S: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INC!IIe, ASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS A2.ND iMMED~ THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUAt.ITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLF_~SS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TA1CEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WILL BE IRRE'VER- S[BLE. I THEREFORE URGE _ALL T0~qN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFII~M THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPER2kT!ON OF T~rlE PASSENGER FERRY' UNTII, CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN _MqD SEQRA RE'VIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFiC AT ~ POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS A.N~D TO ESTABLISH AND MAiCE PLrBLIC AN EFFECrI'xfE ENFORCE~'F'0LiC-f- WOi~K TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHOI~rTY TO OVERSEE CONSCIENTIOUSLY RBlrfEW FE!~R¥ ACTIVITY AT ORr!~NT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TO~'N BOARD, pLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDLNG DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFiCIAi~: I AM CONVINCED TF~AT TIlE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CON~-NECTICUT CASL~fO TRA.FFtC iS TH~ MOST DANGEROUS A.ND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO T.u~E ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFI~, THeE DAMAGE WII.L BE IRR.EVER- SiBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: RE.~d:;F!t:UM TI~ TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FEi°d~-Y LrNT!J~ CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FLrLL AND RE.a~LiSTIC SITE PLAN A_ND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIM1T TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZOI, r~G. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEM'R. NT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHO~ TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY' REVEEW FERRY ACTIVITY AT ORIENT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOA~R_D OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, A2~D BU-ILD[NG DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: t AM CONNrtNCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE hN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC iS THE MOST DA2qGEROUS Aa,ID !IVIM~DLATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHGLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFF!C"r~kLS, THE DAMAGE W].LL BE [RREVER- SIBLE. [ THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: ILEAFFiRM T~tq TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJIJNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN ~MND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIM1W TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN L, AWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAK~ PUBLIC A.N EFFECTIVE ENFORCEM~,NT POLICY. WOR~K TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUT~rlOR.ITY TO OV~ER.SEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY'RE'VIEW FERRY ACTIVITY AT ORIENT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOAR_D, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BU-[LDE~IG D~,P,~TMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFiCLa-LS: I AM CON-WINCED THAT TH~ PROJECTED INCR~.ASE iN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND hM. MIq. DLATE THREAT TO T~ ECONOM~, ENVr~oNMENT AND QUALITY OF LiI~E OF SOUTi-tOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC ~ TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W'tI.I. BE IKREVER- SIBLE. [ THZER.EFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: RE~ THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN iNJUNCTION AGAINST Ti-LE OPERATiON OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNT~ CROSS-SOUND HAS COME iN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LLMIT TRA_FFiC AT THE POINT BY UPI-iOI.DING PRESENT ZON-LNG. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN L~kWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKiE PUBLIC AN EFFECI'IVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK T(X~ETI-~R AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSF. F. AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY'- KE'V~W FERRY ACTMTY AT ORt'~NT POINT. SINCERELY, ~ ',~ 'j TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOA_RD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDLNG DEPARTM-ENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE .THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, EN'VIRON~NT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAr'-TIC IS TAK~EN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFiCIAI~, THE DAMAGE W~I,I, BE IR.R.EVER- SiBI.E. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFtCLAJ. S TO: REAFFI~M TIlE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INSRJNCT!ON AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER ~--'nERRY UNTEL CROSS-SOUD4D I-tAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN _~X[D SEQRA REVLEW R.ESOL~ TO LLMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN ~.~WS AND TO ESTABLISH AND ~ PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMI~NT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A F~m-RRY AUTI:IORITY TO OWE.R.SEE AND CONSCTENTIOUSL¥ REVIEW FERRY ACTtWiT¥ AT OR~NT POINT. SINCERELY, i/,--~/ ~4/,~_ ,?,, <-/=.... ! ( ~ TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, pL,M'4NiNG BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICLAJ-,S: I AM CONVINCED T~LAT TI-!~ PROJECTED hNCR. EASE IN CONx-NECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC iS THE MOST DA2qGEROUS A_ND iMMEDLATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL TI-LIS ~IC IS T~MKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFF!~, THE DAMAGE WTI JL BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I TI-IEREFO1LE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: !LEAFFL~M THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL Aa.ND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA RE'VIEW RESOL'V'E TO LLMIT x~RAFFIC AT TIIE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND M_AX.E PUBLIC .iN EFFECqTV'E ENFORCE. MF. aNT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AU~F~-riOR-ITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCTENTIOUSL~ RE'VIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORFI~NT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE iN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGF~ROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENk/IRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LiFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC tS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIAJ~, TI-IE DAM. AGE WIt SIBLE. t TI-!EREFOR.E URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM TlztE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN 1NJ-T,VNCT!ON AGAINST TiIE OPERATION OF TrtE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND H_AS COM-E IN FOR A FLrLL AND RE.a2LISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA RE%rlEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TR.~"IC AT ~ POE~iT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS g2qD TO ESTABLISH A~ID M. gK'E PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMEaNT POLICY. WORK TOGETI-IER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTtOUSLY"RE'VYEW FER.RY ACTI~rlTY AT 0RrVNT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOV~2q BOARD. PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES. AND BUTLDhNG DEP.~RTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFi~: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAP~tC tS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO TIa~E ECONOM~f, ENVIRONMENT .~xCO QUALtTY OF LI~E OF SOUTHOLD TOW'N. UNI~ESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL TI-tIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIAL,S, TI--IE DAMAGE WTt'.I. BE IR. RE~- SIBLE. I TI-IEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFII~M THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR ~xl iNJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF T'[-YE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN- FOR A FULL A~q'D REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LLMIT TRAFFiC AT THE PO~rr BY UPHOLDiNG PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOlh'2q LAWS A~.ND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBI JC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY'. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSL5r REx/IEW FERRY ACTIVITY AT ORIENT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEP)d;~.TMtSNT: DEAR TOWN OFFtCLaJ--S: i AM CONVINCED TH;AT TIlE PROJECTED INCR.EASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE TttREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENNtl;R. ONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOI .D TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAM_AGE W-ILL BE IRRE'VER- StBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OF'ffiCIALS TO: REAFFIRM TFfE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPF_,RATION OF TH;E PASSENGER FF_2tRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COMTE !N FOR A FULL ~ID REALISTIC SITE P~'..~ A.ND SEQRA REVICEW R.ESOLVE TO LI_M;!T TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY LrPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLiC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEM'F-NT POLICY. WORK TOGETHZF~R AS A FERRY AUTHOKITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY RE'?-r~W FERRY ACT~TY AT ORrE~NT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DE?ARTMENT: DEAR. TOWN I AM CONVINCED TI-LAT TI-IE PROJECTED hNCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND INLMEDIA21~E THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONiVEENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS ?RAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICLALS, THE DAMAGE WTI,L BE IRREVER- SIBLE. ! ~'I%IEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFiCLALS TO: REAFFrAIM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGALNST THE OPERATION OF TIZE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND I-LAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SiTE PLAN AND SEQRA REx/TEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT TIlE POINT BY UPHOLDING PPdESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MA.KE PUBLIC AN EFFE~ ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETIq'F-R AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSI~F. AND CONSCIENTtOUSL?REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORtl~-NT !:~OiNT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNI.F~SS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WILL BE IRREVER- SIBLE. ! THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFIC!AI~ TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN IN/UNCTION AGALNST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN A~ND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LLMTr TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND M_AK~ PUBLIC AN EFFECTrVE E~NrFORCEM]ENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACITvqTY AT O1RrI~NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICLAL~, THE DAMAGE W'II.L BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQLYEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF TE~E PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND FLAS COME IN FOR A FL.rLL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POI~NT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTiArE E2-fFORCEM..~N~f POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTIX/ITY AT ORI'~NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOA_RD, PLANNING BOA_RD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT TI-IE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W~I.I. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE _~LL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC S~"E PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORIENT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DF, AR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WIT.I. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORtVNT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTttOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY Sou'rHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WlII~ BE IRREVER- SIBLE. t THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN Aa.ND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY B~PHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY, TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORII~NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJEC-WED hNCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS 'rRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE gilt J. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFLRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAiNST THE OPERATION OF TIq~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTP/E ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITy TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORI'ENT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONh-NG BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT TIlE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASLNO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND !MMEDLATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOLITHOLD TOWN OFFICLALS, THE DAMAGE 5~fILL BE IRllEVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETIqER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORIF. NT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, pLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEP,~TMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WILL BE IRRE'WER- SIBLE. [ THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF TIlE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONLNG. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY RE'VIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORIENT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT' DEAR. TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO TI4F. ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QU_,LLiTY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WlI.L BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ThrE. PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AaND SEQRA REV]_EW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTI~v'ITY AT ORI~NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR. TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IM~MEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT ~ QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE V~I.I, BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIA]~ TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR ,MN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFOR~NT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORF~.NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT TI-IE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS T.MKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W~LI. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE LTRGE ALL TOWN OFFICLAL~ TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQLFEST FOR Alq INJUNCTION AGAINST OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND iLAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY IYPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MA1LE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE EN'FORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORn~.NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE ~N CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ,MHD LMMEDLATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY $OUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WILL BE IRREVER- SIBLE. t THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM TI-H~. TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC Ah- EFFECTIVE ENFORCE.MF. NT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORFff~NT POINT. SIN(.~ERELY, / TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: ! AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE iN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC tS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W~LI. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFIC~ TO: REAFI~RM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME tN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMTr TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMF. NT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORFF~NT POINT. SINCERELY, TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT TI-[E PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASJ~NO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS A~ND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W/l.l. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFIC~ TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNC~FION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME tN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AaND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING P,RESENT ZON'hNG. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS _M~rD TO ESTABLISH AND MAKF. PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSR~. A_ND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORFE~NT POINT. SINCERELY. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I .AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC tS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WII.I. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM TIRE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND I-IAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORI~.NT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD '- TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WHJ. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICLALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN LNYUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PASSENGER FERRY UNTIl., CROSS-SOU-ND I-IAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMYr TRAFFIC AT Tt-IE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY' TO OVERSEE AIqD CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORmNT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, A_ND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC tS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN'. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC tS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE WILL BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFII~M THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR ~M~ INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF T~B~- PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FULL AND REALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A F~.RRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE A_ND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTMTY AT ORR~NT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFICIALS: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, EN~/IRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC iS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W~ J. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM THE TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIl, CROSS-SOUND HAS COMT~ IN FOR A FULL AND RF. ALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTIVITY AT ORIENT POINT. TO: THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TRUSTEES, AND BUDDING DEPARTMENT: DEAR TOWN OFFI~: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN CONNECTICUT CASINO TRAFFIC IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT A2'~D QUALITY OF LIFE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN. UNLESS STRONG ACTION TO CONTROL THIS TRAFFIC IS TAKEN NOW BY SOUTHOLD TOWN OFFICIALS, THE DAMAGE W~LI. BE IRREVER- SIBLE. I THEREFORE URGE ALL TOWN OFFICIALS TO: REAFFIRM TFII~. TOWN'S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AGALNST THE OPERATION OF ~ PASSENGER FERRY UNTIL CROSS-SOUND HAS COME IN FOR A FUI.I. AND R~ALISTIC SITE PLAN AND SEQRA REVIEW RESOLVE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC AT THE POINT BY UPHOLDING PRESENT ZONING. RESOLVE TO ENFORCE TOWN LAWS AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE PUBLIC Alq EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WORK TOGETHER AS A FERRY AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY REVIEW FERRY ACTIVITY AT ORII~NT POINT. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Ferry Terminal Facilities by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York PREPARED BY: En-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, New York 11968 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of apendices ................................. Summary ........................................... Description of Action ............................. Description of Environmental Setting .............. Location .................................... Environmental Features of the Site Geology and Soils ............................ Slopes and Topography ........................ Land Forms . . ErOsion and Sedimentation Potential ........ Hydrology ............... Surface Water [. '[ ............... Groundwater ....... Ecology ............ [' '. ' ' Vegetation .............................. Wildlife ................................ Land Use Demography .... ] ......................... Public Services .............................. Historical Resources ......................... Visual Character ............................. Noise Levels ................................. Odor Levels ................................... Existing Environmental Constraint Affecting Action statement of Environmental Effects ................ 12 Identification of Any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided ...... Description of Mitigation Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects .. . Identification of Any ~rreyersible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................ ~7 Description of Any Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Action ....... Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation of Energy Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives To Achieve the Same or Similar Objectives ........ Studies, Reports and Literature Used in Preparation of DEIS ............. . ....... ~ ..... 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 ? ? 8 8 8 9 lO lO 10 11 11 11 List of Appendices 1. Proposed site plan by Young & Young. 2. Preliminary terminal building plans. 3. Site location map. 4. Water analysis laboratory report by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell. 5. 1984 ferry schedule. 6. Town of Southold Planning Board letter of April 2, 1984 acknowledging Planning Board approval of site plan. Photographs of the site taken March 16, 1984. -1- S UbiMA RY The applicants Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., seeks all necessary approvals to construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of their existing ferry terminal vehicle staging area. The project is to consist of a terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, and paved entrance and exi~ drivew~a~s. The site with an area of 2.2 acres, is presently extensively paved, and is being used as a vehicle staging area. It contains one small wood frame structure of 440 ft which w%_ll be remmv~d or replaced to a new location. The proposed terminal building, a 2 story, 48' x 42', Cape Cod style structure,~will be used to house the ferry administrative office, waiting area, ticket office, passenger lounge and restrooms. A one story wood frame structure, which presently serves these functions on an adjacent parcel of land, will be converted to a snack bar for use by ferry passengers. The issues that have been identified with the proposed project are: 1. Generation of increased traffic 2. Availability of adequate water supply The parcel is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, N.Y. ~ Site plan approval has been granted by the Southold Planning Board. Variances for front yard setbacks and to locate a ferry terminal in a B-1 Business zone have been granted by the Town of Southold Zoning -2- Board of Appeals. Suffolk County Department of Health Services has issued preliminary approval for the waste water disposal system and water supply. Tidal Wetlands (Article 25) permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation are not required as all work will be landward of an existing retaining wall. Description Of Action The applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., proposes to construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of the existing ferry terminal vehicle staging area. The project is to consist of a terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, ~a_n~ ~aved entrance and exit driveways. _ The purpose of the project is to provide improved service and conveniences to ferry users, and to facilitate more efficient operation 9nd maintenance of terminal operations and facilities. Existing terminal facilities are located on 2 parcels of land East and West of Main Rd. at the Easterly terminus of Rt. 25. A one story wood frame building, serving as a business office, ticket office, waiting area, lounge and vending machine snack bar, is situated on the 1.4 acre parcel East of Main Rd., along with an unpaved parking lot, cesspool wastewater disposal'system and water well. - Ail terminal construction and improvements are to take place on the. 2.2 acre parcel West of Main Rd., which is the existing, partially paved vehicle staging area. A small, one story wood frame building 2 (440 ft ), serving as a waiting room, situated adjacent to the ferry loading ramp, will be removed or relocated. -3- The proposed terminal building, a 48~ x42~, 2 story Cape-Cod style structure, will house the ferry administrative office, ticket office, waiting area, passenger lounge and restrooms. The second floor will be used for bulk storage. The reader is referred to the architect~ drawings in the appendices for further details of the proposed building. A paved vehicle staging area, with a 156 car ~ is proposed South of the terminal building. Although this area is now partially paved, full paving is required for the purpose of ma~ktng vehicle lanes, and to facilitate s~ow removal, surface cleanup and maintenance. Paved entrance and exit driveways are also proposed. Prior to construction of the terminal building and paved areas, the elevation of the land will be raised to a maximum of +11.0' by the addition of approximately 3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill which is now on the site, and was obtained from maintenance dredging of the ferry slip. Existing and proposed elevation contours are shown ~n the site plan in the appendices. Sewage disposal will be accomplished by an on-site septic tank and leaching pool system, consisting of one 4500 gallon septic tank, a distribution pool and a field of leaching pools capable of handling 2250 gallons per day. Potable water will be provided by a well, the exact location of which is pending Suffolk County D~partment of Health Services input and approval. However, a test well dug on the site provided water meeting New York State and U.S. drinking water standards. The reader is referred to the engineer~ water analysis contained in the appendices. Surface runoff will be contained by the installation of French Drains, in three separate locations. The reader is referred to the -4- engineers site~ plan, contained in the appendices, for further details, including those of the septic and drainage systems. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has been owned by the applicant since 1975 when it was purchased from the New London Freight Lines. Ferry service to New London, Connecticut has been operated from this site since at least the early 1930's and the site has served marine transportation since at least 1797. Maps on file at the Suffolk County Historical Museum in Riverhead, N.Y. show a dock named "Point Dock" at this location in 1797, "Steamboat Wharf" in Atlas' of 1873 and 1896, and "Point Dock" in a 1909 "Map of a Section of Suffolk County, L.I.". Newspaper clippings on file at the museum, dated July 15, 1948 and August 26, 1948, refer to the addition of two new ferries, the "Orient" and the "Gay Head". The Orient was a 204' vessel capable of accomo- dating 68 autos and 300 passengers, and the Gay Head was a 203' vessel of unstated capacity. At that time, the ferries were making 6 runs daily, between Orient Point and blew london. The need for this project derives from the obligation of the licant to provide adequate services and facilities ~to ferry user_ s, to allow for more efficient and effective terminal operation. It is anticipated that the work will coLm~ence upon receipt of all necessary approvals, amd be completed by March 1985. DescriDtioB of ER¥iro,.m~ntal Setting Location The site is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. It is bounded on the north by Rt. 25, on the east by Main Rd., on the west by a parcel zoned -5- BI-Business, n.o.f. Blauvelt, which is the site of a one-family private residence, and on the south by Gardiners Bay. Environmental Features of the Sits G~01o~v and Soil~ As indicated on sheet 4 of Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975), the entire parcel is classified as Fd, Fill Land, Dredged Material. It is described as follows: "Fill land, dredged mJterial (Fd), is made up of areas that have been filled with material from hydraulic or mechanical dredging operations. These operations are used mainly to widen or deepen boat channels in salt water; however, some dredged material has been obtained from new channels cut into tidal marshes. Most of the dredged material is pumped onto tidal marshes. Smaller amounts are placed on beaches and dunes and on nearby mineral soils in a few places. The practice ~generally is to dike an area by using on-site material. The dredgings are then pumped into the diked area and allowed to settle. Excess water drains back into the bay. After the water drains off, heterogeneous deposits of sand, gravel and sea shells remain. In many places a dark-gray silty mud remains. Protective dunes have been built with clean sand and gravel dredgings in some places, and in such places a few naturally formed dunes are included in mapping. Fill land, dredged material, is not suited to farming. Areas are satisfactory for building sites where the fill is adequate and if the highly compressible organic layers in the tidal marshes are removed prior to filling. Areas where the fill is placed on marshes containing thick organic layers are likely to be unstable and need on-site investigation before building on them. · Droughtiness, low fertil'ity,'and high salt content severely ~ limit the establishment of lawns and other landscape plantings. Cesspools do not functionproperly where the ground water is at a shallow depth. Capability unit not assigned; woodland suitability group not assigned." ~IoDes and Topography Elevations on the site vary between 4.7' and 8.3', with most of the site lying between 4.7' and 6.0'. As can be seen from the -6- contours on the site plan, the site is flat, with little slope. L__and Forn~. No land forms of geologic significance are located on the site. Most of the site is paved, and seaward of the retaining wall and west of the seawall is a coarse sand and gravel beach. ~incral Resources No mineral resources occur on the site. Erosion and SedimcntatioB Potential Rapid water percolation through sand plus the flatness of the terrain combine to cause little erosion and/or sedimentation potential. The site is protected from shore eriosion by the seawalls and retaining wall as shown on the site plan. Hydrolomv The site is bordered on the south by Gardiners Bay, a large tidal body of water lying between the Eastern North and South Forks of Long Island. It's mean tide range is 2.5', and it's spring tide range is 3.0' The NYSDEC his c~assified it as SA, the highest - classification for tidal waters. These waters are "... suitable for she!lfishing for market purposes and primary and secondary contact recreation." The area is presently open to shellfishtng. The site lies within the Nassau-Suffolk 208 Study Water -7- Management Zone IV. Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern ~art of the South Fork. The "208 Study" (Nassau-Suffolk Regional ~ ~/~! I Planning Board, 1978) describes Zone iV as having ,,unique groundwater~ ii ! c~nditionsl and special management alternatives apply to it Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in wells located in ~ricultural areas that are ~ove six milligrams per liter, with many observations exceeding ten milli- grams per liter. Although groundwater underlying agricultural are~ shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential areas still have good quality water, and statistical examination of over 300 analyses from domestic wells located on the North Fork indi- cates that almost all h~e nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less than three milligrams per liter." L~oratory test results from an on-site test well 18' deep show the ground water quality to be satisfactory. The re.er is ~eferred to the appendices for results of the engineers water analysis. Ecology Ve~eta~io~ Since the site is partially paved, heavily traveled by vehicles using the ferry, and is periodically used as a temporary repository for dredge spoil,'veg~tation, with the exception of lo~ grasses and weeds along it's perimeter, is non-existent. Wildlife Due to the conditions stated above, and the intensive nature of human use of the site, wildlife is limited to those s,pecies able to exist in close proximity to man and his development. -8- During several visits to the site, a list of animals noted was kept. Birds noted can be divided into two categories: Upland and shorebirds/waterfowl. Of the former mourning doves, sparrows, robins, grackles, swallows and starlings were noted. The latter is represented by gulls an~rpm.~ Observations of mammals during site visits indicated cottontail rabbit and mice (probably meadow moles). The site has been used as a part of the ferry terminal operation since at least the early 1930's. It is used as the staging area for vehicles waiting to board the ferry. To the east of the site and Main Rd., is a 1.4 acre parcel of land, upon which is located the existing ferry terminal building. This building now serves to house the ticket office, administrative office, snack bar and waiting room. It will be converted to a snack bar upon completion of the proposed new terminal building. Included on this parcel is an unpaved parking lot serving ferry passengers and employees, ed a 60' x 12' mobile home. The parking lot will continue in its sent use upon completion of the proposed Project. To the east of the existing ferry terminal is a vacant parcel of land zoned Mi-Multiple Residehtial. The site is bordered on the west by a parcel which is now the site of a single-family residence. Further to the west is the USDA Plum Island Ferry Terminal, followed by a marina and restaurant. West of this parcel is located Orient State Park. The Cross Sound Ferry Services site, along with all the waterfront land up to the State Park is zoned BI-Business. -9- The remainder of the surrounding area, zoned A-Residential~ Agricultural, is rural in character, consisting mainly of small farms and single family residences. Demography The site is located in the Orient-East Marion school district. According to the Long Island Lighting Co. Population Survey of 1983, the population is 1,465. During the s~m,mr months, population can be expected to increase by'an undetermined amount due to second- home use and tourism. The proposed project well not alter the demography of the area. Public Services The site is within Fire District #25. Public transportation to the ferry terminal is provided by Suffolk Transit bus service, making 6 round trips daily between the terminal and Mattituck. New York State Route 25 is the only highway between Orient Point and Greenport. Historical R¢$ource~ Although the site has been in use as a marine transportation facility since the late 1700"s, nb structures or artifacts predating the latest 50 years of ferry service remain. The property is not listed as an historical landmark, nor 'is it listed on the National Register of Historical Locations. -10- ~i~ual Character The site is flat, partially paved, contains one small wood frame structure adjacent to the loading ramp, and for all practical purposes, devoid of vegetation. NQise Levels Noise at the site and along Rt. 25 is generated by vehicles entering and departing the ferries and terminal area. Noise levels, with respect to intensity, duration and'frequency,~pon~erry_ _scheduling' the number of vehicles using the ferry, and the mix of autos and truck traffic. The highest volume of traffic, and therefore noise, can be' expected to occur during the period of June 18 to September 9, when 12 f~~y are scheduled. With the exoeption of the fall months, when a higher volume of farm produce is being shipped to New England by trucks using the ferry, the volume of truck traffic is fairly constant throughout the year. On a yearly basis, trucks account for approximately 9% of all vehicles using the ferry. Odor Levels Other than the very low and usually unnoticeable odors generated by vehicles entering or departing the terminal, no odors are generated. E~istin~ Environmental Constraints Affectin~ Action The site is shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #36083 0046C for the Town of Southold. It lies within an A9 zone, which requires a first floor elevation of any proposed buildings to be +11' above mean sea level. This will be attained by the placement of approximately -11- 3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill existing on the site as a result of~ferry slip maiAltenance~.dredging. ~ Statement of Environment~% Effe¢~ The proposed action, being limited to the paving of an existing vehicle staging area, which is now largely paved, the addition of a relatively small (46' x42') terminal building, along with an improved waste water disposal system, a surface water runoff control system, and vegetative landscaping, ~ts .i~creas.~ in the capacity of the terminal to passengers and ve~s. ~It's accomod~ge ~en~vi_r~o~nment. a~eff~s~~e_~fore, be limite~_d ~~i~n~imal ~nature of ~he .proPoae~d~ elements of ~r~oject. It is anticipated that dust and noisa levels will rise during construction. This effect will be transitory, and cease upon completion of the work. Dust levels due to vehicle traffic on unpaved portions of the site, although low, are expected to be lower after paving is completed. 2 The existing impervious pavement on the site consists of 42,000 ft 2 2 of paved surface and 440 ft of building coverage. Approximately 3600 ft of the site is vegetated with naturally occurring low grasses and weeds. Upon completion of the project, the impervious surface represented by paving, the terminal building' and'a sidewalk will amount to an ar~a 2 2 of 41,020 ft . This decrease in impervious surface of 14420 ft is 2 accounted for by the conversion of 9700 ft of existing area, mostly paved, to landscaped area. Since the resultant impervious surface will be served by a surface water runoff control system, while the larger area of existing impervious surface is not, the project will -12- result in a positive environmental impact with respect to rainwater runoff control and siltation. The proposed waste water disposal system represents an improvement over the existing cesspools, and is there- fore considered to be a positive environmental impact. While the proposed new water well will draw upon / the existing ground water reservoir, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has required the applicant to participate in th~ formation of a community, water supply to serve the area as a condition of final approval of that agency. Daily fresh water demand for the terminal facility will be 2250~gallons with a peak demand of 22,500 gallons a day, or 15.6 gallons/minute. /s Since the project does not increase the capability of the terminal to handle larger numbers of vehicles, it will not, in and of itself, increase the volume of traffic. Traffic, with the noise and disturbance it creates, is however, an important issue in the'local eom- munity, and must be addressed. Annual ridership for the years 1981 through 1983 is shown below. Durin~ this period, an increase in a~l categories of ridership was experienced, with the most dramatic increase being for 1983. During that year, 131,300 vehicles, of which 12,000 or 9.14~ were heavy trucks, were carried. This was an increase of 24,800 passenger vehicles and 2,000 trucks over 1982. The increase in vehicle traffic is accounted for by the replacement of the ferry "Plum Island", with a capacity of 20-22 autos, by the "Henlopen", which is capable of carrying 95-100 autos. The number of trucks that can be carried is dependent upon the size of the trucks in relation to the number of cars they replace. Annual Ridership Orient Point - New London Passenger Heavy Total Year Passengers * Vehicles Trucks Vehicles 1981 257,920 97,000 7,000' 104,000 1982 259,160 94,500 10,000 104,500 1983 325,624 119,300 12,00o 131,300 *Includes drivers The greatest number of passengers and vehicles are carried during the period of June to September. ~uring this period, tourist and vacationer activity is at a peak, requiring the use of 3 ferry boats to fulfill a schedule of 12 arrivals and 12 departures on a daily basis. Demand is generally high enough to fill all boats, and on week- ends passengers may have to wait for the next available boat. It is only during t~is period that the largest~ ferry, the "Henlopen" is in service. During the period of November to Narch, demand decreases to a level that can be met by one boat making 3 to 4 arrivals and departures daily. The reader is referred to the 1984 Ferry Schedule contained in the -14- appendices for details of the annual schedule of service. It is~expected that annual ridership and vehicle traffic will increase by a small margin when the ferry "Caribbean" is replaced by a new boat the "North Star" in May or June of 1984. The North Star has a capacity of 35 autos and 200 passengers, as compared to the Caribbean with 22 cars and 120 passengers. During the period of heaviest traffic, from June 18 to September 9, the North Star is scheduled to make 4 arrivals and 4 departures daily. Assuming that every run is filled to maximum capacity (which is unlikely) traffic would be increased'by 104 autos trips daily during this period. ---~---~As with past increases in ridership, it can be expected that future increases will come as a result of demand and ferry scheduling and capacity increases to meet that demand, not upon terminal facility improvements. The effect that the proposed terminal improvements will have upon increasing the demand for ferry service is highly speculative. In a 1980 survey of passengers (New York State Department of Transportation, 1981) the most common complaints concerned the cost of service, the congestion at the access terminal, and the infrequency of service. While the proposed project will increase the o~derliness and efficiency of the terminal operation, it does not increase the available upland space, will not result in a reduction of fares, and will not increase ferry capacity or scheduling frequency. -15- Future ridership on the Cross Sound Ferry from Orient Point to New London, although predicted to increase (New York State Department of Transportation, 1981), will de- pend on such factors as gasoline prices, road congestion, the availability of ferry services at alternate locations, and fare increases. Should ferry service between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport be improved and expanded, and/or a third service be initiated at some westerly location, as recommended by th6 Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study (New York State Department of Transpor- tation, 1981), it is likely that demand for the Orient Point ferry will level-off or decrease, depending upon the extent of alternative services. Identification of any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoide~ Any increase in traffic that might be generated as a result of the proposed traffic, are unpredictable and unavoidable. As the parcel is already developed and privately owned, there will be no significant loss of open space 2~.ALc~ to the water for the general public D_escription of Mitigation Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects The planned adherence to regulatory restructions on all levels will mitigate the impact of the project· The rainwater runoff control system will mitigate the effects of runoff from the paved area and terminal building. -16- The architectural design of the terminal building and the landscaping will improve esthetic and visual qualities of the site. Improved efficiency with respect to passenger check- in and vehicle traffic control will relieve congestion n the local roads. The improved wastewater disposal system will decrease groundwater contamination. Identification of Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The usage of fossil fuels to power construction equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible, as is the consumption of electrical power by tools. /Description of Any Growth-Inducin~ Aspects of the Action The proposed action will have no growth effects ~upon local area. Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation of Energy During the construction phase, energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity will be consumed. Upon completion, the terminal building will be heated by - modern, efficient equipment, and will be adequately insulated to minimize energy consumption. -17- Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives To Achieve the Same or Similar Objectives The only reasonable alternative is to continue operation of the ferry terminal under existing conditions. While ridership and capacity would be little affected, if at all, this alternative would result in continued incon- venience to passengers in the form of inadequate lounge, waiting room, snack bar and sanitary facilities. Congestion on local ~o~a~s by vehicles wa~in~ to enter the staging area would continu~.And ferry company management would be denied the opportunity to initiate needed operational and administrative improvements and efficiencies. -18- Studies, Reports and Literature Used in Preparation of DEIS Austin, G. L. Jr., 1961. Water and Marsh Birds of the World. Burr, William H. et.al., 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Miner, R. W., I950. Field Book of Seashore Life, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. Nassau and Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1979. "208" Water Study, Hauppauge, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk County, Riverhead, New York. New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Summary of Findings, Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improve- ment Study. New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Executive Summary and Recommendations, Long Island Sound Ferry '~ ~ervice. Improvement Study. Long Island Lighting Co~, 1983o Population Survey~ Current Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. -19- EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action is likely to be sig- nificant. The question of whether an action is significant is not al- ways easy to answer. Freqnently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who will need to determine significance will range from those with little or no formal knowledge of the environment to those who are technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affect- ing the question of significance. The EAF is intended to provide a method whereby the preparer can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehen- sive in nature, and yet flexible to allow the introduction of informa- tion to fit a project or action. EAF CO}~ONENTS: The EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2 ~ Part 3: This phase of the evaluation focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered Small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identi- fies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Only if any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially- large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important to the municipality in which the project is located. Determination of Significance If you find that one (or more) impact is both large and its con- sequence is imoortant, then the project is likely to be significant,- and a draft environmental impact statement should be prepared. Scoping If a draft EIS is needed, the Environmental Assessment Form will be a valuable tool in determining the scope of the issues to be covered by the draft ElS. APPENDIX A EAF ENVIRO;IHENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I Project Information NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered as Dart of the ~Polication for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. it is expected that como)orion of the EAF will be dependent on informetion current)y oval)able and will not involve new studies, research or investiqation. If information requirinq such additional work is unaval~ble, so indicete and specify each instance. · NAHE OF PROJECT: ,, Improvements to Orient' Ferry Terminal Facilities ADDI~ESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: En-Consult ants Inc. (Name) 64 North Main Street '('Street) · Southampton~ N.¥,, 11968 [P'.O. ) (State) (Zip) NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc. (Name) Box 33 (Street) New London, Connecticut 06320 (State) (Zip) - BU~NCSS PHONE: 323-2415 OESCRIPTIOH OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project'or action) Construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of existin~ ferry terminal vehicle staging area, The project is to consist of a 'terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, and paved, entrance and exit driveways. (PLEASE COMPLEI'E EACH QUESTION * Indicat~ N.A. if not applicable)· A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undevel'ooed areas) 1. 2. 3. 9/1/78 General character of t~e land: ~Generally uniform slope Present land use: Urban . , Industrial , Co~mnercial X .... Agriculture , Other Total acreage of Oroject area: 2,2acres. Aoproximate acreage: Presently After Comp]etlon Meadow or Brushland .2 acres .2 acres Forested acres _acres Aqricu]tural __acres acres Uetland (Freshwater or Tidal as Der Articles 24, 26 or F.C.L.) acres acres W~at is ~redominant soil type(s) on nroject site? a. Are there bAdrock outcro~oinos on ~rni~ct site? t. What is deoth to bedrock? Unknown X Generally uneven and rollin~ or irregular .__, Suburban __.,. Rural ., Forest l'later Surface Area Unvegetated ( rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings ~ ' and other paved surfaces (~Landscaping) Other (indicate tyne) '~resently After Completion acres .7 acres S and (!n Feet) 6. Approximate percentage of proposed oroject site with slooes: 0-10% 95 %; ln-15% 5 %; 15% or greater ~%. 7. IS project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes X No 8. What is the depth to the water table? 6,Sleet (a(: test hole) 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 - __Yes X iIo, according to - Identify each species 11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? formations - Yes X No. (Describe 12. 13. 14. (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes X No. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the con~nunity? Yes X No Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. ?Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary 1S. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or conl~iguous to project area: a. Name Oardiners Bay ; b. Size (in acres) N/A 16. 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). B1 Business PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate} a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 9.2 acres. b. Project acreage developed: ~ acres initially; ~ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 1,2q- . d. Length of project, in miles: lq/A {if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existinq indicate percent of expansion proposed: age 17004-_ ; developed acreage lxl~k f. Number of off-stre~t parking spaces existino 1564-~ ; proposed 156+ · ' NO Change from ex{stf,ng g. Maximum vehicular trills generated per hour (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: ~ne Family~ Two Family Multiple Family Condominium ~- Initial Ultimate If: Commercial Industrial J. N/A Orientation ?eighborhood-City-Regional reBlonal Total height of tallest nroposed structure Estimated Emoloyment 5+ building square foot- How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) wilt be remOved from the site - tons cubic yards. No ~ill project result in an increase in energy use? NO How many acres of veneration {trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed fro~ site - 0 acres. will any mature forest {over lO0 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by th~s proiect? . Yes X No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes 6. If single Dbase project: Anticipated period of construction # months~ (including demolition). 7. ~ f multi-phased project: al Total number of phases anticipated No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase i __ demolition} c, Approximate completion date final phase month year. · d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subseouent phases? Yes 8. Nil! blasting occur during construction7 Yes X No ; after project is complete 5 Number of jobs generated: during construction 12 ~ lO. Nuraber of jobs eliminated by this project 0 ll. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? X Yes No. If yes, explain: Present ferry terminal will be relocated to new building. 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No: b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Sewage c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface wate~ays be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? X Yes No t5. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes ~ No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No c. If yes, give name: : loca{ion d. l~ill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes ~ No 17. Will project routinely produce odors {more than one hour per day)? Yes ~ No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes 19. Yes ~ No. If yes, indicate type(s) __ month sear (including No 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity 15,6 gals/minute. 21. Total anticinated water usage per day _~)_2j_500 gals/day. (ma~) 22. Zoning: a. Hhat is dominant zoning classification of site? B!-b~sine$~ b. Current specific zoning classification of site c. !s proposed use consistent with present zoninq? d. If no, indicate desired zon)nq ~ £6. App.'ovals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X ...~o b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? X Yes No c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies 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 jproposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. ~y __~ / TITLE: PreSident. En-Odnsultants Inc. REPRESENTING: Cross Sound Ferry DATE: May 29, 1984 -4- EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2} does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an '~Ffect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The ~ provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally appl)cable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower tnresholms may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as gui dance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each Question. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. AnSwer Yes if there will be any effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a auestion then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column l. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact then consider the imoact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a tess than large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1. 2.. IMPACT ON LAND WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE? NO Y[S ®0 Examples that Would Aoply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. ronstruction of oaved oarkinq are, Fnr 1,~Q or more vehicles. C~nstruction on land where bedrock is exQosed or generally within. 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction ~hat will continue for more than 1 year or involve more tha~ one nhase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,O00 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per .vear. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: YES WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANQ FOUND ON THE SITE? {i.e. cliffs, dunes, ~e~loqtcal forma- tions, etc.) ' Specific land fo~s: [?PACT ON WATER ND YES WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS .......... ~ ~ PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.C,L.) Examntes that Would Aoply to Coltmm 2 Dredging more than log cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: WILL PBOJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTINP. OR NEW NO YES BODY OF,lATER? ............................................ Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 of water or more than a lO acre increase or decrease. A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: NO YES SMALL TQ P(DTE,~IAL CAN IHPXCT BE ~DERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE NILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER ~HALITY? Examples that Hould Apply to Column 2 Project will r~quire a discharge De.nit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have aporova] to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells wi th greater than 45 gallons Der minute Dumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a Public water supply system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity, Project requiring a facility that would uae water in excess of 2n,ooo gallons per day. P~oject will lfkely cause siltation or other dtscharFe into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an nbvious visual contrast to natural conditions, (DO' ~t~ALL TO ;POTENTIAL CAN IIIPACT BE ~DERATE LARGE REDUCED g¥ i~P~ CT i"DaCT PRgJECT CHANGE X ) r}t her lpoacts 6. t~ILL PROJ[CT ALTER DRAINAGE FLOn, PATTENi(S (lq SURFACE UATER NO YES RUNOFF? ................................................... OG Examnle that '!ould Anply to Co)unto 2 Projec~ wnuld imnede flood water flows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. X Other impacts:New paved araam w(ll al~v dr~4..ge patterns but will be picked up by on-site drainage. ~3 YES / 7. ~ILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ........................... ~ ~ Fxample~ that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will tOduce 1,f)O0 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. Project emission rate of all contamtnents will exceed 5 lbs. met hour or a heat source oroducing more than tO million BTU's per hour. Other imoacts: IMPACT ~)r( RLANTS AND ANIMALS .NO YES 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANAERED SPECIES?~ ~~ ~ Examples that Would Apoly to Column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York -- or Federal list, bsing the site, over or near site or found on ~he site. Removal of any Oortion of a critical or siqnificant wild- life h~b~ ~-. Ao~licatinn of Pesticide or he~bicide over more than Lv,ice a yea;' ~.he~' tl~n ~o~ ~c~mt. uraI Durpo~,.-s. 9. i~ILL PROJECT SUBSTAHTIALLY AFFECT HDN-THREATENED OR NO YES ENDANGERED SPECIES? ....................................... GO Examnle that Would Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially ~nterfere w~th any resident -7- ~ALL Tn n(~TEI(TIAL CA:I I;!PACT RE (ODERATE L~RGE REDUCED ny i~P~CT t.r~CT PRF)JECT S ) ES I"nACT g'; VISUAL ~ESOt!RCE tO. UILL THE m~OJFCT AFFECT VIEIIS, 'qSTAS OR TUE viSUAL HQ YE~ CHAqACTER OF Tile iIFIGHBARW~Y)O OR C0U""!~ITV? .............. ~ Examnles that t!ould Apply tO Column 2 An incompatible visual affect caused by the intromuction of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to the surroundino landscape. A oroject easily visible, not easily screened, that is --- obviously different from others around it. Project will result in the elimination or major -- screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURC~ 11. WILL PROJECT I~PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PRE-HISTOPIC AR PALEONTOGICAL [t'POPTANCE? ................. ~ Examoles that Would Aootv to Column 2 Pr~.iect occurino wholly Or martially within or contiguous -- to any ~ectlttv or site listed on the National Reeister of historic places. Any impact to an archeological s~te or fossil bed located wi thin the project site. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATIOrI 12. WILL THE PRAJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YE) OR FUTURE OPEII SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU)IITIES? ...... Examples that Would Aoply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oooortunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the corm~unity. Other imoacts: IMPqCT nN TP. ANSPORTATIO~ 13. i~ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATIDN NO SYSTEMS? ............................................... Examples that Would Annl¥ to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of neople and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic ~roblems. * Present transportation system~ will be ma~ntained but in a more efficient manner. Other impacts: I 2. SHALL TO P~TENT[AL CAil IHPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IqPACT PROJECT CHANGE :S ?PACT ON ENERGY : ]EC* ~FFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YE! '., ~PPLY? ........................................... O0 .':'e~ ~nat Would ~DDlY to Column 2 .-=.eec causmg area~er than 5% increase in any form of "~rq? used tn municipality. · m~ecC rec~uirina the creation or extension of an energy -- -~sm~ssion or ~upply system to serve more than 5~ sinqle ]r ~wo family residences. ]~her ~mpacts: IMPAC, T ON NOISE_ 15. HILL THERE BE OBJECTI~}NABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YE~ or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... Examples'that ¥1ould APPly tO Colun~ 2 Blasting within 1,5OO feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proiect will ~roduce ooerating noise exceedinn ~he ' local ambient noise levels for noise o,.~side of structures. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT O.H HEALTH & HAZARDS ,qO YE l~, ',IL~ PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ............. ~'~ V V Exampi-s_ that ~oul~ a, DplY to Column 2 Proiect will cause a risk of exalosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, ra.diation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or enission. Proiect that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" <i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infec~tous, etc., includinq w~stes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain §ases.) S~oraae faci!iti~s for one m~ltion or more qallnns of liouified '-- natural gas or other liquids. IMPACT Oil GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COHHUNITY OR ~IEIGUBOR~QQQ WILL PROJECT AFFECT TME CHAPACTEQ nF TtlE EXISTING NO COM.~NITY? ................................................ ~ that would Aoolv to Column Z The population of the City, Town or Village ~" which the " oroJect is located is likely to orow oy more than 5% o~ resldent human ooPulation. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or one~a- -- ting services ~ill increase Dy more than 5% Der year as a ~eault of this project. Will involve any 9ermanent facility of a non-aqrlcultural use in an agricultural district or remove or,me agricultural lands from cultivation. The oroject will replace or e''~inate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic imoortance to toe co~unity. Development will induce an ,nflux of a oarticular aqe group with soecial needS, Project will set an ~moortant orecedent for future ~rolects. Project will relocate 15 or more emnloyees in one or more businesses. Other imoacts: NO lB. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE P~QJECT? ...... Q Examples that Would Apply to C¢lumn 2 Either government o~ citizens of ad3acen communities have ex~essed opposition or rejected the oro~ect or have not been contacted· YES ~!tALL TF~ I POTE;ITIAL CAN iMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY I~PAC. T [He,CT PROJECT CHANGE YES Objections to toe nro~ect ~rom within toe community. IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A J PqTEHTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE J · OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. / PART I ~ PART Il ~ PART DETERMINATION goon review of the info~qnation recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considerinq both the maanituOe and ~moortance of each imoact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The oroject ~ill result '" no major impacts and therefore. is one which may not cause sign(~icant damaae to the environment. B. Althouah the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil~ no~ be a signiflcant e~fect in thiS case because the mitigation measures described (" m~RT ] have been (ncluded as aart of tee ~roeosed project- C, The project will result in one or more maior adverse imnacts that cannot be reduced and ma/v~cause slnnificant damage to the environment. /,,Y t~ // May 29, 1984 -~ __ ~ .... Roy L. Haje, Pr~-~dent, Er~joonmuitan:~ nc. ~ignature of Pre6arer (if di~t~erent from S~)~ble offlcer) pREPARE A )EnATIVE DECLARATION ,,C) PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION -© pREPARE POSITIVE DECLAR~TIOq PROCEED WITii EIS -C) ~gencv Prirt or t~ne na~e nf resDonslble off~ial in Lead ~gencv E~IVIR~)ItMENTAL ASSESSHENT - PART III EVALUATI(I:I OF THE I~PQRTAN£E (1F IMPACTS :~r[ ~ is prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially large. The amount of writino necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the Question: in briefl~ completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of my.decisions? iNSTRUCTIONS Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro- ject change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important to the minicipality (city, town or village) in which the project is located. To answer the question of importance, consider: The probability of the impact or effect occurring The duration of the impact or effect - Its. irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or v~lues ~hether the impact or effect can be controlled - The regional consequence of the impact or effect its potential divergence from local needs and goals Whether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect. DETERMINATION OF SIG~!IFICAHCE An action is considered to be significant if: Qne (or more) impact is determined to both l_a?.~ and its (their) consequence, based on the review above, is important. PART Ill STATEMENTS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) Albert J. Krupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President William G. Albertson Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Robert Kassner, Planning Board Board of Trustees~/~. Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry May 5, 1995 The Board of Trustees has no comment on the above reference project as it is out of our jurisdiction. LAURY L. DOWD TOWN ATTORNEY JEAN W. COCI-YRAN Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1889 Fax (516) 765-1823 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Al Krupski, Jr., President, Trustees Laury Dowd, Town Attorney August 2, 1996 Ferry Dock Per our conversation today, I checked with Jill regarding the status of the ferry dock. She advises me that last year the owner had represented the work as being a replacement in kind, and on that basis the Trustees did not require a permit. She says that the Trustees do not keep a written record of this kind of determination. I checked with your department last year, because I was receiving complaints that the dock work was being done without permits. I was specifically advised that the Trustees had no objection to the work. Because of this, it would be very difficult for me to now prosecute a violation of the wetlands permit. I strongly suggest that we work on formalizing the procedure for determining if a replacement in-kind exemption exists as that will ensure that any exemption we recognize has some built-in restrictions. The current process gives people almost unlimited leeway to perform repairs and replacements that go beyond the original structure. PLANNING BOARD 1VIEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATH/MM, dR. BENNETT ORLOWSICI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS I~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Halt, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request - July 31, 1996 Dear Reviewer: TOWN The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Cross 'Sound Ferry SCTM#: 1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Requested Action: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on RL 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry serwce. SEQRA Classification: (X) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner (516) 765-1938 Page 2 Lead Agency Coordination Request The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or no! you have an interes! in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (X) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other (see comments below) Please fee free to contact this office for further information. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. /' /~ Acting Chairman CC; Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Dept of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept, of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Dept. of Transportation - Albany & Hauppauge offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PERTINENT TO YOUR AGENCY'S REVIEW OF CROSS SOUND FERRY APPLICATION Project Boundaries: The enclosed project proposal includes four parcels of property which are highlighted on the enclosed tax map. The parcels from west to east are: SCTMi 1000-15-9-10.1 is a 1.2 acre site which contains a parking lot for 69 cars: the site plan for which was approved by the Planning Board on June 6, 1995. SCTM# 1000-15-9-11.~ is a 1.4 acre site which contains a ferry terminal/ticket office building and a staging area: the site plan for which approved by the Planning Board on March 30, 1984. SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1 is a 1.1 acre parcel which contains a pre-existing snack bar and parking area for which no site plan has been approved. This parcel presently is used for overflow parking and is considered by the applicant to have a certain amount of preexisting parking. SCTM~ 1000-15-9-3.5 is a vacant, residentially-zoned 2.5 acre parcel which the applicant proposes to use as a parking lot. With the exception of the easternmost parcel (SCTM ~1000-15-9-3.5), the remaining parcels are owned by the applicant. The easternmost parcel is owned by Adam C. Wronowski a principal of the applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants permission for a use variance, the ferry company will acquire this parcel from its principal and will merge it with the snack bar parcel (SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1). State Route 25 runs between and completely separates parcels SCTM~ 1000-15-9-11.1 and SCTM~ 1000-15-9-15.1. Scope of Review: The actual site plan application before the Planning Board includes just the two easterly parcels. The application before the Zoning Board involved the easternmost parcel only. Pursuant to SEQR requirements, we are looking at the entire ferry operation as it presently exists. Context of Review: The subject site plan and varianee applications before the Town were submitted in response to the Town's request for a site plan to address the intensified usage of the site. The Planning Board has the authority to request a site plan (or an amended site plan) when a change in the use or the intensity of use occurs on a business-zoned property. On or about July 19, 1995, Cross Sound Ferry initiated a new high speed, non-vehicular (passenger only) ferry service from its terminals in Orient, LI and New London, Connecticut. This new service reduced travel time between Orient Point and New London from one and a half hours to approximately thirty five minutes. Prior to this date, the ferry service consisted primarily of vehicular transport (cars and trucks). This new service has resulted in incidents where car parking has overflowed onto the adjoining beach area, the shoulders of State Route 25 and the residential-zoned areas surrounding this operation. As announced by the applicant, the high speed passenger-only ferry service was initiated to facilitate transport to the new Foxwoods Casino at Ledyard, Connecticut. (A bus at the New London terminal takes passengers to and from the casino.) The Foxwoods Casino is still under construction; and recent announcements about the construction of additional casinos and a theme park within close proximity to the existing casino together with normal growth mean that the prospect of continued increases in traffic and in parking demand at the Orient site must be taken into consideration, whether the impacts are generated by the operations of the vehicular ferry or by that of the high-speed passenger-only ferry or a combination of the two. All pertinent environmental impacts relevant to the increased level of ferry operations will be considered. Explanation of Enetosed Maps & Materials Three plans are included with this coordination letter: 1. A plan showing a survey of the four subject properties. The survey shows existing structures (excluding parking areas) and topography. A site plan showing the proposed parking lot design for the two easterly parcels. 3. A conceptual plan showing an alternative design which incorporates within it use of the entire State Right-of-Way. Although the application before the Planning Board ostensibly incevporates only the two easterly parcels, this SEQR review will encompass the entire site including the use of the State R-O-W. Please note that the inclusion of the State R-O-W is being done with the knowledge and cooperation of the New York State Department of Transportation. Note, also, that if the petition to extend parking into the easternmost, l~esidentially zoned parcel is denied, this agency will proceed with its review of the remainder of the site. In this case, the conceptual plan will be altered to delete the easternmost parcel. The Planning Board will announce lead agency status and its environmental detepmination of significance at its next scheduled public meeting on August 26, 1996. If any aspect of this proposed project falls within your agency's scope of jurisdiction or permitting authority, we encourage your participation in this coordinated review. Since the enclosed site plans may not provide all the information necessary for your agency's review, please outline your agency's information needs in writing. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer at 516/765-1938, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 4 PM. Project Description for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Situate Orient Town of Southold Suffolk County, N.Y. July, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. Crqss S_ound F__erry_ J.ntroduction Cros~ Sound Ferry Services. lnc. operates a ferry service for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and freight across Long Island Sound between Orient Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut. Terminal operations are maintained both at Orient Point and at New London, and consist of vessel mooring facilities and loading ramps, vehicle queuing and parking areas, ferry office waiting room, snack bar and restroom facilities. Aeria~ view of site taken in Pate March, 1996; markings shown indicate ground control points used in preparation of topographic mapping of the site. A plan showing existing conditions at the site. titled "Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc." and dated July 25, 1996. is included with this description. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 1 _Cross Sound Fe_~y As a result of litigation instituted by the Town of Southold. Cross Sound and the Town have been engaged in discussions of ways to improve parking conditions at the Orient site. Cross Sound has access to an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel (hereafter termed the "East Parcel") which could be used for additional parking. John J. Raynor, P.E. & ES., P.C.. has been retained by Cross Sound to assr'st in the preparation of a site plan to integrate the East Parcel with existing Parking adjacent to the Snack Bar. This project description is intended for tran smisslon to other involved agencies by the Planning Board in connection with the procedure for designation of a SEQR lead agency. Existinq Use Cross Sound currently owns land east of the easterly end of State Route 25_ which land currently supports a building housing a snack bar and an unpaved parking area which represents a uortion of the company-provided parking for ferry patrons. That property is termed "Snack Bar Parcel" in this description and it consists of 1.4449 acres as computed from the deed description. It is in the Wll zoning district. On the westerly side of the end of State Route 25, Cross Sound owns two other adjacent parcels. One, which we here call the "Terminal Parcel," is immediately adjacent to the end of the highway, and includes the ferry terminal building and the paved staging area for vehicles waiting to board a ferry. Just west Of that facility, the "West Parcel" includes a permeable surfaced parking area and an unused building. John J. Raynor. P.E. & L.S,, P.C. 2 Cross Sou_nd Fe~rry View faring westedy across parkin§ on Snack Bar Parcel toward Terminal Building, with Snack Bar building visible at left. proposed Addition East of the Snack Bar Parcel is property owned by Adam C. Wronowski, individually and as custodian for Jessica Wronowski, which currently is zoned R-80. Cross Sound Ferry Services. Inc. can acquire the Wronowski property, term ed in this report the "East Parcel". and provide additional parking spaces. For purposes of preparation of a site plan, it is assumed that these two parcels will be treated as a single lot. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 3 Cross Sound_F. err_y View facing westerly across East Parcel toward Snack Bar, showing vacant area with existing parking in background. ~ite Plan Cross Sound submitted a site Dian dated June 13. 1996. and revised June 28. 1996. a co~)y of which accompanies this project description. That plan depicts a re-design and expansion of parking facilities east of the end .of Route 25, and pertains only to the "Snack Bar" parcel and the "East Parcel'. ~n submitting that plan. Cross Sound has applied simultaneously to the Planning Board (for site plan ap[:roval) and to the Zoning Board of Appeals (for permission to expand a parking lot into a residentially zoned parcel). Alternative Inteqrated Site Plan During its initial review of the site plan described above, the Planning Board expressed to Cross Sound a desire to incorporate in the review process an alternate site plan which would encompass all.four of the Cross Sound parcels John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 4 Cross Sound Fer~y__ ("West", "Terminal .... Snack Bar" and "East") as well as that portion of Route 25 that runs southerly to the ferry dock. In communicating that request, the Planning Board said that there has been some indication from NYSDOT that the subiect portion of Route 25 might be included in an overall site plan, subject to appropriate legal arrangements, and that the Planning Board felt that some depiction of such a coordinated site plan was appropriate to an effective review of the current application. Cross Sound has provided the Alternative ntegrated Site Plan ( the "Alternative") that accompanies this description in compliance with the Planning Board's request. The "Altern ative" provides for an organized method of soding approaching vehicles into a short term parking and dropoff component, a departing vehicle and passenger component, a long term parking component, and a component returning to Route 25 westbound. In addition, it provides for a traffic signal within the Cross Sound site to modulate westbound vehicles as they leave the site to Insure that reasonable gaps in the traffic flow are generated systematically. Postscript This description is intended sim ply to assist involved agencies in considering whether or not to seek lead agency status, and to clarify the inter- relationship of the drawings included. Prepared: July 31, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E, & L.S., P.C. 5 Southold Town: County: State: Town Board Building Dept. Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1655 Southold, NY 11971 Vito Minei. Supervisor De partment of Ecology Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Stephen Jones, Director Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 John C. Murray, Planner Transportation Division Department of Public Works 335 Yaphank Ave. Yaphank, NY 11980 William Sickles, Superintendent De partment of Parks. Recreation & Conservation P.O. Box 144, Montauk Hwy. W. Sayville, NY 11796-0144 George Stafford. Director Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division New York Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12231 Michael D. Zagata, Commissioner New York Department of Env ~ronmental Conservation 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 Federal: Roger Evans, Director NYSDEC Bldg. 40, SUNY Rm. 219 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Darrel Kost, Regional Env. Coordinator Dept. of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Barry Hecht Passenger Transportation Division NYS Dept. of Transportation W. Averell Harriman State Office Building Campus 1220 Washington Ave. Floor & Rm. 4-115 Albany, NY 12232 Thomas Lyons, Director Environmental Management Bureau Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Bldg. 1. ' 3th Floor Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12238 Dr Alphonso Tones, Acting Director Division of Agricultural Research-Plum Island U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O.Box 848 Greenport, NY 11944 US Army Corp of Engineers NY District Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg. New York, NY 10278-0090 Attn: Regulatory Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 26 Federal Plaza Room 1338 New York. NY 10278 Attn: Response & Recovery Division PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please qamplete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for ap'proval and may be subiect to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAr will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or ipvestigation. If information requiring such additional wor~. ~s unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Ex.pansion of off-street aarking facilities at existing ferry terminal LOCATION OF A~TiON (include Street Address, Municipality and County) S/S Main Road (west of terminal) and E/S Main Road (east of terminal) NAME OF APPLiCANT/SPONSOR [ individually & a's. custodian ) 8USiNESS TELEPHONE Cross Sound Ferry Services, !nc. & Adam C. Wronowski (516) 369-1700 ADDRESS c/o William W. Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel 108 East Main Street, P. O. Box 279 Riverhead STATE i ZIPCODE ' NY[i 11901 NAME OF OWNER (If different) Same as above ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) CITY/PO i STATE I ZIP CODE ) / DESCRIPT1ON OF ACTION The applicants are saa~ng a public utility use varmance to allow parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A waiver or variance with regard to the o~,-st.~et parking on size of parking spaces is also being sought in order to maximize == ~= ' a parcel that contains an existing gravel parking area. If the variance is granted, the number of spaces will increase from 69 to 80. this 1.193 acre parcel is zoned MI1. Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if .or applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas, 1. Present land use: ~Urban ~Industria! ~Commercial ,'~Residential (suburban) ~Forest ~Agricu[ture [llOther vacant 2. Total acreage of proiect are'a: 2./498 acres· (R-80) APPROXIMATE ACREAGE i.!93 acres (MIi) Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, each or fjll).(earth rd..~ravei. DarKmng~ xrencn aralDs~ wooeen walks Roads, buiFdings an~other paved surfaces PRESENTLY I. 51 acres 0 acres O acres 0 acres 0 acres · 76 acres · 08 acres ~Rural (non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 2.20 acres · 08 acres .9! acres & bead~0 acres % of site Other (Indicate type), beach .9! acres Landscape & grass ' 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on proiect site? Haven ioam~ fii~L43 landacres a. Soil drainage: ~lWeIt drained 75 % of ~ite ~,'Moderatety 'wel! drained JPoorly drained '25 % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are ciassified within soii group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? t. 69 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on proiect site? ~Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet! ~oorox~mate percentage pt oroooseo pro!eot site 'with s~oses I~0-i0% i00 ~ ~q0-~5% % ~$% or greater % s srojec~ substantially connguous ~o or con,am a sunamg, s~e. or district listed on ~ne State ~r the ~at o~a. Registers of Historic Places? ~Yes ~No s pro ect substantially contiguous :o a s~te listed on ~ne Reg s~er o~ NaUonal Natural Landmarks~ ~Ye~ ~o What i~ the de~th of the water table? 3-7~ :in feet s site ~ocated over a prima~;,prmdpal, or so~e source aquifer? ~Yes Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities oresendv exist in the pro]ecz area? ~,es ~No Does project site conjoin an~ species of Diane or ~mm~[ life :nat is identified As mre~tened or endangered? According co 2oseph ~omb~:~i¢ ~dentifv each species Are there any um~ue or unusua anG forms on (ne Drolec: srce~ FLe Cliffs dunes o~ner 8eolog :a form8'oq~ ~Yes JNo Describe s me Droiect site presently used :)v the commumt'- or neighborhood as an open space o[ recrea[;on areai ~.Yes l~No If yes. exolaln ODes [ne present site include scenic views Known to be important to the communlI:v? EYes Streams within or contiguous to projec[ area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River [o winch it s tributary .... 16 Lakes ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous co proiect area a. Name Gardiners Bay s :ne site served ov existing oubtic utilities? ~lYes ~F;o a) If Yes. d~?s sufficient capacity exist"to allow connection? b) [f Yes. wi[[ improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~. Size gn acres} ~Yes ~Yes ~No 18 Is the site !ocated m an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Art~c[e 25-AA Section 303 and 304? [~Yes ~No q9. ~s the site Iocated in or substantially contiguous [o a Criticai Environmental Area designated aursuant of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6~7,? liYes FqNo (Peconic Bay Estuary) 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ~Yes B. Project Description Phvsicat dimensions and scale of orocect (fill ~n dimensions as aDoroor ate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by prolect sponsor D. Prolect acreage to De developed: 3,691 acres mluaHy; c. Proje~. acreage to remain undeveloped nnone acres. d. Length of project, in miles: NA (If appropriate) e. !f the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f Number of off-street parking spaces existing 22~ ; proposed 6.468 acres, 6.a68 acres u,~ ma,e~y. ~z.e. "approved & pre-existing parcals~i 220 %; z~86 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ** h If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A One Family Two Family initially Ultimately ii Dimensions tin feet) of iargest proposed structure ~,/A height; 'width; j Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is~ 88 (upon completion of project)? **See attached letter from Dunn .MultJp!e Family Condomimum Iength. ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) wi[[ be removed from ~ne site? 9~0' tons/cubic yards *dredge s~oii previousiv deposited on site, 3. W[[I disturbed areas be reclaimed? ]lYes OMo a, If yes, for what intend_~, purpose is the site being reclaimed? parking area b. Wili topsoil be stockpiled for rec[amation? ~Yes ~No c. Will upper subsoi[ be ~tockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes 4. How many acres of vegetation Ctrees, shrubs, ground covers) wiII be removed from site? i.5i acres. 5. Wil! any mature forest iover 100 years old) or other !ocaJ[y-important vegetation be removed by this project? ?Yes ~lNo 6. if single phase.proiect: Anticipa;ced period of construction 2 months, Cinciuding demolition). 7. !f multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction none 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project, none 1~. Will proiect require relocation of any projects or facilities? b. Anticipate~ date of commencement phase i month c. Approximate compietion date of final phase month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ~Yes Will blasting occur during construction? ~Yes ]lNo ~No ; after proiect is c~mplete ,fear, (including demolition) year. ~Yes INo If yes, explain 12. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste /sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? F-!Yes JNo Type ~4. Wi!J surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain ~Yes ~No 15. 16. 17¸ i8. 19. 20. 22. 23. 24. Is project or any portiOn of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Will the project generate solid'waste? ~Yes ' ~lNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~Yes c. If yes, give name ; !ocation d. Will any wastes not 80 into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain · Yes ~No ~,Yes ~No Wilt the project involve the disposal of solid ,waste? a, if yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Wiil project use herbicides or pesticides? ~Yes ~Yes ]lNo tons/month. years, ]lNo Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes IINo Will project produce operating noise exceeding the !ocai ambient noise ievels? ~'Yes Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~Yes ~No If yes , indicate ~¢pe(s) Electricity for ~.rkin§ ~rea li~htin,~ if water supply is from weIIs, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A , gallons/day. Dbes project involve Local, State or Federal 'funding? ~Yes ~No '; - if Yes, explain ~No 25. Approvals Requifed: City, Town, Village Board ~Yes City, Town, Village PIanning Board 1Yes City, Town Zoning Board lyes City. County Health Department ~Yes Other Local Agencies ~Yes Other Regional Agencies ~±annzng bomnl~yes State Agencies NYSDEC ~Yes Federal Agencies ~Yes C. Zoning and Planning Information ~No lNo ~No ~No ONo ONo ~lNo Type Site Plan {ub%ic Utility Use variance ar~zn~ space"szze varzance Zoning Action Tidal Wetland Permit Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? If Yes, indicate decision required: ~,zoning amendment ironing variance ~mspeciaJ use permit lyes ~No ~subdivision I~site plan --~new/revision of master pian ~resource management plan Oother What is the zoning c!assification(s)of the site? __ M!i & R-80 What is the maximum potential development of the site if deveioped as permitted by the present zoning? 69 parking spaces on M~Zi oarcel & 219 soaces on R-80 parcel Submittal Date Pending 11/9/95 penaing pending 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? :Public Uti%ltv Use 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Current proposal represents maximum development 6 cs the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? 1Yes [~No 7 What are the~preoommant lane u{e(s] and zoning classifications within a lA mile radius of prooosed action? ~ommerc~al, governmental and~azkin~ (M ~II} to west; Residential (R-80) to north and ~es~nenE~a± e governmenuai ~.~. ~U) ~O easn · $ ts the proposed action compatible with adioining/surrounding land uses within a ~A mile? liYes ~No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many iots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require'any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or ,water districts? ~Yes INo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any communiW provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ~Yes lllNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? OYes ~No t2 Will the proposed action resuit in the generation of traffic significantIy above present levels? ~Yes t~No a. if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ** ~Yes ~No · * see attached letter from Dunn Engineering D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse ~mpacts associated with your proposal, piease discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them E. Verification I certify that thF infor?ation provided above is true to the best of mv knowledge. John u. Raynor, P.E.~ L.S., p.e. as agent for the aDDiicant/sponsor '- Date 1!/9/95 Appiicant/Sponsor~e ignature//~/~~~ (Joseph Lombardi) Tide Technician ,'1 the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, compJete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding 'with this assessment. Project Description for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Situate Orient Town of Southold Suffolk County, N.Y. July, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. Cross Sound Ferry Introduction Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. operates a ferry service for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and freight across Long Island Sound between Orient Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut. Terminal operations are maintained both at Orient Point and at New London. and consist of vessel mooring facilities and loading ramps, vehicle queuing and parking areas, ferry office, waiting room snack bar and restroom facilities. Aerial view of site taken in late March, 1996; markings shown indicate ground control points used in preparation of topographic mapping of the site. A 'plan showing existing conditions at the site, titled "Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc." and dated July 25, 1996, is included with this description. John J. Raynor, P,E. & L,S,, P.C. I Cross Sound Ferry As a result of litigation instituted by the Town of Southold, Cross Sound and the Town have been engaged in discussions of ways to improve parking conditions at the Orient site. Cross Sound has access to an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel (hereafter termed the "East Parcel") which could be used for additional parking. John J. Raynor, PE. & L.S., P.C., has been retained by Cross Sound to assist in the preparation of a site plan to integrate the East Parcel with existing parking adjacent to the Snack Bar. This project description is intended for transmission to other involved agencies by the Planning Board in connection with the procedure for designation of a SEQR-lead agency. Existin= Use Cross Sound currently owns land east of the easterly end of State Route 25, which land currently supports a building housing a snack bar and an unpaved parking area which represents a portion of the company-provided parking for ferry patrons. That property is termed "Snack Bar Parcel" in this desCriPtion, and it consists of 1.4449 acres as computed from the deed description. It is in the Wll zoning district. On the westerly side of the end of State Route 25, Cross Sound owns two other adjacent parcels. One, which we here call the "Terminal Parcel," is immediately adjacent to the end of the highway, and includes the ferry terminal building and the paved staging area for vehicles waiting to board a ferry, jUst west of that facility, the "West Parcel" includes a permeable surfaced parking area and an unused building. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P,C. 2 Cross $oun~ FeL~ View fa?lng westerly across parking on Snack Bar Parcel toward Terminal Building, with Snack Bar building visible at left. Proposed Addition East of the Snack Bar Parcel is property owned by Adam C. Wronowski, individually and as custodian for Jessica Wronowski, which currently is zoned R-80. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., can acquire the Wronowski property, termed in this report the "East Parcel", and provide additional parking spaces. For purposes of preparation of a site plan, it is assumed that these two parcels will be treated as a single lot. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 3 Cross Sound View facing westerly across East Parcel toward Snack Bar, showing vacant area with existing parking in background. The site Plan Cross Sound submitted a site plan dated June 13, 1996, and revised June 28, 1996, a copy of which accompanies this project description. That plan depicts a re-design and expansion of parking facilities east of the end of Route 25, and pertains only to the "Snack Bar" parcel and the "East Parcel'. In submitting that plan, Cross Sound has applied simultaneously to the Planning Board (for site plan approval) and to the Zoning Board of Appeals (for permission to expand a parking lot into a residentially zoned parcel). Alternative Intec~rated,,.Site Plan During its initial review of the site plan described above, the Planning Board expressed to Cross Sound a desire to incorporate in the review process an alternate site plan which would encompass all four of the Cross Sound parcels John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., 'P.C. 4 C~oss Sound Ferry ("West", "Terminal", "Snack Bar" and "East") as well as that portion of Route 25 that runs southerly to the ferry dock. In communicating that request, the Planning Board said that there has been some indication from NYSDOT that the subject . portion .of Route 25 might be included in an overall site plan, subject to appropriate legal arrangements, and that the Planning Board felt that some depiction of such a coordinated site plan was appropriate to an effective review of the current application. Cross Sound has provided the Alternative Integrated Site Plan ( the "Alternative") that accompanies this description in compliance with the Planning Board's request. The "Alternative" provides for an organized method of sorting approaching vehicles into a short term parking and dropoff component, a departing vehicle and passenger component, a long term parking component, and a component returning to Route 25 westbound. In addition, it provides for a traffic signal within the Cross Sound site to modulate westbound vehicles as they leave the site to insure that reasonable gaps in the traffic flow are generated systematically. Postscript This description is intended simply to assist involved agencies in considering whether or not to seek lead agency status, and to cladfy the inter- relationship of the drawings included. Prepared: July31, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C, 5 PLANNING BOA/{D MEMBERS RICED G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCPIIE LATHAM- JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREIVIERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOW~ OF SOUTHOLD July 9, 1996 William Esseks Esseks, Hefter & Angel 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry Main Road, (Rt. 25), Orient Zoning District: Marine II (MII)& Residential Low-Density R-80 SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks, As discussed at the PlanDing Board's public meeting on July 8, 1996, the site elan submitted on July 1, 1996, does not contain sufficient detail to start-the environmental review. The following changes/additions must be made before the Board can start the coordinated environmental review: 1. All site details of both the west parking lot and-the terminal lot must be shown as contained on the approved plan dated May 16, 1995. 2. Internal flow of both ve~hicular and pedestrian traffic between all four parcels and the State Right-of-Way must be indicated. The Board would appreciate receiving this ma~eriai before its next public meeting on July 29, 1996. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please con~ac~ this office. ~/~t~cl~ard- G .' Ward / Chairman Frank Yakaboski, Attorney Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Sou~hold Town Board Board of Trustees Edward Forreszer, Town InvestigaTor -John Raynor, p.E. Thomas Fisher, Sen/or Building InspecTor Richard McMurry, Cross Sound Ferry PLAN~NING BOARD M~MBER$ RICHARD G. WARD Cha/rman GEOt%GE RITCHIE LATSI_~M, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. W!LLLAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax '.516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD TOV/2~ OF SOUTHOLD June 18, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. P.O. Box 720 Water Mill, NY 11976 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry Main Road, (Rt. 25), Orient SCTM# 1000-15-10.1, 11.I, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has received your submission of June 14, 1996, for review by this Board. As indicated in your letter, your revised site plan was only a "progress print" for discussion ar the Board's work session on June 17, 1996. The Board appreciates the additional detail but feels it is still insufficient to start the coordinated enviormental review. The internal flow of both pedes~ran and vechicular traffic from the new parking area and the terminal should be indicated. Please indicate all pedestrian walk ways -with adaquate protection for foot traffic. The buffer areas should be indicated together with the double row of evergreens. Please refer to the Board's letter of April 23, 1996, (copy enclosed), which contains the detail required to start the coordinated enviormental review. The Board is anxious to start the coordinated review, and would urge you to have a plan containing sufficient detail to begin the review by the end of June. ~f'~-d,u b~ve any qu~es~ons, ~lease contact this office. Si~e Plan Revie~e~ cc: W. W. Esseks, Esq. Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Southold Town Board Board of Town Trustees Frank Yakaboski, Attorney Zoning Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Town InvestigaTor HAROLD DOANE WATSON 700 Plum Island Lane Orient Point, NY 11957 , OP 516-323-3862 NYC 212-420-0547 FAX 212-420-0793 E-MAIL 75260.3157@Compuserve. Corn John Holzapfel, Chairman and Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold June 10, 1996 Dear John Holzapfel and Town Trustees, I am writing to provide you with my research into some of the environmental, land-use, and site- plan issues concerning the Cross Sound Ferry Terminal at Orient Point in Southold, New York. Changes to the site, including intensity- of use, have set in motion the SEQRA process which I strongly support. What concerns me is that examination of official materials reveal that previously a serious lack of careful attention by government representatives has limited opportunities of the local communities concerns being addressed and prevented informed decisions. While this particular document is directed to, and asks specific questions of, the New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation, your reading should confirm that these specific questions have implications that need to be restated with-in each responsible agency. I am a concerned citizen who is not offering the technical conclusions of a land-use professional. This stated, I am also the owner of a growing communications technology business. I know that in businesses, my long-term success will live-or-die by how well I d~sign and support my business plan. Using my understanding of this process for comparison, my review of previous official action at the ferry terminal site, shows an un-coordinated effort to implement safeguards. These same efforts have been severely compromised by an what almost seems to be a co-ordinate ignorance of the same safeguards. I ask for your support to insure that prior to undertaking the new SEQRA, these safeguards, designed to protect the local environment and community, must be carefully re- examined by all parties involved. Page 2 My conclusion is that this site requires on-going special management. The effects of past actions may best be judged the continuing debate. NegatiVe environmental and quality- of- life results have occurred not for lack of valid regulations, but from legal requirements that have been ignored, or not given serious consideration of their intended support of the public good. I have been appealing for years for a careful examination of all existing regulations as relates to the Cross Sound Ferry Terminal, bY officials in Southold Town, Suffolk County, New York State and the Federal Government. Each body has a mandate for stewardship of the local environment and community of Orient Point. This mandate includes the responsibility to work together in the public arena, for the public welfare, with open public communications. I am desirous of achieving a true consensus of where Orient Point is headed, and a true consensus of what aspects to encourage or discourage. I know that this is achievable with a serious application of the SEQRA process. Past approaches that consisted of un-coordinated efforts have ignored information, and not achieved a public co-ordinate examination of the ferry terminal site. A sustainable long- term solution for Orient Point can only occur when all inter-agency missions, policy and specific regulations are fully reviewed. A consensus based on a complete, responsible search and discovery of all of the facts is needed to encourage a common understanding and a willingness for compromise after all of the issues are disclosed. I welcome your comments and hope that you will become a supporter to a full hearing in determining the future of Orient Point. Please feel free to call me with comments or questions. [Please distribute this to associates.] D:\WPDOCS\DECCVR05.WPD HAROLD 700 Plum lsland Lane Orient Point, NY 11957 DOANE oP 516-323-3862 NYC 212-420-0547 FAX 212-420-0793 WATSON E-M L 75260.3157~Compuserve. Com May 13, 1996 Mr. Louis A. Chiarella, Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40- SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Dear Mr. Chiarella, I have received a copy of the results of your investigation of Cross Sound Ferry (CSF) operations at Orient Point in Southold, New York. I appreciate your timely response to our lengthy conversation the prior week, but your letter ignores mention of several of our major discussiOn points that you said would be answered by your site-visit. As I had suggested, a complete and accurate picture on which to base a judgment should include the historical record of public stewardship. Your investigation did not include any reference to the greater permanent impact of specific CSF actions that we discussed. My inquiry still is open. Your review stated that these actions are undertaken within DEC permits. Shouldn't these DEC permits, limited, in-scope to favor needs of commerce, equally insure that their cumulatiYe effects will not cause the incremental erosion of the intended land-use limits created by the century-long stewardship of Orient Point? This response to your letter includes a summary of my research to date. I am also forwarding this same document to Southold Town officials, and the NY Department of State for their own jurisdictional response to my questions. REQUEST FOR REVIEW Page 2 My primary request was for a confirmation of the scope of each open DEC permit within the approved 1984 ferry terminal site, and the applicability of those DEC permits covering actions on the two eastern parcels__ one with a non-conforming use and the other a residentially zoned parcel. My specific request was for an investigation into the official status and current use of the southerly portion of these easrerly parcels, located between the coastline and a parallel dirt road that demarks a small earth bluff. This bluff is a rare feature on the bayside coastal area. Both of these features are well documented in government records. It is my belief, we specificically discussed, that a closer re-examination Will show these original features constitute the historical benchmark for the high water mark, as well as the defining border of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area outlining the landward limit of Natural Protective Features Zone protection. If the information I present continues to be neglected in determining official rulings, events now occurring will through default permanently alter Southold's environment. Already, the non-conforming parcel include significant alteration since 1992. On the larger residential parcel, original land features existed undisturbed until early this year. As a result of increased operation and the high- speed passenger ferry, CSF has undertaken related maintenance and rebuilding activity that, if accepted, will alter this area forever. Some might argue that NOT undertaking these activities could be considered a potential hardship limiting CSF expansion. Realistically, regardless of any subsequentl restrictions, undertaking these activities, without first determining full legal compliance, is surely a legal self-inflicted hardship of CSF's own making. DOCUMENTATION Page 3 As my own research indicates, a clear chronology of Southold boundariesl topography, vegetation and elevation can be established for all of the parcels that make up this contiguous site, both long before and after CSF action. I would hope that your carefid review of this information will change your current opinion of conditions at this site. Based on observations, records discovery and conversations with numerous NYS and Town officials, I hope to give you a clearer understanding of how your determination will critically affect the future. The primary documents I reference are listed below. All are available officially. New or pertinent close-up details are included as enclosures. (1) NYS Office of General Services- Patent Land Grant of 1893 and map (2) Detail of Oysterponds Museum aerial photograph dated 1949 (3) US Geological Survey Map dated 1954 (4) FEMA map of flood plain elevations date unknown (5) NYS Coastal Erosion Map dated 1988, drawn on 1974 map corresponding closely to the DEC baseline year, (6) Detail of Southold Town Aerial photography map dated 1989 (7) Cross Sound Ferry terminal site-plan dated 1984 (7) National Wetlands Inventory Map dated 8/28/95 (8) Photographic records taken by myself on-site in December 1995 and January 1996. (9) CSF site-plan map submission dated November 9, 1995 (10 C SF pictures with preliminary S outhold site-plan of March 1996. (11)CSF site-plan map re-submission dated April 8, 1996 NYS PATENT LAND GRANT Page 4 A short history of the specific site establishes that the physical ferry terminal operations have officially been limited to the western side of the Route 25 Extension. My research through the NYS Office of General Services shows that an enforceable, legal 1893 NYS Patent Land Grant partially defines the operation of the western site. This grant includes four acres of underwater lands, former wetlands and beach. Closer examination also reveals that this grant of public lands extends up to the high water mark as recorded. The original NYS grant was required to permit special, but limited, actions including filling and dredging of wetlands/ocean bottom in the construction of a commercial wharf. This grant is a remarkable example of the historical establishment land-use principles. NYS early land-use planning principles were applied here to insure that ferry operations would be available and contained on-site. During the 1940s, inclusive of other patents, NYS accepted this patent as completed. Based on NYS law, this essentially grants 95% of rights to commercial ownership of the original constructed area, but decrees that the then undeveloped portions reflect 95% public ownership, durisdiction is not clear to me, but may be the part of the confusion, along with the possibly overlapping Andros Patent rights, that I have encountered when speaking to New York State and SouthoM Town officials? BENCHMARKS OF BOUNDARIES AND ZONES page 5 This land grant establishes its northern boundary as the then high-water mark on the Patent. (See patent map.) Today this same high-water mark boundary still extends into the eastern parcels as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. In viewing the Orient Aerial Photograph of 1949, this coastal zone exists with visible shore vegetation, shore depression, and small bluff with dirt road. As recent as August 1995, the National Wetlands Inventory maps define the areas southeast of this Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as" marine-intertidal wetlands", "comprising unconsolidated shore with sand", while "subject to irregular tidal flooding". Doesn't this description require proteetion by DEC and oCouthold Trustees? To the north of the Grant land above the high-water mark, an 18 foot-wide access road called Dock Road was included as part of this grant to guarantee access and. accommodate local ferry commerce. ( See FEIMA map.) The separate but parallel Route 25 Extension had already existed for at least a century as confirmed by observing its Own historical stone postal mile marker. (I have not found any map listing this historical final mile marker.) Located just East of the Route 25 Extension, Dock Road exists as part of the DEC baseline from 1974 through 1984. Do you know of any official ruling that changes this aspect of a still enforceable patent? Page 6 PLANNED SEPARATION OF PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL ~RAFFIC After 1984, the Dock Road still exists, but as the exit traffic lane on the approved 1984 ferry terminal rebuild, as well as many other maps. It is currently in use by CSF for parking and additional staging, which ! believe does not conform to the approved site-plan or restrictions in the patent and deed. After completion of the terminal, CSF usurped private land to create a Shortcut that directed traffic off this original road and directly onto the Route 25 Extension. Southold has records of complaints from the property owner to confirm this. Then in 1990, CSF purchased this small parallel small strip of land squeezed in between Dock Road and the Route 25 Extension. To my knowledge, no approvals were sought or given for this important change, and this parcel is still unlisted on any site-plan. Does not the surrender of intended use of Dock Road as the public's primary access and taking the unapproved use of the Route 25 Extension allow or require lawful modification of the Patent Land Grant as well as a site- plan modification? This initial use by CSF clearly conflicted with adjoining land ownership rights. Its continued use still contradicts the land-use evidence. The historical documented facts show that for nearly a century, all ferry commerce was designed to be conducted within a contained commercial area. In particular, this was intended to prevent commercial ferry use from impacting local tourism on the Route 25 Extension. The purchase of this strip of real estate should not constitute an automatic acceptance of the change of property use. A lack of enforcement has had profound effect, and will soon cause permanent impact, on all activities to the east. The fact is that the Route 25 Extension and the areas to the east have always functioned as a primary scenic public destination for Southold Town. Where do the DEC permits recognize this important distinction in determining the impact of actions, permitted or otherwise? Shouldn't DEC oversight require informing the N¥S DOZ? TI~ SCENIC POINT Page 7 The area to the east of the Route 25 Extension is well loved and accepted by Southold citizens and local tourists as a scenic destination. This is confirmed in Southold's Master Plan and inventory of significant vistas. "The Point" provides public access to scenic views of Plum Island and the bay. Early official land' planning recognition was given by the NYS DOTthat resulted in support of this area. This recognition includes, to this day, short-term NYS DOT parking for this public. To further confirm the intended separation of the eastern land, additional space was allocated by the DOT for a required motorist turn-around area at the end of Route 25-- a requirement that was and remains incomPatible with ferry traffic exiting onto the Route 25 Extension.. North of this scenic view, a privately operated snack bar has served locals and tourists for at least half-a-century. The parcel's current snack bar, now owned by CSF, replaced a hot dog stand, circa 1930, that advertised its scenic public views. I differentiate the historical public from guests of the then operating Orient Point Hotel, as the current public must also be differentiated from the commercial patrons of CSF, (See US Geological Survey Map and ORIENT aerial photograph.) In the 1984 terminal rebuild on the western parcel, the CSF EIS stated use of this lot would continue as a Snack Bar, with limited short-term parking for these patrons. All of the official changes that have taken place over the last century have continued support for this public vista. Are subsequent actions orpermits required to give weight to the local community's continued historical use as well as statements in a site-plan ElS? DREDGE SPOILS UTILIZATION ON NON-CONFORMING LAND Page 8 Compounding the dismay of local Southold citizens, the incremental usurping of this vista began in the late 1980s, with the CSF's stockpiling of dredge spoils on the snack bar property that often blocked these long established scenic public views in Southold. Have results of CSF actions in using dredge spoils to change a well-established local use forced the DEC to ignore its mandate of balancing the needs of commerce with tvreservation of tvublic access to vistas? Based on my inspection of Aerial Photography Maps, in recent years dredge spoils have been stored at the unimproved southern and eastern edges of the non- conforming snack-bar property. I must assume this work was done under a DEC general maintenance permit that the DEC Duty Analyst noted expired in 1992. Did this maintenance ieermit allow spoils intended for ul~land storage to be used for the permanent alteration of the features and elevation of the southerly portion of the snack_bar lvarcel? What became of DEC enforcement of the requirement that spoils be removed and land restored to original conditions as existed in your baseline year o fi9 72 and after? If tvermanent' why weren't the results of this action listed in the scope of maintenance permits? ALTERATION OF RESIDENTIAL LAND WITH DREDGE SPOILS Page 9 In 1990 the CSF began using an additional adjoining eastern parcel, under a DEC permit, to "place dredge spoils for storage upland." Upland means north of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. This boundary is located on maps near an un- named dirt road on this adjacent residential property. Visible on the 1893 Patent Land Grant map and later documents, this dirt road still runs from near the northeast grant marker through both present day eastern parcels to the end of Orient Point. A small earthen bluff, a rare feature on the bayside coastal area exists to the immediate south.. It is my belief, as we specificically discussed, that a closer re-examination will show these original features constitute the historical benchmark for the high water mark, as well as the defining border of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area . outlining the landward limit of Natural Protective Features Zone protection. Now the dredge spoils were placed on this residential parcel. This is property owned by personal family members of CSF owner, J Wronowski. It is not owned by the corporate entity of Cross Sound Ferryl This former farmland is zoned R-80 residential. Southold Town has not issued a variance to re-zone this parcel Marine-Il, or combine it into the site-plan of the terminal property. Southold officials requested in 1990 that CSF submit a site-plan, requiring zoning changes for using this area for dredge spoil storage. To date, only a preliminary plan has been filed. NOTE: that your letter refers-- incorrectly-- to both lots as '"eastern parcels of the Ferry property. " I assume the above action took place under the two stated. DEC maintenance dredge permits that expired in 1992 and on December 31, 1995. Do DEC regulations allow dredge spoils to be stored off-site on the residentially zoned, former farmland described above? If so how can you say that there have never been any DEC permit violations by CSF? A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OPERATION Page 10 In November 1994, the CSF applied for and received approval for a new 69 car capacity parking lot to the west of the existing terminal. A DEC permit also was issued for the same lot that your letter states is work completed. The filing declared this space to be for employee and overflow parking. Southold assumed this would allow CSF to clear,up the problems associated with your described "eastern parcels." All recent history has proved this wrong. Did the new DEC Permit issued for this action qualify any of this work as needed to correct conditions elsewhere on-site? If, as Southold Town determined in withholding final approval on this lot, CSF did not disclose their intended use of this lot as accommodations for new increased operations of the High-Speed Ferry, how can the DEC consider this parla'ng lot permit both completed and in compliance? UNRESOLVED SITE-PLAN AND MULTIPLE PARCELS Page 11 CSF introduced its high-speed passenger ferry in July 1995, and then would not agree to come in for a full site-plan review for all its parcels, causing Southold Town to file for an injunction. The outcome is still pending in the courts. At present, the result is traffic conditions that can become unsafe with the smallest of uncontrolled and unanticipated increases. Our community sees that the environment and quality of life have begun to suffer permanent harm. How can we help the DEC recognize that small permitted actions are being used and extended to implement announced CSF business plans, larger in scope than approved for this site, that guarantee serious impact? The DEC permit for dock improvements, approved in February and amended in May.of 1995, allowed dredging and rebuilding actions that resulted in a steel bridge-ramp for entrance to this contested high-speed ferry. CSF built a parking lot, added a bridge on its dock, and added a high speed ferry, without Southold Town approvals for any of these actions, other than the "employee/overflow parking lot." Yes, the permitted actions occuring prior to Southold determination could be stated to have been in compliance. The DEC position after the announced determination, should have questioned continuing these DEC permits. In particular, it was these permits that allowed CSF to continue to implement actions that thwarted Southold Town's determination that CSF consent to full legal compliance of both the high-speed ferry introduction and a full site-plan review. Can knowledge of pending legal action, combined with continued work this spring on complete rebuilding of the high-speed dock truly be said to be in full compliance? Can you really state that all other recent permits are also in full compliance? Page 12 COMPLIANCE WITH UNAUTHORIZED HIGH-SPEED FERRY OPERATION By July 1995, all available land within the vicinity of the ferry terminal was subject to parking, whether permitted or not. This use was due to combined increased regular ferry passengers and the new passenger-only high-speed ferry operations. Illegal parking included areas between the dredge spoils on the residential lot. Many police complaints were filed, resulting in a temporary ceasing of illegal parking on this parcel. Along with this violation, Southold Town's additional complaints record that the CSF continued to store spoils on this residential lot until the end of 1995. See copies of JULY 1995 photographs taken by me. Did the DEC permit allow this continued upland spoils placement outside of legal Southold Town regulation, and does the DEC still consider CSF in compliance at that time? If Southold's complaint is valid, why did you, Mr. Chiarella, tell me in our original conversation that the CSF has always been in full compliance on all its permits?? 1996 ACTIONS LIP TO MARCH PRELIMINARY SITE-PLAN Page 13 By the end of December 1995, CSF had moved the remaining spoils from the upland areas to the southern area of this residential parcel, distinguished separately on all official maps. I assume this action was a CSF effort to clear-up Southold Town's complaint of unapproved dredge spoils storage on unapproved land. The spoils were moved from the upland onto an area that does not conform to any DEC permit definition specified as upland storage. As I stated earlier, this is an established Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, listed on official maps, setting the DEC baseline. This material was placed within this zone in a traditional dike-and-fill method. The center of this ring of spoils was then filled in with NEW spoils that resulted from NEW dredging from maintenance and in preparation for dock replacement and rebuilding of the high-speed ferry slip. Documents and observation show the area's elevation prior to this infill is estimated to be six or more feet below the upland elevation in this zone. I observed and photographed this action. (See photocopies and pre-1995 elevation maps.) By the New Year, this area had changed visibly. During this period I notified the DEC, and the Town that this action was occurring, but was told that this was only permitted maintenance. Did the specific DEC permit, that expired December 31, 1995, allow CSF to continue to allow dredge spoils to be stored off-site of the ferry terminal? On residentially zoned R-80 land? IVhen CSF moved the remaining spoils at the end of the year, did the same permit allow new placement as infill in an area that federal, state and town documents confirm is a coastal zone requiring protection? Page 14 1996 ACTIONS IN DOCK REBUILDING PRIOR TO NEW SITE APPROVALS Between December 1995 and March 1996, CSF began excavation and dredging around the eastern high-speed ferry slip in preparation for the rebuilding which continued until May 1996. The rebuilding under a February 1995 permit was still in progress on your visit as you stated. This permit clearly states as a special condition that "any debris or excess materials from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area (upland) and removed to an approved upland area for disposal. No debris ts permitted in tidal wetlands and or protected buffer areas. ,, In your letter your mention this, but the actual area of placement was not an upland area in February 1995. It could only be considered as upland after the new infill elevation was created by CSF using these dredge spoils by CSF in clear violation of DEC permit and Southold Town determination of no work on site pending legal determination of site-plan. How can the DEC issue a dockpermit, specifying specific upland storage and removal of spoils and debris in February 1995, further amend it in May 1995, and at the same time specify "upland placement" in an area that was clearly not upland in 1995 or 19967 1996 "PRELIMINARY" SITE-PLAN SUBMITTED 1996 "PRELIMINARY" SITE-PLAN SUBMITTED Page 15 In March 1996, after repeated delays and threat of legal injunction by Southold Town arising out of the CSF's launch of its passenger-only high speed ferry, CSF submitted a preliminary site plan. This document is available from Southold Town. It does not show any wetlands setbacks or for that matter even the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. It shows that CSF has now used DEC permitted dredge spoils to infill the whole of the southern portion of "eastern parcels of the ferry property.", as you incorrectly describe them, prior to legal approvals. Their submitted document seeks approval for "grandfathered actions", without surrendering to Southold authority to regulate specific actions, including the high speed ferry, and the eastern Snack bar non-conforming use. It also requests that CSF be allowed to join both eastern properties into a four hundred plus car parking lot. The important note in this CSF submission is their stated incorporation of all of the unapproved incremental site build-out that has occurred I believe, having reviewed all of the information available, that these actions include: not implementing an approved terminal site plan, usurping private land and then an established public scenic vista, infill and damage of protected inter-tidal wetlands within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and continued non-conforming land use and expected use orR-80 property outside of local planning laws. In the CSF resubmission in April, it added a note that Southold required property- line setbacks upland. The only other significant change was the noted question as to determination of wetlands setback, from the existing high-tide mark. Do the CSF and the DEC believe that the land buildup between the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and the coast comprising the Intertidal Wetlands, are from natural or artificial accretion that has taken place during the last three months, or is it from 1984, or maybe from 19727 Documentation shows it to be natural and has extsted in its pre-1996 state for at least 50 years. TI-rE WHOLE SITE Page 16 In April, after my complaints to the DEC, Richard MacMurray President of Cross Sound Ferry, called me to inform me that "we have a permit for the whole site." I ask again what defines "the whole site"? When did the infilled area become to be considered "a DEC regulated adjacent area", that is now "permitted to be utilized for upland dredge storage material"? [-[ow can you reconcile your statement that "there are no violations of the Tidal Wetlands ~tct at this facility" with the fact that the CSF also recently applied for a Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit? If you examine the photos submitted with their site-plan, you will see clearly that infill actions have occurred in the coastal zone established as a wetlands intertidal area marked to the north by a bluff defining the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Now, the concrete and metal debris is being added on top of this fill. Will this debris AND THE INFILL be required to be removed and restored? CSF stated in their site-plan submission that the terrain and access to surrounding property'required equivelant base-mapping using aerial photogramemetric methods to accurately determine conditions including elevations. I must assume the above is required for the CSF to now depict a level terrain, and to suggest that no wetland areas now exist. This is based on examination of end-of-March photos CSF submitted with its site-plan. These photos depict a level terrain. They include complete infill of all areas in dispute, along with no "upland" spoils. Your statements lend support to the presented site-plan as fact, ignoring the reality presented in other records. I assume current work at the ferry terminal site is covered in the latestpermit for dock replacement expiring in 199 7 and a permit for general maintenance expiring in 1999. Should they have been allowed to be executed this year, a year in which, unapproved high speed ferry use and all of the legal-status issues of multiple CSF actions are undecided? THE "POINT" OF STEWARDSHIP Page 17 CSF informed the Connecticut DOT in November 1995 that their market potential has changed the scope of its operations. CSF expects Connecticut casino gambling to create a market for six million cross-sound passengers. Orient Point now has 750,000 passengers, nearly at the site-capacity of just over one million established by the 1981 NYS Long Island Ferry Study. To insure a balanced solution all parties need to accept full disclosure of the facts and agree to work together. As citizens of the same region, we need your department and the DEC to assume its responsibility as the leader in advocacy for the conservation of this special limited ecosystem. If not, in the near future, will the DEC's final action be to tell the public that any environmental conservation solution for Orient Point and Southold has past? I thank you for your attention. My observation of the site is clear. As a concerned Orient Point resident, I have learned to view this small area as a microcosm of the complex issues of conservation affecting our larger environment. This document reflects my contribution to a better understanding of this history. I hope that it helps to enable a consensus for a real solution to this growing problem. I offer my continued assistance in any way possible. Please feel free to call with your response or questions. Sincerely, Harold D. Watson CC.' Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Board Southold Town Attorney Southold Planning Board Southold Zoning Board of Appeals NY Department of State Southold Citizens for Safe Roads New York state Department of Envlronrnental Conservation Building 40 - SUN¥, Stony Brook, New York I ~790-2566 Phons (516! d44-0295 FaX # {516) 44~0297 May 10, 1996 Michael D. Zagata Commissioner Mr, Albert Ya'upski, President Town of Southold Trustees P.O. Box 1179 $outhoId, NY' 11971 ear Mr, I~pski: This letter is to in/otto you of the results of my investigation of violations alleged by Mr. Harold Watson concerning the Cross Sound Ferry. I inspected the site on May 3, 1996 to determine if any violations of the NYS Tidal . Weflaads Act were occurring at the ferry terminal. At that time, only work on the steel pier was in progress. That work is covered under permit 1-47384027/000024) which expires 2/28/97. All debris from this project must be removed from the NYSDEC regulated adjacent area upon completion of the project. The debris is eurrentiy being stock piled in the area permitted to be utilized for upland dredge material storage. The dredge raaterial is authorized as cun'e~tly exists on the eastern pa~,els of the Ferry property. This activity was authorized under pemait 10-88-1164 which expired on 12/31/95. Excess material is being utilized by NY$ Parks to nourish the beach and dunes along Orient State Park. The Ferry was also authorized to construct the parking lot o~a the western parcel under permit 14738-1027/00001-0. This work has been completed. A permit also exists for manatenaene of the entire facility 10-84-0257 wb~eh expires 7/3t/99. I did not find any permit non-compliance or violations of the Tidal Wetlands Act at this facility, Charles Hamilton Mr. Harold Watson Sincerely, Louis A Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection · John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., Civil Engir{eer and Land Surveyor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Reports Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Design Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Planning June 6, 1996 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Gentlemen: On behalf of Cross Sound Ferry, we have been engaged in discussions with the Southold Town Planning Board concerning the I~OVlSiOn of additional parking area at the ferry's Orient facility. Among the issues to be addressed in those discussions is the determination of an appropriate seaward limit for the area to be devoted to parking. Mr. Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer for the Town of Southold, has advised us that the determination of such a limit will depend upon the regulatory requirements of your Board and of the NYSDEC. Accordingly, Mr. Kassner has asked that we write to you to inquire as to the applicable regulatory setback, under the Trustees jurisdiction, for a permeable parking area at the Cross Sound Ferry site. To assist you in your consideration of this request, I am enclosing two copies of a reduced scale topographic map of the site. To avoid possible confusion in the interpretation of your response, perhaps you could mark up one of the maps and return it to me with notations as to which criteria are employed in defining the requested line. Notwithstanding the above, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. maintains that it is unclear as to whether the Trustees have jurisdiction in this matter. Very truly ~urs Encl. CC: Cross Sound Ferry William W. Esseks, Esq· Frank Yakaboski, Esq. Robert G. Kassner May31,1996 Mrs. Jean Cochran Southold Town Supervisor P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Robert D. Pedersen 10305MainRoad P.O. Box 183 Ea~Mario~NY 11939 RE: CROSS-SOUND FERRY Dear Mrs. Cochran: We want you to know how concerned we are about the increased ferry traffic on the Main Road (Route 25) in East Marion~ Route 25 passes directly in front of our property and all traffic is visible from our home. The advent of the passenger-only ferry last summer increased the negative impact of the Cross Sound Ferry's operation on the enjoyment of our home. Traffic increased dramatically, and along with the traffic increase came car pollution, noise pollution and unsafe road conditions along Route 25, especially on the bike-route to Orient Point. All of this combined is mining the quality of life not only in East Marion but all of Southold Town~ Route 25 in East Marion is lined with eighteenth and nineteenth century homes which are close to the road. Our house sits just 30 feet from the curb. You can just imagine the noise and exhaust emanating from these vehicles. This prevents us from opening the front of the house and letting the sunshine and fresh air in during the summer months~ We don't like being subjected to gas fumes and noise from the cars speeding to and from the ferry terminal. We are convinced that the projected traffic increase to the Connecticut casinos is the most dangerous and immediate threat to the qualitY of life of Southold Town, the environment and our local economy. There is akeady a negative impact on summer rentals and property values along the Main Road. We urge an injunction again~ the Cross Sound Ferry's operation of the passenger-only ferry until Cross- Sound comes in with a full and realistic site plan and SEQRA review.' Certainly the enforcement of local zoning at the ferry teJminal property is questionable. Also, we wonder how protected wetlands can be land-filled to make room for expanded parking. We are most anxious to know your views on this issue and what can be dOne about this problem before it is too late and the quality of life in the community is destroyed. Sincerely, CC: Southold Citizens for Safe Roads Southold Planning Board Southold Zoning Booxd of Alypeals '~8ontltokI ~-'T~ru~- i;0uthold Building Department S~rely, .~ ~u~dre.T, Pedersen RAYNOR-BLITER HARDWARE INC. 320 LOVE LANE MATTITUCK, N.Y 11952 FAX 51~-~98-;~!27 ANY OF THE ABOVE INFORMAT!ON NOT CL. EAR~ p~_F. ASE CAL~. Al' GNCE. New York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conservation ~uilding 40--SUN% Stony Brook, New York 1 !79~2356 Telephone: (516) 444-~365 Facsimile: (516) 444-0373 LangdonMerah Commisaioner Nove~er 14, 1994 Cross sound Ferry Services, Inc. p.o. Box 33 NeW London, CT 06320 1-4738-01027/00001-0 Dear Permit=es: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and i=s implemen=ing regulations~ (6NYCRR, Fart 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with. any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a uermit sign which is to be ¢on~icuous!Y posted a= the 9roject si%e and pro=et=ad from the weather. Very truly yours, Kevin Kispert Environmental Anaty~t I KAK:nw enclosure __ MAY 18 '9~ e8:37 i nspecz ions [ p.S The permi~.ed site or facil ity, inciuciincj relevant r~rds, is ~ ~o in- s~{i¢ at r~¢~ble ~rs a~ intervals ~ ~ aut~riz~ represen~a{ive of ~t~r ~ ~ittee is ¢lyi~ with this ~¢it a~ ~he ~. ~ch represen- tative ~Y order t~ ~rk sus~ ~rs~n~ =o ~ 71-~1 a~ ~A ~1(3). A ~y of =his ~it, i~l~ing alt refere~ ¢~ti¢s, ~st ~ available for ins~c~i~ ~ t~ ~r~nt a[ all ti~s a~ ~ project si~e. Failure to pr~uce a ~ of tho ~i[ u~n reques~ uY a ~r'~n~ r~res~[at~ve is aviota~i~ of =his ~i~. 2. ~e ~r~nt reserves ~ right to ~[=,fY, s~ or r~o~ this ~i~ ~en: a) t~ s¢~ of t~ ~i[t~ activity is ~i~i~ of tho ~it or pr~si~s of t~ ~ ~ per~inen~ r~ula- b) ~h~ ~i~ ~ abzai~ ~ misrepres~tati~ or failure ,za disclOsa re I ev~ fac~s; c) n~zeriat inf0~ticn is discern;, or d) envir~-~-~n~ai;~i~i°~' reievan~ ~h~l~, or a~pli~ble 1~ or regulation ~ve.'a~erial Iy c~nG~ since the ~it ,~s issue. 3. ~e ~i~ee ~sz s~it a se~raze ~itten appli~ti¢ ~o t~ ~r~enz for red--i, ~ifi~zian or :r~sfer of this ~i:. ~h app~i~ti~t incise a~ fa~, fees ar suppl~ntal infom~ a) I~ days ~fore ~i, ration of ~i=s for Stale ~tlu~[ Disc~rge Ei imi~tian ~st~ (~), ~za~da~ ~ste ~ge~'~:n~ Facilities {~F}, ~jor Air ~flu~ion ~n~roi (~] ~ ~tid~ste ~nag~nt ~cilities (~); a~ b) ~ da~s ~fare ~ira~ion of all other ~it t~s. 5. ~tess ~resslY pravid~ for ~ ~ ~arU~'snz, issuanca of ~his pe~i~ ~ ~ify, su~ersre ar resci¢~ a~ order or dereliction ~rviously issu~ the ~Dsr~'~'en~ or ~ of ~ t¢~, ~itians or r~uiru~n~s ~n~ain~ in such order ar deta~i~zion. 6. Tr~: pe~ittee h~s ac~9~¢ ~resstY, ~. t~ ~utian of the a~li~Zion, the fuil legal resrnsibili~y for all d~ges, direc~ ar i~i..rec~, of ~er nature a~ ~ ~-c~ver sufferS, arising out of the proi~ de:,cri~ in ~his ~it a~ ~s agra~ ~o indemnify a~ save ~tess me S~ate fr¢ su~s, acz~ons, ~ges a~ ms~s of every n~'~'~ a¢~ descrip~mn resulting fr~ ~his pr~j 7. This ~it d~s ~ ~ to the De~it~ee a~ right to trespass u~n ~he la~s or interfere with the ri~ri~ rights af o~ers in or~r ~mitt~ ~rk ¢~r d~s i~ auz~rize ~he i~im-en~ of any rights, ~i~ie, or ~ntrres~ in real ar ~rsc~i Dra~rzv held or ves~ in a ~rsan the ~i ~. 8. ~ ~¢it~ee is res~ns~ble for obzaining ~V other ~ts, approvals, l~s ~s~a~nzs and rights-of-way that ~Y ~' r~ui r¢ for this projecl:. Page 2 of'5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS For A~icte 25 (. Tidal Wetlands Roads, driveways, and/or parking areas shall be grinded :o direc~ runoff away fZom tidal wetlands and pr0tect~ad buffer areas · Supplementary Special Conditions (A) tkru (F) a~tached. 1-4738-01027/0000 ].-0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF S.O.UT_HO,.L.D_ . State Environmental ~ua~ky ~ewew NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Signific~n~t~,~~~ · OUTFIOL I May 18, 1995 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry Services SCTM#: 1000-15-9-10.1 & 11.1 Location: Main Rd., Orienl; SEQR Status: Type t ( X ) Unlisted ( ) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: Proposed site plan is for the construction of an overflow parking tot adjacent to and to the west of the ferry terminal. Page 2 SEQR Negative Declaration - Cross Sound Ferry May 18, 1995 Reasons SuppodJng This DeterminatJon: This project involves the construction of an overflow parking lot at an existing ferry terminal. A ferry terminal is a permitted use in this Marine II Zone (M-tl),thus the proposed action is consistent with zoning. An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed, and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. There has not been any correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The applicant will have to comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) and all relevant standards of water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specification, subsurface soil conditions and site plan details will have to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). This impact is not considered significant due to the antidpated project compliance with established requirements of the SCSC and the SCDHS and the required relevant permits. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 cc; Langdon Marsh, DEC Albany Suffolk County Dept. of Health Suffolk County Water Authority New York State Dept. of Transportation Judith Terry, Town Clerk Southoid Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Dept. Applicant ENB PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHzMM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSt~, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS tCBNNETH L. EDWARDS PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (5t6] 765-3136 Telephone (516] 765-1938 APR 2 4 April 23, 1996 Thomas F. Whelan Esseks, Hefter & Angel Counselors ar Law 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901-0279 RE: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry Main Road (Rt. 25), Orient SCTM~ 1000-15-10.1, !l.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Whelan, The Planning Staff has received your letter of April 11, 1996, containing a site plan application for the above referenced project. As you have admitted, the site plan you submitted is very preliminary and incomplete. I have prepared the attached check list for you to use in completing the application. I suggest that your first step should be to come in for a preliminary site plan conference. Please call for a immediate appointment, since the intensification of use on the site has created serious problems which we must resolve as quickly as possible. This meeting will allow us to discuss the issues you raise in the document called Preliminary Site Plan Study. In order to help you arrange yonr thoughts for the meeting, I have prepared the following preliminary responses to your questions: Set backs from property lines are contained in the Town Code Bulk Schedule AA. · Evergreen plantings suitable for a maritime environment should be placed in transitional buffer areas. Some parking spaces can be eight and one half feet by seventeen and one half feet to accommodate compact cars, but clearly most of the st)aces should be at a minimum of nine feet by nineteen feet to accon[modate larger ears and vans· The Board prefers a standard parking space of ten feet by twenty feet. · Please provide more details regarding the Infiltrator and Contaetor units you propose to use in your drainage design. The Town Engineer can then review this design for suitability at this location· All outdoor lighting must be shielded to the property· Show location, wattage and type of fixture on the plan. · Your traffic engineer should be consulted as to whieh of your proposed multiple opportunities for access between State Route 25 and the Snack Bar parcel Would be optimal . In addition to the above, all other applicable approvals and permits must be obtained· These include but are not limited to the following; Town Trustees, New York state Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Transportation. We are anxious to start the coordinated environmental review, however we need a more detailed site plan to sent to the coordinating agencies. t look forward to meeting with you no later than April 30. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office· Sincerely, Robert G. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Encl. cc: Planning Board Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Southold Town Board Board of Town Trustees Frank Yakaboski, Attorney Jonh Raynor, P.E. William Esseks, Attorney Zoning Board of Appeals CHECK LIST The following changes/additions must be made before the Board can proceed with its review: Existing zoning, including zone lines and dimensions. 2. The name and addresses of landowners of record. 3. The names and addresses of adjoining landowners. Key map showing location and owners of all adjoining lands within five hundred (500) feet, as shown on the latest tax records, ar a scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet. The location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements, setbacks, reservations and areas dedicated to public use within or adjoining the property. 6. A complete outline of other existing easements, deed restrictions or covenants applying to the property. Site plan drawn au the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet. If all required in formation cannot be shown clearly on one (l) plan, the information should be separated as follows: A. Alignment and schedule plan.. B. Grading and drainage. C. Landscaping D. Other, e.g., site utilities. 8. Existing contours with intervals of two (2) feet or less, referred to mean sea level as per United States Geological Survey datum. Boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or storm water overflows, tidal bays, saltwater marshes, beaches and all freshwater bodies, including wetlands and intermittent streams, perimeter boundaries of shoreline bluffs, dunes and beaches. 10. The location of existing natural features, including but not limited to natural drainage swales., water courses, wooded areas and wetlands, as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Board of Trustees of Southotd Town marshes, ponds, bluffs, beaches, kettleholes, escarpments, wildlife habitats, flood hazard areas, erosion-prone areas and Trees of six ($) inches in diameter ar a point three (3) feet above the trunk base. 11. The location of any existing cultural and historical features within five hundred (500) feet of the property boundaries. 12. The location of proposed buildings or structural improvements, indicating set backs from all property lines and horizontal distances from existing structures. 13. The location and design of all uses not requiring structures, such as off-street parking and loading areas and pedestrian circulation. 14. Show vehicular access between the site and public streets. !5. The location of all utility poles and utility lines within and adjacent to the property. 16. The location and use of all buildings and structures, including curb cuts, within Two hundred (200) feet of the boundary of the subject property. 17. The location, direction, power level and time of use for any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. 18. The location and plans for any outdoor signs must be in accordance with applicable sign regulations. 19. The location and details of aprons, curbs, fencing (type and location), grading, including existing and proposed topography with two-foot contours (on site and two hundred(200) feet beyond the property line) and spot elevations for buildings and all structures, drainage calculations, details of drainage structures and watershed areas, where applicable. 20. The location and listing of landscaping, buffering and street tree plans, including type, material, size, quantity and location. 21. Deeds to all properties. The above should not be considered a complete list. Town Code Article XXV should be consulted for additional requirements. MEMORANDUM TO FILE FROM: SUBJECT: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Meeting with Cross Sound Ferry representatives regarding site plan at Orient Point SCTM# i000-15-9-10.1, Il.l, 15.1 & 3.5 DATE: May 1, 1996 A meeting was held on April 30, 1996, regarding the above referenced project. Attending: Thomas F. Whelan, Esseks, Hefter & Angel William W. Esseks, Esseks, Hefter & Angel John Raynor, P.E. Rick Vanderkrif, P.E. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Mr. Raynor had several questions regarding required set backs for landscaping buffers and parking areas. Mr. Kassner will research the Code and get back to Mr. Raynor. Mr. Esseks indicated he was anxious to have 'the SEQRA process started as soon as possible. Ms. Scopaz indicated That the site plan must be more complete then the preliminary concept submitted before it can be sent to the coordinating agencies. Mr. Raynor will contact the Trustees and the D.E.C. to determine their jurisdiction and set backs on the waterfront. Ms. Scopaz indicated that the Board of Appeals, in reviewing the use variance, may apply additional requirements as to set backs and other matters under their jurisdiction. Mr. Kassner indicated that he will research vegetative plantings that may be suitable for this site. Mr. Raynor said that he would send a copy of the Dunn Engineering traffic report to the Planning Board. Finally, Ms. Seopaz informed Mr. Esseks of the NYSDOT'S meeting with the Town In March whereby the DOT expressed it's willingness to consider permitting Cross Sound Ferry to incorporate the use of the entire State R-O-W perpendicular to the waterfront into it's design for the site. Mention was made of the Towns willingness to permit this cooperation provided adequate provision was made for public parking, public access via a scenic overlook and a turnaround at the end of the R-O-W adjacent to the water. cc: Linda Kowalski Jill Doherty New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 r ............ Phone (516) 444-0295 ;~ ri ,~? ~ Fax # (516) 444-0297 Michael D. Zagata Commissioner May 10, 1996 Mr. Albert Krupski, President Town of Southold Tmsmes P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Kr~fski: This letter is to inform you of the results of my investigation of violations alleged by Mr. Harold Watson concerning the Cross Sound Ferry. I inspected the site on May 3, 1996 to determine if any violations of the NYS Tidal Wetlands Act were occurring at the ferry terminal. At that time, only work on the steel pier was in progress. That work is covered under permit 1-4738-1027/00002-0 which expires 2/28/97. All debris from this project must be removed from the NYSDEC regulated adjacent area upon completion 6f the project. The debris is currently being stock piled in the area permitted to be utilized for upland dredge material storage. The dredge material is authorized as currently exists on the eastern parcels of the Ferry property. This activity was authorized under permit 10-88-1164 which expired on 12/31/95. Excess material is being utilized by NYS Parks to nourish the beach and dunes along Orient State Park. The Ferry was also authorized to construct the parking lot on the western parcel under permit 1-4738-1027/00001-0. This work has been completed. A permit also exists for maintenacne of the entire facility 10-84-0257 which expires 7/31/99. I did not find any permit non-compliance or violations of the Tidal Wetlands Act at this facility. Sincerely, Louis A Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection CC' Charles Hamilton Mr. Harold Watson '~ew York $i'ata "-~, 40--SUN¥, [E~5) 444-0365 FA.X (ill) 444-0373 Al! ct_~e= tarns and 1: e---,-/t. Depu=-! Regiona'l ~-.-mi= A ~dmin/s~a=or ~pect ior~ The permitted site,~,~, facility, inCluding relevan~ ~'~ecords, is subject to in- ¢.~ection at reaso~a~-,e hours and intervals by an ~=~thorized representative of the Depart~;unt of Envir~',,untal Conservation (the E~epar~',~nt) to determine v~hether the permittee is COTl~lying with this permit and the F~_. Such represen- tat ire n'ay order the work suspended PUrsuant to R~ 71-0301 and S~A 401(3). A copy of this permit, inCluding all referenced rT~, dra~vings and special conditions, trust be available for inspection by the ~ec~ro',unt at all times at the project site. Failure to produce a coty of the permit upon request by a Depar~unt representative is a violation of this permit. Permit ~ and ~i$ 2. The Depar~unt reserves the right to ,~dify, suspend or revoke this permit v~hen: a) the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the pe,¥~,it or provisions of the m'~ and pertinent regula- tions is fc~nd; b) the permi.t ~as obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevant facts; c) ne, vrraterial info,,,ution is discovered; or d) envir~,untal corditions, relevant technology, or applicable la~v or regulation have material ly changed since the permit was issued. 3. The permittee trust sub'nit a separate written apol ication to the E~par~re~t for renewal, r, udification or transfer of this permit. Such application trust includeJ any fo,,~, fees or suppl~,~ntal info,,~tion the Department requires. AWl reneAal, rrcdification or transfer granted by the Deparr,',-nt rrust be in writing.I 4. The permittee trust sub"nit a renewal application at least: I a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syste'n (S=EES), Hazardous V~ste Manag~,~nt Facilities (I-I~vF), major Air Pollution Control (ACC) and ~olid V~ste Management Facilities (EV~=); and b) .'~ days before expi rat ion of at I other permit types. 5. Unless expressly provided for by the Deparb,~-nt, issuance of this permit does not .'udify, supersede or rescind any order or determination perviousty issued byi the Depar:,,~nt or any of the tern-s, conditions or requirements contained in such order or.determination. Other 6. Legal O~l igations of P~ittee The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal res[~x~nsibility for all da',=ges, direct or indirect, of v~atever nature and by ~,~ver suffered, arising out of the project described in this permit and has agreed to ind~mify and save harmless the State frcrn suits, actions, da,uf~es and costs of every r~,- and description resulting fro"n this project. This permit does not convey to the perrnittee any right to trespass u~on the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the ;,,[.~ai,,,~nt of any rights, title, or interest in real or persor~al property hetd or vested in a person not a ~arty to th~ permit. 8. The perrnittee is res.~x:nsible for obtaini~j any other permits, apl~rovals, lands, eas~,~n~s ar~ rights-of-way that ~=y be recuired for this project. Pacje 2 of 4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR. WILLIAM J. CR~EMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town PIa]l, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. ]New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (5163 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTI-IOLD May 10, 1996 Thomas F. Whelan Esseks, Hefter & Angel Counselors at Law 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901-0279 RE: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry Main Road (Rt. 25 ), Orient SCTM# 1000-!5-9-i0.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Whelan, The Planning Board has reviewed the issues you raised au our meeting of April 30, !996, regarding setbacks. The fifteen (15') foot wide setback on the eas~ and west sides of the property are acceptable to the Board as shown on your preliminary site 'plan dated April $, 1996. The buffer on the north side of the property must be 20' wide and should be placed south and parallel to the road, (right- of- way), that is mentioned in the deed to tax parcel 1000-t5-9-3.5, to g~_'ve access to the residential premises immediately to the north. Town Code 100-214. (Landscaped Parking Area) contains interior landscaping requirements for parking lots. You should come up with a proposal for satisfying this requirement. I suggest that you consult with your nursery and garden supply consultants to determine the most suitable plantings for interior and buffer areas. RIC~'~RD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, BENNETT O RLOWSKt, .JR. WILLIAM J. CREMER$ KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hail. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. N'ew York 11971 Fax (516) 7~5-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1928 April 23, 1996 Thomas F. Whelan Esseks, Hefter & Angel Counselors at Law i08 East Main Street P.O. Box '279 Riverhead, NY 11901-0279 RE: Proposed site plan for ~oss Sound Ferry Main Road (Rt. 25), Orient SCTM# 1000-i5-!0.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Whelan, The Plannin~ Staff has received your letter of April 11, !996, containin~ a site plan application for the above referenced project. As you have a~m~t~ed, the site Dian you submitted is very preliminary and incomplete. ! have prepared the*attaChed check list for you to use in compietin~ the application. i sub,est that your first steo Should be to come in for a preliminary site plan conference. Please call ~or a immediate appointment, since the intensification of use on the site has created serious problems which we must resolve as quickly as possible. This meeting will allow us to discuss the issues you raise in the document called Preliminary Site Plan Study. in order to help you arrange your thouyhts for the meeting, I have prepared the followin~ preliminary responses to your questions: Set backs from property lines are contained in the Town Code Bulk Schedule AA. ~ Evergreen plantings suitable for a maritime environment should be placed in transitional buffer areas. Some parking spaces can be eight and one half feet by seventeen and one half feet to accommodate compact care, but clearly most of the spaces should be at a minimum of nine feet by nineteen feet to accommodate larger cars and vans. The Board prefers a standard parking space of ten feet by twenty feet. Please provide more details regarding the Infiltrator 'and Contactor units you propose to use in your drainage design. The Town Engfineer can then review this design for suitability mt this location. Att outdoor lighting must be shielded to the property. Show tocat, ion, wattage and type of fixture on the plan. Your traffic engineer should be consulted as to which of your proposed multiple opportunities for access between State Route 25 and the Snack Bar parcel would be optimal . in addition to the above, al! other applicable approvals and permits must be obtained. These include but are not limited to the following; Town Trustees, New York state Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Transportation. We are anxious to start the coordinated environmental review, however we need a more detailed site plan to sent to the coordinatin~ agencies. I look forward to meetin~ with you no later than April 30. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office. Sincerely, Robert G; Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Encl CC: Planning Board Thomas Fisher~ Senior Buildin~ Inspector Laury Dowd, Town Attorney $outhotd Town Board Board of Town Trustees Frank Yakaboski, Attorney Jonh Raynor, P.E. William Esseks, Attorney Zoning Board of Appeals CHECK LIST The following changes/additions must be made before+,h_= Board can proceed with its review: I. Existing zoning, including zone lines and dimensions. 2. The name and addresses of landowners of record. 3. The names and addresses of adjoining landowners. 4. !0. Key map showing location and owners of ail adjoining lands within five hundred (500) feet, as shown on the latest tax records, at a ~cale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (I00) feet. The location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements, setbacks, reservations and areas dedicated to public use within or adjoining the property. A complete outline of other existing easements, deed restrictions or covenants applying to the property. Site plan drawn at the scale o£ one (i) inch equals twenty (20) feet. If all required in formation cannot be shown clearly on one (1~, plan, the information should be separated as follows: A. Alignment and schedule plan.. B. Grading and drainage. C. Landscaping D. Other, e.g.,, site utilities. Existing contours with intervals of two (2) feet or tess, referred r.o mean sea level as per United States Geologrical Survey datum. Boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or storm water ' overflows, tidal bays, saltwater marshes, beaches and all freshwater bodies, inctudin~ wetlands and intermittent streams, perimeter boundaries off shoreline blufEs, dunes and beaches. The location of existin~ natural features, including but not limited to natural drainage swales, water courses, wooded areas and wetlands, as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Board of Trustees of Southotd Town marshes, ponds, bluf£s, beaches, kettleholes, escarpments, wildlife habitats, flood hazard areas, erosion-prone areas and trees of six (6) inches in diameter at a point three ,rS) feet above the trunk base. The location of any existing cultural and historical features within five hundred (5001 feet of the property boundaries. 12. The location of proposed buildings or structural improvements, indicating set backs from all property lines and horizontal distances from existing structures. 13. The location and design of all uses not requiring structures, suck as off-street parking and Ioadin~ areas and pedestrian circulation. !4. Show vehicular access between the site and pubiic streets. 15. The location of ail utility poles and utility lines within and adjacent to the property. t8. The location and use of all buildings ahd structures, including curb cuts. within two hundred (200) feet of the boundary of the subject property. 17_ The location, direction, power level and time of use for any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. 18. The location and plans for any outdoor signs must be in accordance with applicable sign reg~utations. !9. The location and details ~f aprons, curbs, fencin¢ (type and location), grading, including existing and proposed topography with r~wo-foo~ contours (on site 'and two hundred(fi00) feet beyond the property line) and Spot elevations for buildings and all structures, drainage calculations, details of drainage structures and watershed areas, where applicable. 20. The location and listing of landscaping, buffering and street tree plans~ fnc!udin~ Type, material, size, quantity and location. 21. Deeds to all properties. The above should not be considered a comolete list. Town Code Article XXV should be consulted for additional requirements. PLANNING BOARD M~EMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWAl%DS PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Date Received Date Completed Filing Fee APplICATION FOP.. CONSIDEP. ATION OF A SITE PLAN New Change of Use I~e-use Extension Revision of Approved Site Plan Submitted, without prejudice, pursuant t° the direction of Hon. Patrick Renry, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, reserving all rights and claims to all pre:¢×isting legal, conforming and/or non-conforming uses. Name of Business or Site: Location: Address: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. E/S State Route 25 at Orient Point Main Road (Rt. 25}, Orient, NY Name of Applicant: Address ot: Applicant: Telephone: Owner of Land: Agent or Person responsible for application: Address: Telephone: Site plans prepared by: License No.: Address: Telephone: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 2 Ferry St., P.O. Box 33, New London, CT 06320-0033 (c/o Esseks, Hefter & Angel) (516} 369-1700 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski William W. Esseks Cio Esseks, Hefter & Angel, 108 East Main St., Riverhead, NY (516) 369-1700 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. P.E. No. 53385. L.S. No. 49318 P.O. Box 720, Water Mill, NY 11976 (516) 726.7600 APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK William W. Esseks, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at c/o 108 East Main Street, Riverhead in the State of New York and that he represents the owner of the above property and that he is the attorney for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. which is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, has been clearly established and is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. Signed (Attorney for Owner) Sworn to me this llth day of April, 1996 NOT~Y PUbLiC, ST:,T~ (~F r~ NO. 4050425- SUFFOLK COU~ Pacje 3 Pianning Board Site Plan Application 3.943 Ac, Tobal Land Area of Site (acres or square feet) · w II & R-80~Zoning District Existing Use of Site Snack Bar and Parking ________Proposed Use of Site Snack Bar and Parkin_~g * Oross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) * Oross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) * Percent of Lot Coverage by BUilding(s) * Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) * Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where applicable) Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by No Board of Appeals - Case # & date No No No N/A * - to be determined on completion of further mapping Board of Trustees - Case # & date NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # & date Suffolk County Department Health Services - Case # & date Case Number Name of Applicant Date of Decision Expiration Date Other NO Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? If so, have proper permits been obtained? Name of issuing agency Number and date of permit , NO ACT/ON (EXCA VA T/ON OR CONSTRUCT/ON) MA Y BE UNDE~T,~KEN UNTIL APP~OV, qL OF SITE PL,qN BY PMNNING £OARD. VIOL,qTO£S ARE SUBJECT TO P£OSECUT/ON. · . PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION ~: APR :, Prepared by ProJect Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed ma~,~bA~i~'~i?tCant effec on the env ronment. P ease camp~ ete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to~,~he~e~l.,ue~t~ ~h'~e- ....... ,~,., ~ ~c°ns'dere( as part of the application for aP'proval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide-a~y information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information cu.rrently available and will not invoJv( new studies, research or i.nvestigation. If information requiring such add dona worl~ .i~ unavailable, so indicate and specif~ each instance. NAME OF ACTION Expansion of.off-street parking facilities at existing ferry terminal LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) S/S Main Road (west of terminal) and E/S Main Road (east of terminal) NAMEOFAPPLIOANT/SPONSOR (individually & a's.custodian) BUSINESSTELEPHONE Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski (516) 369-1700 ADDRESS , c/o William W. Esseks, Esq.; Esseks, Hefter & Angel C~TY/RO 108 East Main Street, P. O. Box 279, Riverhead I STATE ZIPOODE NY 11901 NAME OFOWNER(lfdlfferent)same as above I BUSINESSTELEPHONE( ) ADDRESS CiTY/PO / STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OFACTION The applicants are seeking a public utility use variance to allow parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A waiver or variance with regard to the size of parking spaces is also being sought in order to maximize off-street parking on a parcel that contains an existing gravel parking.area. If the variance is granted, the number of spaces will increase from 69 to 80. this 1.193 acre parcel is zoned MII. Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A, if not applicable A, Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: [[]Urban ~fndustrial ~Commercial YqResidential/suburban) []]Forest ~Agriculture ~Other vacant 2. Total acreage of project arena: 2.498 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 1.193 acres (MII) PRESENTLY Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 1.51 acres Forested 0 acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 0 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 0 acres Water Surface Area 0 acres Unvegetated [Rock, earth or fjll)_(earth rd..~ravel. ~ .76 ~ . , .parK~ng~ ~:rencn qraNDs, wooQ~n wa±Ks) Koads, Dui[dings an~J other paves surtaces .08 AFTER COMPLETION 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres Other (Indicate type), beach .9t acres .91 Landscape & grass 3. what is preSomina,t soil type(s) on proiect site? Haven loam, fil~i43 landacres & bead~0 a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 75 % of site ~Moderately well drained % of site · Poorly drained 25 % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 1.69 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? []]Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 2 a~res acres acres acres ~Rural (non-farm) acres 2.20 acres .08 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with sloPes: t0-10% 100 % E10-15% _ 04 E15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a build ng site, or distr ct, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic P/aces? EYes tNo .; _ 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?. dYes ~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? --3-7+ (in feet) 9 Is site located over a primateS,principal, or sole source aquifer? IIIYes ENo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? EYes ~No 11. Does project site contain any species of p/ant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~ ~Yes ~No According to ~Lombard~_z ?echnician ' Identify each species 12 Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project s te?. Cie., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) dYes ~No Describe 13 Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? EYes m~No If yes, explain 14 Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?. EYes ~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16 Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name _. Gardiner__s Bay b. Size (In acres) 17 Is the site served by existing public ut ities?. ~Yes ENo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exiJt io allow connect on? ~Yes r-lNo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? E3Yes 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? E3Yes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 61'7,? ryes ENo (Peconic Bay Estuary) 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waftes? [~Yes ~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 6. 468 b. Project acreage to be developed: 3. 691 acres initially; __6; 468 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped nnone acres, d. Length of project, in miles: NA (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate * percent of expansion proposed f Number of off-street parking spaces existing _ 2~_J_ -; proposed acres. 220 _ %; 486 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A One Family Ywo Family Initially . . Ultimately (upon completion of project}? **see attached letter from Dunn Engineering ,Multiple Family Condominium i. Dimensiohs (in feet) of largest proposed structure --~/A height; ' width; _ j. Linear feet of frontage alon8 a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?. _, 88 ft. 3 length. acres ultimately, (i.e. "approved & pre-existing parcels') 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) wi[/ be rem,,pyed.from the site? 940* tons/cubic yards "ure~ge gpoil previously deposited on site. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Iyes 7-1No ~N/A a. If yes, for what intend~, purpose is the site being rec aimed? parking area b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ~No c. Will upper subsoil be ~Jtockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 1.51 , acres. 5. Will any mature forest ('over 100 years old) or other local/y-important vegetation be removed by this project? F'iYes ~No . 6. If Single phase.project: Anticipa{-ed period of construction 2 ' 7. if multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month ... c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [Yes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? []Yes ~No 9, Number of lobs generated: during construction none 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project , none. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? months, (including demolition}· []No year, (includin~ demolit on) year. ; after project is complete []Yes ~No If yes, explain .... 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? I-lYes ~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewF~ge' industrial, etc,) and amount b. Name of water body into which effld'ent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [Z]Yes ~No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain 15. Is project or any portion of ~'9ject located in a 100 year flood piaTn? ~Yes F~Yes INo i-lNo 16. Will the project generate sol]c~'waste? r-lyes ~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month .,, tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? []Yes c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e, If Yes, explain FiYes F~No 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a, If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b, If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18, Will project use herbicides or pesticides? []Yes ~Yes ~No tons/month. years. ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? L-lYes ~No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? '[Yes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~Yes FqNo If yes , indicate type(s} Electrici~ area ~ 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A 8allons/~ninute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. 24. Dbes project involve Local, State or Federal funding? F3Yes ~No '; - If Yes, explain INo 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Vi!lage Board EYes City, Town, Village PIanning Board lYes City, Town Zoning Board lyes City, County Health Department ~Yes Other Local Agencies ~]Yes ' ~uffolk C~v. Other Regional Agencies ~±ann!ng uom_~yes State Agencies NYSDEC IYes Federal Agencies F-lYes ~No ~No []No E}No Type Site Plan public Utility Use variance arxzng space szze var2ance Zoning Action - Tidal Wetland Permit Submittal Date Pending 11/9/95 pending pending C, Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Iyes ENo If Yes, indicate decision required: Ezoning amendment lzoning variance Especial use permit []]subdivision 'site plan m~new/revision of master plan E~resource management plan I-lother What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? MII& R-80 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 6g parking spaces on M-IT parcel' &. 219 spaces on R-80 parcel What is the proposed zoning of the site? Public Utility Use What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Current proposal represents maximum development ' Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? lYes ENo What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a "/~ mile radius of. proposed action? orma rc'al overnmenta n ~ i M II) to west; ~-~en~at § _~overnmen~a~ fR §~ ~ ~ast Residential (R-gO) to north and 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~,4 mile? lYes F-iNo 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? '0 Will proposed action require-a'hy authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? EYes INo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services {recreation, education, police, fire protection)? EYes INo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? EYes E3No 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present evels? OYes ENo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ** EYes ENo ** see attached letter from Dunn Engineering D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project, if there are or may be any adverse mDacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or evolo them E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S., p.c. as agent for the applicant/sponsor Applicant/Sponsor Na, Fne Date _. 11/9/95 Signatur.~~ (Joseph Lombardi) Title Technician If the acnon is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. . 86 Mai~ Street WesthamDzon Be~ch, ~.¥. ~ ?9?8 ~ 6'288-;2480 Deoe~b~ 5, 1995 /viz. W//lhm W. Essek~, P.O. ~ox 279 108 East Main Street R/verhead, New York 11901 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Esseks: We have reviewed questions B.j..g. ~td C_12 of the Environment Aa~t~ment Fozs~a for th~ Cross Sound Fe~-~y prOposaI to expand t~ exist/_ng park/ng facilities at Or/ent to accommodate a tota/of482 parking spaces. We offe~ the following with respect to thos~ questions: 1. Based on our knowledge. Of ~he Cross Is/and Ferry's Operation, the principal users of the proposed parking facility ~ be the USers of the High Speed Ferry wkeu that service is /a use. While this ~erv/ee is operafiona/, facility users maybe "walk-ons" for the m~ulm: leafy serv/ce bat we arrficipate this wemld be minirmq1 because of the difference in the amount of travel time involved between the regular and High Speed gerry.. Th~ H/gh Speed Ferry service cun-enfly exists w/thotrt bea~fk of the proposed parki~g fac/l/t/es. The ferry is capable of carrying 400 passengem, while it comfor~bly accommo~tes 325. A/though va: have not completed a vehicle occupancy study o£the Cross Sotmd Ferry operat/on, w~ would an*ieipat~ avek/cle occupancy rate comiderably /n excess of 2 People per veh/cle, i.e., at/east 3 peopIe per veh/cle. It is to be noted that the Town Code calls for a veb/cle oc~npanc-y rate of 4/nd/viduals per 1 space of pm-k/rig for many heavy volume, /ow turnover bus/ness or oaterta/nmant operation~. Taldng a conservative approach and assuming 2 people per vehicle each High' Speed Ferry tr/p has the potential ~o generate 200 vek/ctdar ~rips. Actnal study of the situation wouM no donbt/ndicate a lesser ¥olnme. An exam/nation of trip records of the ~igh Speed Fei2y dllHng its/rfitial llse/n August 1995 indicates tb~t the first mom/~g trip leaving Orient Point is the most heam'ly loaded, almost at ~J,~e oapaclty of the ferry on some days. The second ferry somewhaI less full, runn/ng 20 to 30% under the volume canSed by the first lea:ry. A thkd ferry raxt carries less than 20% of the rated eat~acity white the fmaI three ferry's Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq. December 5, 1995 Page 2 from Orient carry even fewer passengers~ The reverse is ~me of ~rips arriving from New London. The last two ~ps are heavily loaded, the fourth ferry carries less than 20% of its capacity and ~e three earliest trips are only 1/gh~ly loaded. We do act expect the provision of additional parking to affect this trend as it appears more ~nfluertcecl by the nature of the passmager's trips then the service provided. To maswer quest/on B.l.g., "Wh~t i~ tim Maxim~m number of tdp.e ~nmmd ~ ~ ~on ~e cmple~ of ~e pm~e~7" I~ m~ ~ de~ned ~ ~e of the n~ p~g fae~ ~1 in~ ~ ~ of~e f~. ~e ~ ~ice ~ ~ ~e ~ ~p out cf Ofi~t is c~fly ~ost at cap~i~ ~ ~ is ~e 1~ ~p ~m ~cng ~crc ~ 1~ room for in~ ~c gm~fim ~ m~on ~ ~ m us~ b~ k is/nconv~t for ~¢~ ~ ~ Mc~ is expe~ ~ ~ I~e f~ m ~m a~em to be too ~nv~t for m~elem md ~fom, no ~e is ~ec~ to be g~mted. Wi~ ~ e~g us~e, ~e ~ f='~7 ~mm~e ~om~ly 75 to 150 mo~ p~g~ g~a~ 3g to 75 more fimfion md not a ~r of s~m timing ~d c~m~ prffemce. ~s ~fld ~ resffit ~ a projem~ 38 m 75 veNele N~e~ in ~e r~ ~p ~mN~ ~ m Ofimt f~e ff~~pof~ ~y. No o~N~s N~e~uldbe ~Seipated. ~m, ~ Ncm~ ~d be ~Scip~d for a ~ ~ p~od d~ ~e ~y. More ~po~tly, ~e to~: nm~ of 'uCs om~g on ~ ~vm h~ ~mc~ a fet'~ m Word not ~ ~2er ~m is c~tly ~soekated ~ ~e ~ ~p out of Orient in ~e mm,~ng md ~e 1~ ~p ba~ to Ofi~t ~ ~e eying. This increase in ~aft~c woukt also only occur if the co~n. stra~nt on existing ferry utilization i~ the exi,ting p~rk~ng confl.ifions and based on the capacity carried by the ferry service on a pe~k day ~n August 1995 it appcar~ parking 'i~ not the con~;nt on use, rather it is the conveniemce and timing of me existing service. We note from a review of passenger records 0btatlned ~rom the Cross Islmad Ferry thst there was considerable variation in. usage of the High Speed Ferry. Peak usage occurred midweek Tuesday thru T~vsday v.4th usage being 28%'higher than the Fi/day thnt Monday period. Thus, if parking were tlxe cormraint c~- umge, it would be expected to be a factor on/y on those days of peak usage as the ex4~ng facilities are ah'e2fly accommoflathlg all arc'rage of 2B¥0 m~c truers g. mSng the mid'we~ peak them during line offpeak per/od. 6. The High Speed Ferry service exii~ and/s cmzrently generating vehicular trips. The Mr. Wi~ara W. Esseks, Esq. December 5, 1995 Page 3 most convenient £¢~y runs are almost fully loaded. The constra;~ on traf~ gcneratio~ appears to be the fc~y service and the des/re of patrons to travel at terrain 6mos of the day an& certain days of the week. The Frot~sed parking will lxovide more conveaieax, safer parking for those patrons already using the ferry serviee~ It is not axttleilmtecl that the provision of addltional p~trL~qng W~, in and of itself, gen~rate.substantlat new use of the ferry. Even if new usc is generated on some ferry runs the new ,_,~ ~m'll not be ~ater than the exk~ting use of the first £exz-y from Orient and th~ last fen'y from New London, Based on the foregoing, the answers to quest/on C. 12 is as follow~: Question: Wilt thc proposed action result in thc generation of kafSc sign,flea hr above present levels? Response: Thc projected increase in ~c, which would crnly ocmir for a ~otal of two hours .S day, will not be ~gnificant in terms of tl~ ore'roll traffic accessing thc Cross Sound Ferry Site. The answer is If you have any questions or require any. additional information, please contafft me. Sincerely, RONALD N. l-ll-r.L, P.E. L950862 Preliminary Site Plan Study for Cross Sound Ferry Services, inc. Situate Orient Town of Southold Suffolk County, N.Y. April, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. Cr~ss S~un~ Introduction Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. operates a ferry service for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and freight across Long island Sound between Orient Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut. Terminal operations are maintained both at Orient Point and at New London, and consist of vessel mooring facilities and loading ramps, vehicle queuing and parking areas, ferry office, waiting room, snack bar and restroom facilities. Cross Sound wishes to enhance its parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal, and intends to devote an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel (hereafter termed the "East Parcel") for additional parking. Cross Sound has retained the services of John J. Raynor, P.E. & LS., P.C. to assist in the preparation and filing of applications and supporting documents for regulatory approvals which may be required for the enhanced parking. This preliminary report is intended to initiate the site plan review process with the Town of Southold by providing certain preliminary information, describing an ongoing site plan development effort, and posing certain questions for the Planning Board which, when answered, will facilitate the completion of a properly detailed site plan. Cross Sound currently owns land east of the easterly end of State Route 25, which land currently supports a building housing a snack bar and an unpaved parking area which represents a portion of the company-provided parking for ferry patrons. That property is termed "Snack Bar Parcel" in this report, and it consists of 1.4449 acres as computed from the deed description. It is in the WII zoning district. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 2 View facing westerly across parking on Snack Bar Parcel toward Terminal Building, with Snack Bar building visible at left. Proposed Addition East of the Snack Bar Parcel is property owned by Adam C. Wronowski, individually and as custodian for Jessica Wronowski, which currently is zoned R-80. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., can acquire the Wronowski property, termed in this report the "East Parcel", and provide additional parking spaces. For purposes of preparation of a site plan, it is assumed that these two parcels will be treated as a single lot. John J. Raynor, P.E.. & L.S., P.C. 3 View facing westedy across East Parcel toward Snack Bar, showing vacant area with existing parking in background. Preliminary Site Plan During the fall of 1995, Dunn Engineering Associates studied the subject properties and others for the purpose of recommending methods of increasing the amount and efficiency of parking for ferry patrons. Using information from reference materials published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Dunn Engineering recommended that a parking geometry be developed using a parking stall width of 8.5 feet, a stall depth of 17.5 feet and an aisle width of 26 feet, and estimated that approximately 500 parking stalls conforming to such dimensions could be delineated on the four parcels (West Parcel, Terminal Parcel, Snack Bar Parcel and East Parcel). A preliminary site plan based on the Dunn Engineering approach was prepared, in a schematic fashion, in November of 1995, by John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. That site plan must be considered preliminary and schematic in J¢~hn J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 4 C~OSS S~-nd Ferr~ nature because it was based on generalized site conditions which are insufficient to permit a more precise determination of areas for necessary site improvement elements such as areas for drainage recharge, for transitional buffering along property lines and along the interface with the Gardiners Bay shoreline, and for circulation and interchange with adjacent roads and drives. For purposes of this initial submission, a drawing entitled "Composite Map of properties of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc." is employed as a preliminary site plan. While recognizing that the Town Code will require that further development of the site plan be presented at a scale of 1"=20', we have provided this preliminary plan at 1"=40' for convenience of viewing at this stage of our discussion. That plan depicts the basic parking configuration resulting from the Dunn Engineering recommendations, characterized by a series of parallel aisles running essentially north and south, with several potential locations for access from that portion of State Route 25 that separates the Snack Bar Parcel from the Terminal Parcel. Superimposed on that basic design are preliminary representations of setbacks to be observed in adjusting the parking layout; indeed, one of the most important aspects of the preliminary site plan discussion will be to agree upon the setback dimensions to be used. Drainage design computations and general configuration are not included at this stage, but will be incorporated in the more detailed drawings to come. It is our intention to propose a drainage design which uses manufactured subsurface leaching structures such as InfiltratorTM units or ContactorTM units to provide storage volume for stormwater while still using a permeable parking surface chiefly composed of compact gravel. Documents under Prenaration The Town Code requires that a final site plan depict specific kinds of existing conditions, both on the subject site and on neighboring properties within specified distances. Acquisition of such data on property not controlled by the applicant using conventional ground survey methods is usually problematic. Therefore, we are currently in the process of producing equivalent base mapping John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 5 Cross Sound Ferry using aerial photogrammetric methods. To ensure that the mapping is as current as possible, we have elected to base it upon new aerial stereopair photography, flown especially for this project. Production of such aerial photography is necessarily dependent on weather and natural light conditions and the existence of snow cover; it is not uncommon for orders for such photography to be delayed pending a simultaneous occurrence of acceptable qualities in each area of concern. In this case, photographs ordered some time ago coutd not be flown until late March. The photographs have been analyzed by a photogrammetrist to identify points for ground control by conventional plane surveying methods. Acquisition of that ground control data is scheduled shortly. Thereafter, the photogrammetrist will use that data to calibrate an analytical stereoplotter, and proceed to generate a topographic base map for the project and adjoining parcels. The resulting detailed map of existing conditions, together with a digital terrain model of the site, should be available sometime in May. Aerial view of site taken in late March, showing some of the ground control points to be located by conventional survey methods,. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 6 Issues for Preliminary Site Plan Review During review of the preliminary site plan, several issues can and should be addressed if the subsequent detailed plans are to be developed efficiently. Those issues include, but may not be limited to: What setbacks are to be observed from the various bounding property lines or natural feature lines? What landscaping treatment is to be employed in the setback areas to provide transitional buffering of neighboring properties? Will the Town recognize and adopt the recommendations based on Institute of Transportation Engineers research presented by Dunn Engineering, and authorize this special case use of adjusted dimensions for parking stalls and aisles? If such recommendations are accepted, should they be employed for existing parking on the West Parcel? Will the Town entertain a drainage design for permeable surface parking that employs InfiltratorTM or ContactorTM units ? What level of parking area lighting should be employed to afford safe access to parking and how should that need be balanced with the probable desire to minimize perception of such lighting beyond the site perimeter? Which of the multiple opportunities for access between State Route 25 and the consolidated Snack Bar/East Parcel should be developed further in the more detailed site plan to come? John J. Reynor, P.E. & L,S., P.C. 7 Enclosures 1) 2) 3) 4) Town of Southold Application for Consideration of a Site Plan. Application Fee of $600, based on 4 acres (3.944) of site at the rate of $150. per acre. No new building is proposed. Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) prepared originally in connection with appliCations to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, which applications are being resubmitted concurrently with this site plan application. Preliminary Site Plan dated April 8, 1996. g~hn J. Rayn=r, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 8 'HAIN ROAD -:~-' ' tS.'" (' ....... . 251 N GE'OB'5§'E 92,7G' O O ~ ,, EXIST. FRENCH EXIST. BLOB, (E STORY FRAME HOUSE) ./ EXISTING BUILDING ITERMINAL) 30'22°15"N 16,87' 7.7 EXISTING BUILDING (SNACK BAR) '~,~V/F ttILLIII4 O, IVY$OCKI : 68. O0 ' N/F BETSY LA 63'39'25"E 2S~.-O0 ..... TT~'" ,/ N/F DOUGLAS NORRIS EXIST. .--' .... . ..... .~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~.~ ~,~' BLDG . - "' . ~' .-' ...... ~,~' . - ~ / /' -~" . L_y ~ .... .. .: . .... ~t"- :.-'..~ .., .,,,,,,,,... :.. ~ -. .. . . . ~.- ,. / ..... ~ .--'" .../ ./- ./ / .. .~ / ~ / ~- _ .....'~ ....... ,~..," . :': ... ' .. .... ,.,. . './ 5 5'3:; '"' ./ ....).- /. /. ......... . ......... R~MR .".-' ... .-"-'- " '" "" '~ ' ' CROSS SOUND ~ FERRY SERVICES, INC, SITUATE ORIENT TONN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PREPARED: dULY 25, iggB TAX HAP NO.: SCALE; l" = 20' ~ 25 WEST m SHORT BUFFER PLANTINGS -- TRAFFIC LIGHT LONG TERM PARKING TER. --~ . _ ___ ._ EXIT PARKING , LONG TERM PARKING STAND-BY STAGING AREA sTAGiNG AREA, PARKING SPACES EAST LOT: 541 SPACES WEST LOT: 38 SPACES TOTAL: 579 SPACES PREPARED: JULY 25, 1996 REVISED: JULY 30, 19[1~6 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 WaterMilI, NewYork 11976 . Phone: (516) 726-7600 ALTERNATIVE INTEGRATED SITE PLAN pREPARED FOR CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. FOR PROPERTY SITUATE AT ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK SCALE: 1" = 20' .J PLAN FOR CROSS SOUND FERRY SER VICES, INC. A T ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N Y. 1000- 15- 09- 10. I Scale: 1"= '20' OCT. 11, 1994 OCT. 21 1994 ( ADDITIONS 7,2 FILL NEEDED .~95 cu.yds. MA TERIAL FROM DRAINS 17'0 cu.yds 2"- GRA VEL FOR PARKING LOT 175 cu.yds. TOTAL FILL NEEDED 50 cu.yds. GRA VEL NEEDED FOR DRAINS 200 cu.yds. ~[~ '~' ------ / RICULTURE ~ - --~ '" ~" DEPARTMENT OF A '~. "' ~ ~'~---' ~ ~" u.S. ~ ~~~' N. 14~26'24''w' ELEVATIONS & CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO N,G.V,D. CH EXISTING ELZVA TION EX/STING CONTOUR PROPOSED EL EVA TION PROPOSED r'ONTOUR '1 I I 4.7.45' 564.72' / / f / I ] / ~ 38,56' TOW~ OF SOUTHOLD) PECONIC VEYOR$, (5162 ?65 - 5080 P.O. BOX 909 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 LIC. NO. P.C. 94 - 293 ' ' ..... : ...... ZONE '~ ~ '" : '--.. t, N 30'~' ~5"W . ~ ~<:" /:~ .--,~ NORRIS 92.78' ~ ' ~ .... ' ................................... ~ ~y.~' ~ ', ~cc~ss t EASEMENT WIDE GRAVEL ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ) 90' OF / i~,. ~. ~'"'" , ~ * ~ SPACES , . " ~',~ " ~ "' PARKIN~ SPACES ~ ~ ',-~ , ~ ~, / I ~ ,,~,, 25 PA SPA ' '~ " ' ' ' ' ' PARKING SPACES ~ , -- ' ', ........-~ ~ 22' . .-.. -,.,,, , ~ , . ~ ~ " ? ' '"~' ' ' SPACES ,~ I ~t CES '~' ' " '~, POLE : DRAINAGE TR CH "G" UNITS " EXISTING BUILDING " , EXISTING ~ , ' [SNADK BAR) ,, ' 8PACEI 19 PARKING SPA~S ~ / ': '; 9' X 19' ~ ' ~" EXtol. '16 PARKING SPACES .' G SPACES ~ , ~ ~ ~ 16 PARKIN '[~, : , ' " -- '-~ ~AVEL TRENc~"~ ~ ~ ~ "q , , , / , ~.- ~ : EXIST, BLDG, N ~ ' ~. ..,. ~,~ /' ~ SPAC ' I ' '" ,-¢ " pARKIN~G ~ ," t ~ ' ,_2 ' 10 ~ ,, : ,., ,. , ~~~, ~' ., t · : EXIST. ' ' ~ BLDG. '~' .-' - ' ~ ~t .,~ .' ...._,/ -- . ...... SITE PLAN SITE DATA '" -" CROSS SOUND .x,....co..ou. . FERRY SERVICES ZNC DRAINAGE UNITS WITHIN GRAVEL TRENCH SHALL SE iNSTALLED EXISTING TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DOUn~E ROW OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK REVISED: JUNE 28, 1995 JOHN d. RAYNOR, P.E. ~ L.S,, P.C, ;o o ~ 4o eD