The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMarine Associates - Withdrawn PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD January 3, 1984 8:10 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MARINE ASSOCIATES FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO "M-l" GENERAL MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ON CERTAIN PROPERTY AT NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is a public hearing on the petition of Marine Associates for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, New Suffolk. Now, I would like to let everybody know that this is a change of zone that is being requested of the Town Board from the Industrial to the Multiple Dwelling, and we are not discussing how many units are going up, size of the units, anything like that. This is not the time for that. This is strictly on a zone change. If a zone change is granted you could do whatever you want with the property. The Town Board has nothing to say. The Town Board has the say on the zone change. (Mr. William Esseks, attorney for the applicant Marine Associates handed Supervisor Murphy a letter, which stated the following: "Dear Town Board Members: The application for Marine Associates for change of zone, which is the subject of a public hearing this evening, is herewith withdraw. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks." SUPERVISOR MURPHY; No sense in reading the notice of hearing. MR. ESSEKS: No reason. The application is withdrawn. There will be some new applications coming in very shortly. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. There is no sense in reading the application. The hearing is closed at this time. ~/ 'Jadith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk 6 January, 19~4 ~,,-, ' ,~ Box 22h New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Ms Judith Terr2 Town Clerk Southold, N~Y. 11971 Deer Ms Terry: Thank you for your kind letter 20 December which explained the Town Board's reasons for changing the hearing date regarding the Marine Associates condominium ambitions here in New .~uffolk. I must confess, however, that I am still quite at sea w~y the great flexibility conferred on the Town Board by Settion 8-109 subdivision 5 of the Environmental Conservation Law, with the power to move hearings ahead or backwards, necessitated the Board's advancing the date for the --oning hearing instead of, for instance, postponing it. But at any rate Marine Associates' withdrawal of the petition to rezone solved our problems for the time being. My reason for sending a copy of my original letter of inquiry to The Suffolk Times was that the sudden change of schedule made me (and many other people) feel quite uneasy, and I thought it would be useful for all concerned to have the official rationale out in the open. But then the paper'S holiday publication schedule made it quite impossib~$f~$.~ letters to be publlcally azreC~ aha £ asset ~ne ~ewspaper not to publish my letter. Amusingly enough, o~' course, my musings about Marine Associates' moving fram Plan A to Plan B_.$grned out to be gospel. I only wish that I no~w what I only suspected in my letter of 17 December. -~lncerely yours, Thomas Lowry ESSEKS, HEFTER. CUDDY ~ ANGEL ~ ~-~-~o. RECEIVED ,J/di :3 i784 January 4, 1984 Town Board To~n o[ $outhold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Marine Associates Dear Town Board Members: The application for Marine Associates for change of zone, which is the subject of a public hearing this evening, is herewith withdrawn. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks WWE: cf 5 Decemb~J?, 198~3 ~:e~ SufFo/P. N.Y. Hs JtJdi~l, Tr'rr~ Toy::, [In! ? Soufho]d. N.Y. ~_..'W/~ ~Oa~" t~:~, Sific- !17 [nr,'e-page Final' ~.nvirc, r,m~nta~ ~,~p~c~ sEa~e;r, cnL ,~u~i Fi~'d [,v r-la[~,L~ ;,ssociaLus . ~.~ay Frc, m Lb,, drar[ stal. emenL Filed c~arJJer, my FLL'iJN,:~ ;.h~,[ Ihe proposed aev~'lopme,~[ ;~buld be a d~sasLer For New SuFFoJi.: are un- changed. [ zemaJn convinced LhaL ~har waLe'r suppl,z p~,Fmaqwn~]y. ]L would deorLve us of a tiabl~' JocaJ business permonen~ly. ~ ,,~ou]d Lake a~ay a Forever. iL ~.louid erase al] LJ'aces of an n~sLo[';c s ~u, Lhe old subr,;,r'ine h:~(,e, per,nc~n~,n~7. .FL ,'vou]d Lncrca~ie ahd uLL~r,a~L'J~ chan,~e Lhu cliai'ac[~,J' ol our ham Jul comple',',J}. Th- Joss VlL, dld bu irrc,l) arabJe.., and all Lo Assoclal:ec' chareho.~dcrs ,soho 0¢ ~hom Ls a iocal I hope Lhal [hu [own II(,:~rd dJsc,,,:rogc: Lhis already [hos,,ugh~y di~credlLud d,'~,;'lop~,r,n[ . fiincere-J y y a u r s ,,,_.~ NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC. POST OFFICE BOX ": 953 December 19, 1983 De,xr Neighbor: L'ne S._uLhold 'f,,wn B,3ard has set Tuesday, January 3, 1984 it 8:10 ~.m- · s 5he d~te and Lime for the ~ubi] c he.'~ring with respect to ~he Marine ~ssucl~Les, Inc. pe~lLi,,n f~r change of ~.ne at ~he North Fork Shipyard Pie~se Cry ~o a~Lend the he~,ring, ~nd do nm,t hesitate to spe~k when ~he B,.~tt'd asks fur ~ublic co~ent. We would like to h~ve ~s l~rge a turnout ~s pusslble, to congr4tul~te and welcome Messrs. Stoutenburgh xnd Schondebgre to the Board, ~nd Mr. Murphy u~ his positi~n as Supervisor, xnd Lo continue ~o let the Board know how we feel lbou% the Mark your new 1984 calend'~r, and [l:~n to x~end. Sincerely, The New Suffolk Civic Association "' ~ ~ December. 1983 [uwr, C 1 c: ['k ]own Soulho](I, k.Y. ~!97] wal ~'~ suppl~ [~e['maner, L!:/. ~L ~,::~u]9 .:1 ~p:'i,.e us of a ~ JabJe local ] ll(JfJI' [nnL Lhc ]ouvn f]unr'd ,,~. ~ ] do al ] J I car, di:;e:on"nq:' fl,is ,,l['::.d~ IhlJr~uqhly di~;credirtd d(,v~,lolJmcr,[ . 5 Dec'ember, 1983 "' .'-- '':"'J I'~v SufFolk, N.Y. [4s .J,Jdi[h [er']', [ o~'/r, C It':'2 fir;ulh?ld, ~.,.'F. 1197! proposed de,,e]opme,~l wbutd [e a djs~fJl~-r rot New .... Fu~l,: a~c t,n- f'o~c,.,c:'. [t ;-,,u]d c,~s~, all Li'~(:e~ oF an historic sJ[~,, Lhe old [ i,r~?u Lh;ll [1~(' To~[i [lr~hFd ~'~ilJ d,~ ;l"[ il cae, lc; RECEiVEO -' ? 5 December, New 5ufro]k, N.Y L~956 Ms Judlth Terr} lown Clerk lown Hall 5outho]d, N.~. 11971 Dear Hs Sinc,~ the three-page Final en~.ironmental impact statement just Filed b) Harine Associates diFFers in no essential ~Jay From the draft sfatement Filed earlier, my Feelings that the proposed development would be a disaster Fo~ Ne~ SuFFolk are un- changed. [ remain convinced thaE that it would damage our water supply permanently. It would deprive us oF a ~lable local business permanently. It would ~ake away a piece oF Forever. IL would erase all Eraces oF an historie site, the old submarine base. permanently. It would increase Flood and traFFic problems permanentl). It ~ould encourage other such developments, and u[Limatel~ change the character oF our hamlet complete1?. The lass ~ould be irreparable.., and all Lo satisF) the g~eed oF Harine Associates' shareholders none oF whom is a local resident. i hope that the Town Board w111 do all it can discourage th~s already thoroughly discredited development. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF NEW YORK ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE ) SS: Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and COUNTYOFSUFFOLK ) requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, J[IDTq~R A CHTRN of Greenport, in public hearing will be held by said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Rail, Main Road. Southold, Newspaper, published at Greenport, in tho Town New York. on the 3rd day of January. IgC4 al 5:10 P.M., on of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New the proposal of Marine York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is Associates, Inc. to amend the Building Zone Ordinance a printed copy, has been regularly published in (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of said Newspaper once each week for one Seut~old, Suffolk County, New weake successively, commencing on tho York, by changing the zone on the following described dayof December 19 83_ ~)nrOpotty Irom "C" Light dush'ial District to "M-I" Multiple Residence Di~ trier: . BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First Slreet at the southwest earner Principal Clark o! the premises herein described where the division line between said premises Sworn to before me this 2 and the land now or formerly JOAN N. MAGEE _ day of of the Radel Oyster Company #0?ARY PU~LE. STAT_[ ~ SEW voag adjoining on the south NO. 52-4-~5a iotersects the said easterly U~F~?t.~,~[ ~l~.~..{~_N~,~.ff- side oI First Street; running t.hem~.North ~ de~rees 54 m' ' ~; ,. ' ~'',~.-talong I~.;~11~S' ~1~ ,of First Sli,~, AL~f.~t L~ corner formed by the intersection of the easterly side of First Strent with the southerly side of Main Street; thence South 83 degrees 45 minutes East along the southerly side pi Main Street 193.50 Inet to the southeast corner pi said Main Street; thence North 6 degrees 15 minutes East along, the easterly end of Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner o£ Main Street; thence North ~a degrees 45 minutes West along the northerly side of Main Street, 192.94 feet to [he corner formed by the intersect/on of the northerly side of Main Street with the eastorly side pi First Street; thence along the easterly side of First Street, North 9 deg~es M minutes 30 seconds . East 272.45 feet to the land formerly of David H. King; thence South 83 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds East along said last mentioned land to Peconic Bay; thence in a general southerly direction along Peconic Bay to the northerly line of landor Radel Oyster Company; thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 83 degrees 05 minutes Oa seconds West to the easterly side of First Street at the point or place of beginning. Together with all the right, title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to several grants of land under water directly in front of these pram/see conveyed. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at lhe time and place above so specified. DATED: December 13, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 1TD22-4445 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONINGCODE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS: STATE OF NEW YORK Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and require- meats of the Zoning Code of lhe Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public Pcatr/cia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the hearing will be held by the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town a public newspaper printed at Southold, in. Suffolk County; Hall, Main Road, Southold, and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, New York, on the 3rd day of January, 1984at8:10 P.M., on has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- the proposal of Marine Asso- ciates, Inc. to amend the man once each week for ........................ ../. ............. weeks Building Zone Ordinance (in- cludign the Building Zone successively, commencing on the .................................... Maps) of the Town of South- .,~.~ ~- c,-'-~/-,L,~ , 19.....~.'..% old, Suffolk County, New day of ................................................... York, by changing the zone on ~ ..~i ~' J /n'-'~ 0"-~........ the following described pro ............. ~ ............. -'"--.'~----.-..---- ..... per~y from "C".Light Indus- trial District to "M-I" Mul- tiple Residence District: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First Street at the southwest corner of the Swam to before me this ~"~g day of premises herein described ................................ where the division line be- A~e~-,~-,.ff-~-~ 19....d~_..~. tween said premises and the ........................................... , land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company adjoin- ing on the south intersects the Street; running thence North.b ............ .~./_.~.; ....................... degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds Notary'Public East along the easterly side of First'Street, 21.1 02 feet to the corner formed by the intersec- tion of tho easterly side of First C'L~t ~T J- THO/s~O~I NOTA,~y FL;3LIC, Sl~(e of New YorJl Street with the southerly side "~. 52 ~321725 of Main Street; thence South ...~. ~:,t~n~, i~ Surrc,~k 0/.'_.~,~ 83 degrees 45 mlnute~ East .... , .. along the southerly side of Main Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main Street; thence North 6 degrees 15 m~mtes F.~t along the 4q.50 feet to the nonheas~ corner of Main Street: thence North 8~ degrees 45 minutes West along· the northerly side of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the.inter- section of the northerly side of Main Street with the easterly side of First Street; thence along the easterly side of First - Street, North 6 degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds East 272. 45 feet to the land formerly of David H. King: thence South 83 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds East along said last mentioned land to Peconic Bay; thence in a general southerly direction along Pa- conic Bay to the northerly line of land of Radel Oyster Com- pany; thence along said land of · Radel Oyster Company, North 83 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West to the easterly side of First Street at the point or place of beginning. Togeth- er with all the right, title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to several grants of land under water directly in front of these pre- mises conveyed. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed 'amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 13, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IT-12/27/83(40) I o v,'n II;, I ] 1o~;:; ,:ULJICJ :~' ;ll'ep;J['J[~]~'... arid all tu :;~,; J:;r) [1~,' g~L',~C; ul t.lal'll~e Sincere]~ -~),~urf, ./ JO~N BONNA~ i-c....:,.-~. ., .- ..':, 5 December~ 1983 New Su[tt~lk, N.Y. 11956 r,ls Judith Ferr> [own Clerk FHvln I~;i ] l SouLhuld, N.N . 11971 5ihce the Lhree-paqe fihal m~virorm, e~,[al impact wa~ From the draFL statement Filed ~arl~pr, rny Feelings Lha~ the p~oposed development v~tJuld be a dzsasker for New Su[f'olk are un- [ remain convinced khat kha[ iL would damage OtJr wa[e'r suppl5 [)ermar~er~t]). [[ ~r~ulcl dejJl'tvt, IJS ct a viable local bosirless permar,~'nt[5_ It v~otllcl take avia) a pit, ce [;I ~aterrrorlL Forever. [t VlOLl[d erase ail traces of an historic si[e, the old ill*ti LjJ[rrllalt,]) I'hal~gl? the c'hu['acLe[' [il r/tlr hamlet r:'omplelely, Ihe Joss w(~llld bt: trrepar'able.., u~d alt to ~;aLLsfy Lhe greed of [.lar~ne Associates' shareholders cone of [~hom is a local resident. I htJpe tll3[ Line To~vn Board v~il[ do all ~1 can to dLsr'ouraop ~h~s already thorouqhly d~SL'rediled deve, lop.,ent. REC~;V~.D U./ICKHI:Im' I:'RUlT ~JY) 0 ~ Route 25. Culchogue. Long Island. New York 1193§ Tel. ,§16) 734~,]: 5637 '~'e'.'::~ C!~.~ ~-,,~old December 19, 1983 Mrs. Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk Southold, N. Y. 11971 In re: New Suffolk Condominium Propoaal Dear Mrs. Terry, I have looked over the amended Environmental Impact Study presented in the above case and am disturbed that it does not address the problems oointed out in my orevious letter on the subject. I refer to the disposal of the concentrated brine resultio~ from reverse osmosis desalinization. Either it will have to be discharged into Peconic Bay or recharged into the ground. In either case there a~e direct results which have not been con- sidered, much less evaluated. In short, even a small local change in the salinity of Peconic Bay would have immediate re- sults locally in our shellfish industry. Likewise, recharging concentrated brine in an area such as this where salt water con- tamination is already a problem up to Second Street is simply looking for trouble. Less than two weeks ago I visited a reverse osmosis plant in Florida and was fortunate enough to talk with the operating engineer. It apoears that the most important factor is the "yield." That is the per cent of potable water obtained from the suoply. In their case the supply was slightly brackish, and they had excellent yield. If the supply were to be straight salt water, the yield would be quite low and the resultant brine discharge much saltier than normal salt water. It is inconceivable that after, say, three months' pumping on these premises at the rate anticipated that the supply would be anything but straight salt water. The amended E.I.S. makes no attemot to even guess at the yield -- which would indicate the increase of salinity in the discharge -- and therefore makes no attemot to estimate the impact on either shellfish or the water supply of adjacent home owners. The statement is made that there is no such reverse osmosis plant in New York State. It is probable that there is none on the East Coast using sea water supply. It is simply too inefficient. As a taxoayer in New Suffolk I am concerned that if this proposal were to be approved and subsequently prove to be harmful to shellfish and/or nearby property owners, both the Town and orooerty owners in this district would be in a very difficult oosition. Mrs. Judith Terry December 19, 1983 Page 2 In addition to all the above, it must be realized that much of the existing fresh water supply in the New Suffolk peninsula is a result of the two miles or dike Iput up 39 years ago. If these dikes were to be badly breached by storm tides it would flood about 100 acres across the neck of this peninsula and the salt would have an almost immediate ~ffeet on the total fresh water su~Dly for the remaining ZOO ~lus or minus acres of New Suffolk. The ecological balance is fragile in all of Southold Town, but nowhere more so than in New Suffolk. Very sincerely yours, John Wickham Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITI[ T. TERRY TELEPHONE RJr;is rP..ag Ol \'[T~r SI x[ ~lll ~ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 20, 1983 Mr. Thomas Lowry [Sox 224 New Suffolk, New York 11956 Dear Mr. Lowry: To explain the situation of Marine Associates, Inc. referred to in your letter of December 17, 1983, I am enclosing herewith a copy of a resolution prepared by Town Attorney Tasker which is a result of his conversation of December 13th with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The above came about when it was determined that a decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement should not be made until the Town Board had held the public hearing on the Change of Zone petition. This by no means resulted from Marine Associates moving from "Plan A" to "Plan B", whatever that might mean. Marine Assoc- iates was not consulted with regard to scheduling the hearing on the Change of Zone. I hope this satisfactorily answers the questions posed in your December 17th letter. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure WHEREAS, Marine Associates, Inc. heretofore filed a petition with this board requesting a change of zone of property owned by it at New Suffolk, in the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, this board, as lead agency, requested that said petitioner prepare and file a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with this board, with respect to said petition, and WHEREAS, said FEIS has been filed with the Town Clerk, and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held by this board before it may take action on said petition for a change of zone, pursuant to the provisions of the Town Law, and WHEREAS, Section 8-109, subdivision 5 of the Environmental Conservation Law provides that notwithstanding the specified time periods established by Article 8 of said law, an agency shall have the right to vary the times so established therein for the preparation, review and public hearings in order to coordinate the environmental review process with other procedures required in the consideration of an action, I'~OW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the FEIS of Marine Associates, inc. ~hall not be deemed accepted by this board until it has held a public hearing on the said petition for a change of zone of Marine Associates, Inc., and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law and Rules, promulgated thereunder, after said hearing is held and the said FEIS is accepted by this board, the environmental review process shall be considered by this board concurrently with its consideration of the petition for a change of zone. 1'~ December, 1983 ~{£'Jr~V£~D Box 224 New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Ms Judith Terry ...' ,.~ © (~ Towm Clerk To~ Hell, M~n Road ~c~-~ .J~. ~, ~ . .,.~_~ Southol d, N.Y. 11971 Dear Ms Terry: Those or us in New Suffolk who thou~t that we kmew w~at was going om regardi~ t~ proposed condomini~s at the North Fork S~ipyard ~ot shook up when we read this week's ~uffolk Times article entitled "Partisanship Rears Its Head at Town Hall." If we were very,. ~ attentive, way do~ towards the end of ~he piece we l'o~d t~t the Town Board vote sched~e~ for the 27~h of ~cember regarding the final enviro~ental impact statement was ~ached~ed, so to speak, aha t~at t~at question was postponed by politic~ legerde~in to a new heari~, previously ~sched~ed, set for t~ 3~ of J~uary, which is not to cern itself with enviro~ental things but rather with zoning matters. ~or~ of like saying that, ~ey, we're going to discuss pears but can the s~e ti~ settle the matter of apples. Well, I for one will move all sorts of posts over there and pilots over here in order to show up at the ~:10 PM meeting on Tuesday, the 3r~ of Janu~y, and will be prepared to discuss zoning and enviro~ental matters. But what I should llke from you here in t~e ~ns of the local press is an accost of Just w~y the t~met~le the New Suffolk condomini~s has sudde~F, been speeded up so t~at thee of us ~o are concerned ~ave beg~ to ask eac~ o~her: ~at is ~oing on? ~as t~ s Ituation been ch~ged? A~e we being ~ad? Is Marine Associates moving from Plan A to Plan B, a~ ~ow soon does building begin? I look f~ward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, Thomas Lowry cc: Suffolk Times NEW SUFFOLK December 20, 1983 blrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement Marine Associates, Inc. Petition No. 257 Dear Mrs. Terry: This is submitted to you pursuant to your advertisement for comment with respect to what purports to be The Final Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter referred to as "the statement") submitted on behalf of the petitioner with respect to this project. We associate ourselves with the accompanying comment of Patrick Callahan, P.E. It is our position that the statement constitutes an affront to and shows contempt for the entire environmental process. Mrs. Oliva of the North Fork Environmental Council has said and at the environmental hearing pointed out that there is no proper standard or regulation or licensing with respect to these statements. If the statement is acceptable, it merely invites more of the same quality so that ultimately, a so-called environmental consultant will merely be able to submit an "everything is O.K." one line letter and, so long as it is headed up "FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT", the legal requirement will have been met. But has it really been met? Has this petitioner fulfilled what you asked of them in requiring an FEIS? We are satisfied that the failure to address various issues constitutes an admission with respect to them so that appropriate agencies are entitled to resolve in every such instance, an interpretation or conclusion against the petitioner, whose consultant chose to ignore them or treat them cavalierly. Therefore, what has not been said in the statement counts more heavily than anything that is. The concluding statement by the petitioner's attorney at the hearing is most prophetic and revealing and while it is decent of him to express " . and I'm willing to abide by them" (a willingness to folloW' the procedure) his impatience with having to even bother with environmental matters is clear, and is reflected in the statement. Please take it for what it isn't. We also ask you to note that the statement started out to be and was headed "Supplemental Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement". Then, almost as an afterthought or in an attempt to qualify it, it was transformed into a Final Environmental Impact Statement when that legend was handwritten above the typed heading. The scholarship involved in the statement is best exemplified by the handwritten spelling of the word environmental in this afterthought, on a submission by a professional environmentalist whose letterhead includes the word. SALINITY OR "DILUTION IS NO SOLUTION" We continue to express our reservations with respect to SALINITY which, though addressed, is dismissed out of hand, without requisite proof that no damage will be occasioned because of it. Contrary comment from the Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, from Mr. Wickham, from Mr. & Mrs. Martin, from several other agencies, and from a marine biologist suggest that this problem prohibits approval of this zone change and project. Injecting the saltier solution back into the ground merely invites a compounding of Salinity with each additional cycle and consequent contamination of the entire local water table. FLOODING We continue to express our reservations with respect to FLOODING, which though addressed by reference to a statement made by Larry Tuthill, fails to acknowledge that he has maintained a substantial business relationship involving many thousands of dollars with the petitioner or its affiliate, that only a week or so before the hearing his barge was hauled by the petitioner for him so that work could be done on it, and that he stands to profit from induced development as discussed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter to you dated November 30, 1983. In this letter the Service stated: "A site on the southern bank of Schoolhouse Creek has also been identified as a potential condominium site..." Larry Tuthill owns this site, so that his statement at the hearing "I do have property in New Suffolk" colors his mistaken opinion or statement that flooding would not be possible. The Board must take into account that Mr. Tuthill was asked by the petitioner to speak in a capacity other than as the town engineer, and that Mr. Tuthill's self interest is likely to have influenced his willingness to speak and what he said. - 2 First Street between Main and Jackson was impassible during a mini-storm (northeaster) on December 4th. Almost 2 feet of water blocked the street. See enclosed photographs. A full fledged northeaster puts the entire area under water and no one has yet indicated where the water, which will be displaced by the proposed fill over the 3~ acre site, will go. We submit to you that Archimedes Law, which has stood for more than 22 centuries as a principle of physics, has yet to be repealed in favor of Tuthill's Law. The water which will be displaced or diverted by this project MUST affect the nearby properties. Furthermore, flooding, which he states is not possible, but which we all know occurs, must represent a problem if the appropriate governmental agency has insisted on raising the site to protect against it. POPULATION, TRAFFIC, ETC. Mr. Blaikie asserted at the hearing that he serves 200 to 220 meals per day, year round, involving 60 to 80 cars a day. Based on observation, monitoring and other inquiry, we believe he is mistaken by more than 50% and that a review of his own tax records will bear this out. The population increase of 55 people projected in the DEIS is based on 2.25 people per apartment. Our own research has disclosed that ultimately, perhaps in 20 to 30 years, as children grow up and spouses die, an aging group of residents may come closer to this average, but for the next 20 to 30 years the average is likely to result in closer to 100 people, or a 20% increase in New Suffolk's population (without taking into account population increases resulting from induced development). A more likely profile for each apartment will be as follows: Father, mother, teen-aged child (or children) visiting or sharing grandparent(s): married daughter, her husband and two grandchildren living aboard the boat in summer; week-end, Saturday or Sunday guests entertained (family or business connected). Cars (5) - mother, father, teen-ager, daughter, son-in-law; cars of week-end guests (1 to 4); if grandparent (1); At the hearing Mr. Mahoney asserted that water use for a restaurant and boat yard exceed that for 24 condominiums. He is basing his conclusion on erroneous data. He talked about boat yard use of water that will not take place in the condominium operation. Apparently he feels the 24 boats associated with this project will never be washed by or for their owners or stocked with water. We know otherwise. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH The statement refers to Mr. Robert Jewell's letter of September 16, 1983 but fails to address the later specifics of Mr. Paul Ponturo's letter of October 20, 1983, specifics about which Mr. Mahoney, at the hearings stated "we are not intending to complete that design at this point." Mr. Mahoney exhorts us to rely on the Health Department to protect us, and while we respect the expertise of various governmental agencies in this entire process, we see no need to ask the Board to or for ourselves to take leave of common sense. Relying on "Big Brother", sometimes has drawbacks. Standards for asbestos were recently tripled. Oraflex was recently removed from distribution because of numerous deaths caused by it after being licensed by the Pure Food and Drug Administration. Agencies have been known to make mistakes or be unaware of the consequences of new products and processes. We also seriously question why Mr. Mahoney allows himself to be selective in urging reliance on one agency, the Health Department but refuses to listen to a host of other Agencies, as for example, the Suffolk County Planning Commission. We are ready to accept his urging in the one instance if he will open his ears to the parade of other Agencies who have rejected this project, and for good cause. The Philadelphia Board of Health approved the Bellevue Stratford Hotel's air conditioning system in Philadelphia, that later was traced to be the source of the Legionnaire's Disease outbreak. The Ben Vivant Soup Company's plant that inadvertently supplied botulism in some of its product was also licensed by the local health authorities. The statement states that the proposed denitrification system removes VIRTUALLY all nitrogen from the sewage stream. We call attention to studies at Lake Tahoe in California where many such systems are in place. "Virtually" may not be enough. Something always escapes the system (TEMIK, viruses, hydrocarbons, detergents, nitrates) hence the consequences at Lake Tahoe traced by the study solely to one cause, "DEVELOPMENT". (see Charles Goldman, Univ. of California) In 24 ears of research the lake has lost 23 feet of transparency. Y "Mr. Goldman and other researchers report the loss of clarity is the result of construction along the shores of Lake Tahoe, allowing greater amounts of nutrients to enter the water, thus increasing the growth of algae". (NY Times, November 13, 1983). Mr. Mahoney advised us of his considerable expertise with reverse osmosis. However, as he is licensed to practice in N.Y. State, and states that "this is going to be the first reverse osmosis system for water supply in New York State"... perhaps his expertise is subject to getting some practical experience after such an installation is operating and the problems of microorganism build-up, as experienced by the Water Department in Hawaii, occur. We remain disturbed at the siting of the outhouse over the water supply - even with governmental assurances that an untested Rube Goldberg set of devices will protect us from the virus content of wastes, which viruses the process is NOT designed to eliminate and which may well travel the distance, in a benevolent salt water environment, to be recycled back through the water supply device which is also NOT designed to eliminate them. Viruses, like other living organisms, strive for survival, and - 4 - current studies have yet to establish that the distances involved here, considering the local conditions, are sufficient to protect the public. DEPARTMENT OF STATE - COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The statement admits that "of the 44 policies enumerated in the NYS Coastal Management Program, some do not apply, some can be satisfied while others cannot". (underlining added for emphasis). The statement asserts that approval of the project does not rest with the Department of State which merely acts in an advisory capacity. Nevertheless, we urge the Board and other appropriate Agencies to heed their advice, recognizing the valid purposes behind these policies. Since we understand that the Town of Southold is seeking funding from this very Agency, funding which is available to us, it will certainly be inappropriate to ignore such policies in this instance, yet seek funding to carry out the very same policies elsewhere in the Town. VIEWS - Access to Sun for Solar Energy The attorney for the petitioner instructed the Board at the hearing not to take into account obstruction of the view, even though it involved a public street and even though a Boatyard would not stack Boats except in winter. He is mistaken, as a later speaker, Mr. James W. Loughlin, indicated, and as the DEIS itself recognized. If the view were not a factor, why was the subject addressed in this document? The very essence of zoning is aesthetics, which will be addressed at the next hearing, if there is one, and as the Commander has no doubt discovered in his Billboard litigation. The petitioner's refusal to recognize this flies in the face of a long standing saying, that "He who fails to heed the lesson of history is condemned to relive it." While it may be premature to assert it at this time, it is and will be our position that the wall of fill which will itself block the view, violates the spirit and letter of Chapter 100 Article X1 Section 119.1 of the General Provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Law. With the advent of high energy costs and energy dependence, the Federal and State governments have offered inducements, mostly by way of tax credits, to encourage the use of solar devices to create and transmit heat and energy. It would be counterproductive to encourage neighboring property owners to invest in solar energy devices based upon free access to the sun, only to have such access blocked, in this case to a substantial degree, by permitting the petitioned use. HARDSHIP A number of statements made in the DEIS and by the attorney for the petitioner at the environmental hearing are not true. We expect to address them at the zoning hearing, if there is one, and our failure to take issue with them at this time, does not acknowledge their truth or relevancy to environmental matters. The petitioner's game plan appears to rely on the concept of hardship. The facts to support this plan have been manufactured and arranged by the petitioner and/or its predecessor over a period of years, for the purpose of attempting to accomplish this rezoning and project. We will address them at the proper time. We expect the petitioner to take further steps to support their assertion that Boatyard or Marina use is no longer feasible. We will continue to call attention to the fact that their manipulation of the facts is self serving and is designed to deceive. BOAT SLIPS The petitioner's representatives have asserted that there is no loss of boat slips available to the public because the Boat Yard itself used them in their business and in fact rented additional slips from Larry Tuthill which were needed in the operation of their business. We dispute this. First of all, the Commander, as reported in a recent interview published in the N.Y. Times, admitted that operations at one time were very profitable. We know, of our own knowledge, that for most of the 23 year period in which he was associated in this enterprise, and when there were more boat slips than now, almost all were available and rented to the public. Only when the game plan called for confronting the problem posed by the public welfare issue of an adequate number of boat slips in the community, were steps taken to "eliminate" them as a source of docking available to interested renters. But were they really "eliminated" and needed for the operation of the Boatyard business? Clearly, North Fork Shipyard, Inc., in its "profitable" years rented them out and was nevertheless able to conduct its Boatyard business. The change, in our view, is a matter of bookkeeping. What does it matter if the Boatyard, in conjunction wi~h the sale of a sailboat, provides a boat slip to the purchaser for the season? While they may book the entire transaction as the sale of a boat, actually a portion is attributable to boat slip rental, and sound accounting practice would dictate reducing an appropriate portion allocated to the sale of the boat and apply it to boat slip rental. Similarly, in the most recent boating season, when almost all slips were empty and available for rental to the public, the petitioner, or its operating entity, withheld them from the market and gave up a potential $15,000 to $20,000 of revenue, so that they would not be faced with the issue of removal of boat 6 slips from the market. Please do not permit yourselves to be misled by these tactics. OTHER MATTERS The statement refuses to correct previous misleading DEIS comment with respect to population, ignores a fire hazard problem posed in a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Martin, as well as other comment in the same letter, Mr. Ponturo's comment, loss of jobs at the site, rejection by the Town Planning Board and by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, community opposition and the opposition of 9 of the 14 immediate neighbors pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Laws, a covenant and restriction in the deed, the commercial nature of the Underwater Grant and its lapse, impact on resort business in the town, the 1838 survey by the Surveyor General of the State of N.Y. and the consequent inability to close Main Street, and the fact that the limited acreage owned by the petitioner does not permit the building of 24 units. GENERAL Our comment addresses a limited number of subjects and while we have no doubt overlapped subjects addressed by Mr. Callahan in his comment, we have attempted to refrain from duplicating comment with respect to each and every instance where the statement fails to accomplish what the statute and you intended in requiring it. Respectfully submitted , The New Suffolk Civic Assn., Inc. By: "~L~,~ / i~¥ //,~ ,~ , / - 7 - RECEIVED Thomson g, ~4cGowan · - ' ' '-; Bo 106 New Suffolk, N.Y.11956 December 19, 1983 Re: l~arine Associates Inc. FEIS The Hon, Judith Terry Town Clerk, Town of Southold Town Hall ~ain Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Zre. Terry: Since the brief document f~led 11/25/83 for ~Marine Associates, Inc. is labelled a Final Environmental Impact Statement, I wish to call the attention of the Southold Town Board to a few of that statement's deficiencies. The Statement does not answer objectively the environmental concerns raised at the public hearing of 11/1/83 on l~mrine Associates, Inc.'s Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The F.E.I.S. merely repeats previous undocumented assertions and adds new ones. For example, a ~uotation from only a part of a single sentence attributed to the Town ngineer is hardly adequate as an answer to the negative impact of storm tidal flooding on New Suffolk's First Street area as outlined by ~4r. Patrick Callahan, a Licensed Public Engineer. For example, the F.E.I.S. asserts that "fears of increasing the salinity of the bay...&re unfounded." The salinity range conducive to ~intaining shellfish production, however, appears to be limited to a relatively narrow range. This problem is not seriously addressed. Thye~ F.E.I.$. ~ils to correcD~miss~atem~nts of f~ct in th~znsoD~ft~Sta~ement~~ne ~na~ it seeks ~o lncorporaBe one enslre ~raft Sta%emen5 Statement without correction. For example, the D.E.I.S. asserted that there was no apparent local opposition to the [~rine Asseciates proposal. Thereafter, on June 2g, 1983, at a meeting sponsored by the New Suffolk Civic Assocation, local property owners and their families voted 168 to 10 against the proposed condominiums. For example,further, both the Draft and Final Statements assert that the previous use of the Marine Associates property as a marina already i]upeded existing views. The occupants of at least a dozen residences along First, Second and ~4ain Streets, however, have unti~ now been able to enjoy an appropriately nautical, albeit limited view of parts of Cutchogue Bay. Under the ~arine Associates proposal, these views will be entirely eliminated, as will the even slighter views of other residents, including my family at King and Third Streets. In addition many people have over the years been able to enjoy a delightful view of the bay from the windows of one of the regretably few waterfront restaurants on the North Fork. Thus there is, contrary to the assertions of both impact statements, a definite negative impact on the visual environment of residents and visitors alike - 2 - The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements fail completely ~o address the impact of the propcsed condominiums~ en the economic and social environment of New Suffolk, a relatively small hamlet. The addition of twenty-four dwelling units would significantly increase the total population of the hamlet and would also sisnificantly alter the socio-economic mix of the population, by increaszng the proportion of upper socio-economic level families. What today is an area enjoyed by a healthy mixture of people of all income levels would start moving toward being the exclusive preserve of the well-to-do. Since aq~eptance of the Marine Associates F.E.I.~. would set a precedent for fur~er condominium development in New Suffolk, perhaps along Schoolhouse Creek, property values would tend to rise, leading to increased real estate taxes on existing parcels. More and more of the lower and theh middle income families woul~ be forced out of New Suffolk, increasing the negative environmental impact on the variegated population mix now characteristic of New Suffolk. The stock of moderate and low priced housing in the hamlet would be significantly reduced, and at least some of the present residents might find locating affordable housing near their employment difficult. Such an eventuality could lead to a charge of exclusionary zoning, which would negatively impact the entire town. Since the Marine Associates, Inc. Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to address these and other negative impacts on the physical, social and economic environment of New Suffolk and Southold Town caused by the proposal to construct twenty-four condominium units, I respectfully urge the Southold Town Board to reject as inadequate the FinalEnviron- mental Impact Statement. Yours truly, Thomson C. MeGowan ' 2 0 December 17, 1983 ]'c',v:~ C!:'I~ ~..:,'.:::!~ Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE: Final Environmental Impact Statement Marine Associates, Inc. Dear Mrs. Terry: First, although admittedly belated, I wish to express congratulations to you and the Town Board for providing an excellent forum for comment on the DEIS of Marine Associates, Inc., at the public meeting last month. It certainly was conducted in a highly professional manner, opportunity for all to express their views was provided and if I may add the Board was most patient and understanding. Our approach to the issue and participation in the process are not as the paid professionals of the applicant rather as a group of very interested residents whose interest is not monetary, rather as preservationist for a simple and pleasant way of life. What has transpired thus far and at the November 1st meeting could be characterized as a "living environmental impact statement" presented by the people of Hew Suffolk on behalf of New Suffolk. Their experiences, views and honest comment are not cold and calculated to exact a material goal; they are real with a large human dimension. Perhaps one of the most significant comments at the meeting was offered by Mr. Danny Lyon as he graphically portrayed an analogy with constructing a "big green Holiday Inn" at the site; scientifically correct but destroying the environment. i think he was telling us a broader perspective must be main- tained. I have little doubt, although it has not been demon- strated by the applicant thus far, the environmental issues of water supply, waste treatment, flooding etc. are amdressable with some degree of risk. But we trust that the Board as it reviews the proposal, the environmental reports, recommenda- tions from the various State, County and Town bodies and of course the people of New Suffolk will maintain that broad perspective in the search for the truth and certainly act in the interest of the people. The proposed project would eliminate a highly desirable commercial resource of not alone New Suffolk but the Town. Long Island's regional economy is to a significant degree dependent upon water related activities including marine recreation. Allowing the change in zone would eliminate forever the use of the shipyard's 3.~! acres and underwater 1.5~ acres by other than a select few who can purchase the $300,000+ units. Further, within the confines of New Suffolk it would a) in a short time cause the closing of the adjacent boat station, denying to the less advantaged access to waters of the people- b) spark other similar development, School House Creek for instance, could be next. From a planning point of view tiny New Su£folk has an appropriate mix of single £amily residences, commercial properties, some highly utilized seasonal properties, and a§ricul~ural properties the loss of the shipyard property would reduce the potential summer employment by young people many of whom have been local New Suffolk residents. We feel confident that the Board in making a ~ecision on the zone change will take into account the "best use" of the property in addition to the traditional environmental issues. "Best use" takes into account not alone what is best for the property owners but also the needs of the community of I~ew Suffolk and the Town. There is little question that the owners would reap great profit but they cannot be permitted to do so at our great expense. The community/Town losses are too great. The viability of the property for continued ma. tine use is clearly great the present owners have created their own apparent hardshiD. We hope the Board will see through their contorted documentation of their proported hardship and realize the owners control that aspect of their argument. Yet as noted and documented by others in their comments - marinas in the Town of Southold are doing a booming business. As time goos on there is no doubt that many condo-projects will be proposed and probably approve~ in Southold Town. Thoy can't all be denied associated approvals but some must be denied approval. The historic/commer cial site upon which the proposed condo would be built is one of the resources that must be maintained in order to assure some balance. We see a transition of utilization of the extensive agricultural resources in the Town. Some lands have been set aside under State programs, others are now bein~ used for the emerging East End wine industry. Other former agricultural land is seing developed for single family residences and other lands for higher mensity condo-type projects - these uses can all fit within the persepctive o£ rational land use planning. But to allow a highly desirable ~rowth industry property to be forever eliminated would tip the balance. Restraints on the development of new marinas would all but preclude its replacement elsewhere. -3- New Suffolk has not alone enjoyed a unique historical development but it also enjoys a good distribution of people from all economic strata, races and religions - It is not a pretentious community. The condo-development would put pressure on adjacent owners to sell their properties, many of which have been in the same family for generations. We don't wish that the owners of the shipyard property should suffer any economic loss on the property. We just ask that the Board deny the request to establish a use which is entirely out of character with our town - There is a big difference between "optimum" use from a developers viewpoint and from our perspective. They propose to squeeze out every possible square foot of development potential. Of any of the condo proposa~ that have been before the Town Board, this project is the most consuming and represents a classic case for overintensification. New Suffolk, unlike as stated in the Engineers Report of the DEIS still has numerous "small" vacant developable properties. To change the zone at the North Fork Shipyard site could be a de facto restriction on legal development elsewhere or as a minimum, it would compress the time whereby the Town would have to establish a water/sewer district at great cost. Absent a master plan developed with public participation, approval of the condo-project in [.few Suffolk could encourage "patchwork" development characteristic elsewhere. The alternative analysis in the DEIS and so called "Final" is an all or nothing approach. We ask that the Board reject this highly biased approach. We would support some change but not the all consuming approach taken by the developer. We anticipate that the Board in its review of the project will realize that the proposal completely disregards the neighbor- hood characteristics, its type development and need to preserve a marine resource. We hope that the Board will reject the proposal in light of its conflict with balanced utilization of the limited waterfront properties available for marine use and the public interest. The form of submission and content therein by ~Iarine Associates, Inc. of what it terms a Final Environmental Impact Statement could make it particularly difficult for the Board under Part 617, SEQR, to conclude the process. Whi~ the non-respon- sive nature of the submission is evidence of the applicant's approach to the process, we believe that by omission Marine Associates, Inc., has actually facilitated the decision making process. Accordingl~ with respect to the call by the Town of Southold for comments on the FEIS, an attempt is made on the attachment -4- to fill in some of the blanks and correct some of the mis- leading statements and impressions and generally maintain the balanced perspective so needed as the Board searches for the truth and unbiased relevant answers to the issues. Further, for the record it is respectfully requested that all written comments from the public, Federal, State, County and Town agencies and units submitted in response to the Town of Southold's call for comments on the DEIS and FEIS be in- corporated by reference as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter which is so important to New Suffolk. Sincerely, Patrick E. Callanan, P.E. Third Street between Orchard & King Streets New Suffolk, Long Island New York 11956 50-11 212th Street Baysime Hills, Queens New York 11364 cc: New Suffolk Civic Association Mr. Joseph Fenton, Esq. Comments: FEIS on proposal by Marine Associates, Inc. for a change of zone petition no. 257 INTRODUCTION In the interest of not adding further burden to the recor~ on the above proposal, the following comments are mainly limited to the three page Final Impact Statement prepared by En-Consultants, Inc. submitted on November 25, 1983 to the Town of Southold. Where appropriat~ re~'erence is made to comments offered at the November 1, 1983 public hearing and other comments of record previously submitted. SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS I fully concur with the Consultant's statements in the FEIS that the nitrification-denitrification system for treat- ing waste is clearly superior to the present systems on the site. Further it is indicated that as expressed by Mr. Robert Jewell, Public Health Engineer, SCDHS in his September 16, 1983 letter to the Town of Southold, "It appears all of the matters before the department can be satisfied." ~[r. Jewell expressed this opinion in connection with both sewage system and public water supply. Mr. Jewell ~owever also rightly noted that "The current sanitary design would require that the grade be raised at least 6 feet." To date I am unaware of any plan which would reflect the impact on the site ~evelopment grade and clearly depict how the SCDHS requirement could be satisfied. Absent raising the -2- grade while still utilizing a nitrification-denitrification system, the u~ique hydrological site conditions strongly point to introduction of the treated effluent beneath the phreatic surface. The Consultant would appear to support this con- clusion while discussing the existing system i.e. "Nutrients from these enter the groundwater and nearby surface waters via lateral movement." Thus the potential for inland migration to adjacent potable water supply source is further increased as noted in my comments on the DEIS by the compacted bog underlying strata and as indicated at the public hearing, ~he flat topography with low hydraulic gradient. Without an imdepth hydrological study of the area, concern would still exist even if the site grade were sufficiently raised to assure proper functioning of the sewage system since over a period of time the zone of saturation would be raised lowering the head differential. The Consultant in discussing water supply states that ". .... test wells drilled on the site and tested yielded water of satisfactory quality and quantity to supply the proposed project." Mr. John Mahoney, a Professional Engineer and consultant to Matinee Associates, Inc. at the public meeting, made a similar statement for the record that ". .... we had a sufficient supply of water, and yes, the water that we were taking from the test well met their (SCDHS) standards for drinking water." The credibility of these statements are very much in doubt given; 1) from knowledge of the site over the years the owner(s) have had to seek off-site source for potable water supply, and 2) by letter to Mr. Mahoney dated May 11, 1983, Mr. Paul J. Ponturo, P.E., Public Health Engineer, SCDHS, indicated "I do not regard free ammonia levels of 1.77 ma/l, chloride levels of 109 mg/1 and detergent levels of 0.3 mg/1 as acceptable water quality for distribution in a public water supply system. I also note that a one-hour pumpage period was not a stress on the aquifer which could be considered representative of prolonged peak or maximum day operational conditions." The Consultant characterizes the installation of a reverse osmosis system as a requirement of the SCDHS. For the record I suggest that the SCDHS did not require a reverse osmosis system which would imply their endorsement of such a system. In fact ~r. Vito Minei, P.E., Supervisor, Planning Unit, SCDHS by letter dated October 24, 1983 to the Town of Southold expressed concern about the design, operation and location of the proposed water supply facilities and possible impacts relative to nearby land uses. He specifically indicated, "It, therefore, seems advisable that the town's decision on this submission await the resolution of these important issues." Mr. ~inei made reference in his letter to the significant comments by Mr. Ponturo in his letter to N.Y.S. Department of Health on the matter in connection with WSA 10-83-0085. Mr. Ponturo's comments are certainly significant, call for further information and deserve to be addressed, yet if I under- stand correctly, Mr. Mahoney's statement at the public meeting - design at this point is not intended to be completed. I am uncertain as to the strategy by Marine Associates, Inc., this action implies, but I can say that it effectively del~ies the Town of Southol~ the continued vital review and evaluation by the SCDHS on the proposed systems. SALT WATER INTRUSION At the top of page 2 of the FEIS, reference is made to the benefits of the proposed systems with respect to salt water intrusion. I am not sure to what degree this matter has been studied by the Consultant but in general~saline water encroachment in coastal areas results from a diversion of fresh water that previously had discharged from the aquifer. It is my opinion that over the years a steady equilibrium position has been reached betwee~ the salt and fresh water aquifers subject to minor fluctuations with tidal action and seasonal changes. The recharge of the waste stream into the proposed man-made fill will tend to raise the upper limit of the saturated zone and a$~oted~reduce the head differentmal between the proposed site and properties west of First Street much in the same manner as a new well west of First Street would introduce a cone of depression. The net effect of either of these actions would be to reduce the natural hydraulic gradient. What appears to be missed by the Con- sultant is the natural outflow of fresh-water to the sea is actually a protection for inland aquifers. SALINITY The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others far more qualified than I will be addressing the issue of discharge to the Bay of the brine. Regarding the Consultant's statement that, "As an alternate to bay discharge, the brine reject can be reinjected into the groundwater with the wastewater.", I find it impossible to offer meaningful comment without greater definition of what is intended. If the brine were recharged into the lower aquifer~after a period of time it would be likely to alter the boundary between the saltwater and fresh- water aquifer. At this point I am uncertain as to the impact of dischargin~ the brine into the upper aquifer "with the wastewater." PLOODII~G As I have previously commented~I have no doubt that the proposed project could comply with all FEMA requirements for new construction. The Consultant somehow believes that by compliance with flood plain regulations "....it will not exacerbate potential flooding on adjacent acres." The Con- sultant's reference clearly demonstrates a basic misunderstand- ing of FEMA's requirements which are to minimize potential flood-related personal and property risks. Regarding floodin~ of adjacent properties we are dealing with secondary effects. Prior to reading the FEIS I was unaware that the Town of Southold (The Town Engineer stated that "...flooding would not be possible as stated by Mr. Callahan.") has voiced its position on the increased flooding potential created by the massive land fill. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED Town Clerl~ ~,'JrJt~o~(3 PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, IV).D., M.P.H. December 14, 1983 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: SUBJECT: MARINE ASSOCIATES - FEIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS The FEIS for the above referenced project has been reviewed, and we wish to offer the following comments. As part of our response (10/24) to the DEIS, a copy of a letter from Mr. Ponturo of this department regarding the "Engineering Report on Water Supply" was attached. That letter contained several substantive comments pertaining to the proposed water supply facilities. While most of the points raised are considered straight forward and should be readily satisfied, they have not been addressed in the FEIS or otherwise. Until these important issues are resolved, the necessary approvals from this department will not be granted. If there are any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Vito Minei, P.E. Supervisor Planning Unit VM/lst cc Robert A. Villa, P.E. 1785 Cedar Drive Town Clerk Southold, NY 11971 '17 December, ~983 Mr. Joseph Fenfon ,Attorney at L~ ,' ilo ,,'/ '" ' ' Jackson Street ,, ' ~' NewS~ffolk, NY ~956 J~ :' ~.~ - :dp., ). Dear Mr. Fenton, AFter re~ding your I~tter dated ~ December, 19B3 as well ~s r~vl~wlng th~ Flnol v[ronmental Impact Statement and Supplemental Commenk on lhe DraFt Environmental Impact Statement for Marine Assoclates Inc. and other Ilteratur~, I believe you, the resldents of New Suffolk and the r~sldents of the Town of Southold have ~ood Cause to r~ise ~u~stlons ~ th~ rew.e olmosls process ~nd it's effect on our she11~sh ~pulatlons. My ab111~ to Comment on th~ [ssue sf~ms from my background In the Long Island shell- fish Indust~ ( Long Isbnd Oyster Fares, North~rt) as w~ll ~ ~y education and s~d~l interest in shellfish blol~y (A.A .~. Marine Science and Tecnol~y, S.C.C.C. ~ B.S. Biology, Emp[r~ Sta~e College). I am com~lled to Comment as a reddent ~oncerned wlth our Town's natural resourses and their prese~atlon. I do not b~lleve that concern over Increased sallnlti~i resulting From the brine discharge oF the reverse osmosis process are unfounded. A dlscharge oF brln~ 2~ greater thah the surrounding bay water e~uates ~o an Increase in salinity at I~?~ (part ~r thousand to 4 ~ (~rha~s higher). ~tll compl~t~ mixing b~e~n brlne and bay plume o[denser, more saline water will spread across th~ bay bottom. ~cause oF the estuorine natur~ at the area, water Is moved back and forth but not out oF the Peconlc Bay ~rea. Flushlng does occur but over a long ~rlod oF tlme. The bay's sa1~n1~ must increase In tlm~. That the brine discharged wlll ~ot adversely lffect ~h~ll~sh populations m~y There is no Ind~c~tion that subHe ch~n~s in the salinity o~ the bay water will be det- rlmental to the Ioc~l sh~ll~sh. I a~ not or would not be ~s concerned abokt the effect at higher sallni~ on the shellfish populatlons except that the Iiteratur~ suggests shellfish predators favor and are [avored In a higher saline environment. The locol shellfish are already under pressure From the loc~l commercial flsh[ng Ind~t~ and the exlstlng pre- dator ~pulotlon. Th~ b~lan~e be~e~n the ~hellrlsh and th~ pressure groups would upset In favor at the latter If any Factor Is In~oduced that would r~sult In 1ncrea~d predator numbers, The attracNon exerted u~n the predators to r~maln clos~ to the brine plume would increase the likelihood that fertilization will occur wlthin that population. Wlth Increased fertlllz~tlon obvioudy ¢om~ Increased numbers oF predators (whether In higher salln~ water or not). The results oF increased fertilization may not be real[z~d Mr, Joseph Fenton 17 December, 1983 2 at first but wou[d be apparent by Increaslng numbers oF predators and decreased numbers InshellF|sh landings. With greater predator numbersspre:dout over the bay, once agofn the probab~'llty Increases that sexes will meet and t~ertillzatlon w[ll occur.' Should thls develop as I've described, the Future of shellfish In thls area would be dublous. Given the nature oF the problem and ils possible consequences, I don't believe the slngle paragraph on the F.E.I.$. adequately addressed the long-term eff'ect~ oF the brine discharge. Many I~acl'ors In the morlne environment ere complex and Interrelated. Any changes In the envlronment could result In subtle, Imperceptlb[e changes with long-term effects. Thank you }'or permitting me to comment on this issuel Sincerely, A, CItera Hs ,]udiLh Terry [owrl (_' J c L'k Towr, Ilal] Southold. N.Y. 1]971 D::ar H!; SJrl[~¢ [ho thrpe-pn§c f'inal Pqv.~rorlmorl[~J] L."~pact . way from ti,r, draft stabp,uen[ Filed earlier, Ry feetir,U~ that the proposed dp~p]o[)men~ WbLJtd be a disasLc~ For ~.]ew Suffolk are ehangcd i remain convinced bh;*L bhab f[ would damaqe our wate'r supply permanently. I~ WOUld deprive us of a v~able local btJsine::s perman,~ntly. [[ ?Could Lake a~ay a pLece or forever. It w~uld erase a]l braces of an hist~rzc sLte, bhe old subn,r, rJiie bhue~_ ppl'rnar/ent ly. [b WoLIlrl increase Flood and t~aFric Joss wc:uld b,~ lrp'el~at'at~Je.., arid ali tu na~ iur~ the (J~'~t:cl of' t.lal'Jrle Associabes' shareholders ;~u;;e Cf whom is a local resJden[. J llUp(~ Lh;]L Lief' fewn Bu;~rd wJl] do :~11 it can Lo RECEIVED .._'~.L' 'I_ 9 ~ NeW SLmffljlk, N.N. 11956 [own CP. ~ l-Is Judi[b Iowrl Iowr~ Hall 5~u[br31d, ~.~ . [1971 ~JhC~ [lie thr[~'-[Jag~ f/rqal envit'or, n~ellLal impact sfalemPnf .jusf Fi]~d b~ [-I[,~Jr~e Asso~:ialP~: cltfFe~s in no ensen[ial wa> fFom Eh,' dr[,iL ut:aLem[~rll f~tect ~al'lJ~'r. in) feetil,gs thaL Lhe proposed dekelnprner~f wbuld bt, ~] d~sas[er I'nr New StifFolk afc uri- c ba~ged. ] [emaah c'o~ced ~haL LbaL ~L wou~cJ damage ouJ' wa~e'r supp]} permanent]). [[ would dep~v~ us or a ~ Lable ~oca] hLJSlrlesS pe['r, ari~r,[l). [I WUUJCl Lakt' away FII'IJI)]PII]~, p[~['n, ar~,r,[ I>. [I would encuucage u[her such deNelmpnlents, ar~cJ ~ll~ imafoL) c'bancle fhe cha?ae~Pr of i]u[' ham]m~ loss would be ar[epmrablm.., ar,d all (o saLlsFy Lhe gJ'eed oF Ma?ine AsSuOla[L~s' sl~aFeboIde['s honc~ oF whom Zs a local res]den[ . d~gcouFage ~bls alFead) Lho['mLigbJy dimel'edzted deNelopmenE. RECEIVED lg83 5 December, 19'83 New 5u£roll<, N.Y. !IgSG Tow~ lin1] Southold. ".].~. 1]97i D,:ar ~¢s Tr.?fy: Stnee Lhe three-p~g~' /~n~! ortvironmenla! sLaLemr, nL ]..:t F~ lt',J ~;) ~'ld~ J~'e A~;C:E'laL'c:; cliFf'ers i~ mJ e~serlL ~:ay From ~he d/aK[: staLer,,unk file(J earlier, my Fcelirl~.- thai_ proposed development wbuld be a d~sa~i:er FoF New SdFFolk a~e changed. ~ remain convincert + hal Lh~k J ~' wouJd damage our wa[~'r suppJy perm~nenLly. FL wc;uJ:J deprive us oF a ~iable iota1 forever. 1[ tvouJd erase ali Lraces oF an hJs[o['zc s$~e, Lhe old submar'Jne ba,,e, permanent ly. IE would ;ncreasc Flood al~d ~raFF~c problems permai~pr,[lv. 1~ wrJtllC[ er~ecJtl['aqe tp[her f;iJch tlevr, J(Jpmerlts, loss would be irrepar[il~ie,., and all Lo ~uL~z;F) Lhe ~l'et~d oF Hari.e AssocJaLe5' shareholders none of ~,'hom ts a local res[den~. I hi, pc [hal [he lown []u:;rd wJl~ do ~11 J~ can Sincere]),' yours, RECEIVED r.,;." - 9 1983 5 December, 1983 To,,vnClc-I~%,~' '~oa N~!¥,' Su£1'olk, N.",. ]]956 Hs .]LJdi fb lawn CLerk I i~w[i Ifa l l S[Ju[hold, N.Y. ]1971 Since the Lhree-page Flna! environmental ,mpac~ ~ln~mmr~,[ jus~ [i]c'd b) hla~'~ne Ausoc~a~s d~Frers in ~u r~ay from ~he draf'~ s~a~emer,~ fJ~ed cai'lief, my feelings ~ha~ ~he p['oposed deve~opme[~[ v/bu]d be a dJsaste[' f'or New SuFfolk a~e un- chal~ged. ~ cemain convinced Lhak ~ha~ ~ would damaqe wa[e'~- supply permanen~). IL would deprJve us oF a viable local busJheu~ i]ermanerl[l~ . ]1: would [~ke awa) ~ piece of Focevec. IL would ecase ail [races oF an h~s[o?ic sJ[e, [he o~d sobma['ine base, pecmanen~]y. [~ would increase F~ood and prrH, l,'r,m [)er'm~Jl~eh[ Iv- Il ~[,LJ][] r'rir'(Hlr';Jrle r~l her ~;[l['h rh.~l.l(l[~rrlerl[~;~ aiid t~llJrn;,rely chal,g[. Iht. charac[t~r of OLlr haml~f complelely. Associates' sbaceholdecs none of whom ~s a local cesZden~. I hope ti]al the lnwn Board will do all ~L can d[seourn[]e lhis a]~ead) [horoughly d~scFedil ed (level[~pmPn[. yours, Hs JlldJth [err> I(~w~, Ila] J 5ou~ho]d, N.N . .,/nee the [hree-pagt' Final environmental ia)pack t)~o[)osed de~elopmen[ wbuld be a dJsasEer for New Suffolk are charic]ed. [ ~emaJn eon~need [h~ [hal l~ would damage our wale'[' suppl> peFmanen[Zy. IL would d~prJv~ us of a ~iab]e ]oea~ [o['e~er. It would erase ail Lcaees of an historic site, Lhe old submarine base, pecmanenLJy, l~ wou]d increase Flood and f) P()f)]ems r)e,]'r, anr. rltly,. It woutd ['neou['r~[i., ~Jth~,c such de~elr)pmenta, ul,d oil [mutu]~ c'hor~cje t~' character[' pi our haml<'L cnmpl~'l~'ly. ]b~ wuuld b~, irr~paFable.., ahd al1 tu ~ati~f~ the g~eed of Associates' shareholde['s none of whum Js a 1peal Pesident. I l~ope [hut the fowl] Bo[~['d will do all iL can di~cou['age this alPeady tho~'ough]y dJs[:FediEud de~elopm~nt. Sincere]> >ours, STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the a~e of twenty-one years: that on the 16th da5, of December 19113 she affixed a notice of which the annexed pr,nted notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, ~uffolk County, New Vork, to wit:- Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office, Hain Road, Southold, New York 11971 Notice of Public Hearing - 8:10 P.M., Tuesday, January 3, 1984, Southold Town Hall - petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" Multiple Residence District. Sourhold Town Clerk Sworn ~o be before me this 16th day of December 1983 ~ ;~ Notary Publ EU7.~ETH ~ NEVILLE I~OTARY PUBUO, ~ate of New Yodl No. ~.-~125850, ~ffolk Gou. J~/ Tm'm Expi~e~ Mar~h 30, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O Box 728 Southold. New York I 1971 JUDITH· ·ERRY IELEPHONE lo~s CI. FRK (516) 765-1801 REGIS I R.&R I)l VI r x L 5; 1 x I IS ali'S OFFICE OF THE TOI~N CLERK TOWN OF SOUIHOLD December 16, 1983 Marine Associates, Inc. New Suffolk, New York 11956 Gentlemen: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on December 13, 1983: "WHEREAS, Marine Associates, Inc. heretofore filed a petition with this Board requesting a change of zone of property owned by it at New Suffolk, in the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, this Board, as lead agency, requested that said petitioner prepare and file a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FI:IS) with this Board, with respect to said petition, and WHEREAS, said FEIS has been filed with the Town Clerk, and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held by this Board before it may take action on said petition for a change of zone, pursuant to the provisions of the Town Law, and WHEREAS, Section 8-109, subdivision 9 of the Environmental Conservation I-aw provides that notwithstanding the specified time periods established by Article 8 of said law, an agency shall have the right to vary the times so established therein for the preparation, review and public hearings in order to coordinate the environmental review process with other procedures required in the consideration of an action, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the FEIS of Marine Associates, Inc. shall not be deemed accepted by this Board until it has held a public hearing on the said petition for a change of zone of Marine Associates, Inc., and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law and Rules, promulgated thereunder, after said hearing is held and the said FEIS is accepted by this Board, the environmental review process shall be considered by this Board concurrently with its consideration of the petition for a change of zone." At that same meeting of December 13th the Town Board adopted a resolution setting 8:10 P.M., Tuesday, January 3, 1984, Southold Town Hall as time and place for a public hearing on your petition for a change of zone from "C" to "M-I". A copy of the legal notice is enclosed herewith. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town C~rk LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning ',1 Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearing will ': be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, I. Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 3rd day of January, 1984 at 8:10 P.M., ' on the proposal of Marine Associates, Inc. to amend the Building Zone Ordin- lj ance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk i! County, New York, by changing the zone on the following described property ,, I, from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" Multiple Residence District: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First Street at the south- i west corner of the premises herein described where the division line between ! said premises and the land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company adjoining on the south intersects the said easterly side of First Street; running thence North 6 degrees 5zl minutes 30 seconds East along the easterly side of I First Street, 211.02 feet to the corner formed by the intersection of the east- "erly side of First Street with the southerly side of Main Street; thence South 83 degrees 45 minutes East along the southerly side of Main Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main Street; thence North 6 degrees 15 minutes East along the easterly end of Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner of Main Street; thence North 83 degrees 45 minutes West along the northerly side of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with the easterly side of First Street; thence along the easterly side of First Street, North 6 degrees 5~I minutes 30 seconds East 272.45 feet to the land formerly of David H. King; thence South 83 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds East along said last mentioned land to Peconic Bay; thence in a general southerly direction along Peconic Bay to the north- erly line of land of Radel Oyster Company; thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 83 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West to the easterly side of First Street at the point or place of beginning. Together with all the right, title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to several grants of land under water directly in front of these presmises conveyed. Page 2 - Public Hearing Marine Associates, Inc. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 13, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, DECEMBER 22, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Marine Associates, Inc. · _ . - ..... .'._. ~ '.C /".~'-;., ':~'..I ¢ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 3rd day of January, 1984 at 8:10 P.M., on the proposal of Marine Associates, Inc. to amend the Building Zone Ordin- ance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing the zone on the following described property from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" Multiple Residence District: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First Street at the south- west corner of the premises herein described where the division line between said premises and the land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company adjoining on the south intersects the said easterly side of First Street; running thence North 6 degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds East along the easterly side of First Street, 211.02 feet to the corner formed by the intersection of the east- erly side of First Street with the southerly side of Main Street; thence South 83 degrees 45 minutes East along the southerly side of Main Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main Street; thence North 6 degrees 15 minutes East along the easterly end of Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner of Main Street; thence North 83 degrees 48 minutes West along the northerly side of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with the easterly side of First Street; thence along the easterly side of First Street, North 6 degrees 5zl minutes 30 seconds East 272.45 feet to the land formerly of David H. King; thence South 83 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds East along said last mentioned land to Peconic Bay; thence in a general southerly direction along Peconic Bay to the north- erly line of land of Radel Oyster Company; thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 83 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West to the easterly side of First Street at the point or place of beginning. Together with all the right, title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to several grants of land under water directly in front of these presmises conveyed. Page 2 - Public Hearing Marine Associates, Inc. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 13, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, DECEMBER 22, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Marine Associates, Inc. LEGAL NOTICE NOTIGE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, ~lain Road, Southold, New York, on the 3rd day of January, 1984 at 8:10 P.M., on the proposal of Marine Associates, Inc. to amend the Building Zone Ordin- ance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing the zone on the following described property from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" Multiple Residence District: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First Street at the south- west corner of the premises herein described where the division line between said premises and the land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company adjoining on the south intersects the said easterly side of First Street; running thence North 6 degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds East along the easterly side of First Street, 211.02 feet to the corner formed by the intersection of the east- erly side of First Street with the southerly side of Main Street; thence South 83 degrees 45 minutes East along the southerly side of Main Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main Street; thence North 6 degrees 15 minutes East along the easterly end of Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner of Main Street; thence North 83 degrees 45 minutes West along the northerly side of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with the easterly side of First Street; thence along the easterly side of First Street, North 6 degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds East 272.45 feet to the land formerly of David H. King; thence South 83 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds East along said last mentioned land to Peconic Bay; thence in a general southerly direction along Peconic Bay to the north- erly line of land of Radel Oyster Company; thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 83 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West to the easterly side of First Street at the point or place of beginning. Together with all the right, title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to several grants of land under water directly in front of these presmises conveyed. Page 2 - Public Hearing Marine Associates, Inc, Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 13, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, DECEMBER 22, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAllei ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Marine Associates, Inc. lis JtJ_~llb Te~y 5ouLho]d. ~'~.~. 1J97.1 rJFO[JGsPd O~ve]oplq~'rl[ ~;t~uld be a Oisaater for New ~uCfo~k &re :hi:nc;, d. I remain cnnvi,',c=d ~i~L Lh~t i L ',:ould cJa,neg~ wale'[ supply ot'rri~gn~'nLl~. It WOLJJa d'"pri~ US Of a vJabJe iocel fOFe~eF, iL ~.,'Du]d L'FOSe ali tF~(:e~: of ~n i,z~or..c s~Lc, t]~e c:Id SUblllE, FJne base. perm3n?nt /y. It would .increase Fie. cd r.[i,l -rLii AssociaLes' chareholde:rs none of whom is a Jocal residehl:. I hop~. [rln~ [hE' iD',','ll [hJ:~rd .';;11 co all .~: can disctouraqc Lh~s already Lh'J~uughly dJsr_r('d~tr:d · Sincerely VOOFS~ Gail S. Shaffer Secretary of State STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE: '162 WASHINGTON AVENUE ALBANY, NEW YORK 12231 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 lg83 December 9, 1983 Town Clerk Southold Ms. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: The Department of State has received and reviewed the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on Marine Associates Incorporated's proposal for a condominium project at the North Fork Shipyard site in New Suffolk which you recently forwarded to this agency. Based upon our review, we have determined that this FEIS document does not satisfy all of the requirements contained in the State Environmental Quality Review regulations (NYCRR, Title 6, Part 617) which are applicable to projects occurring within the coastal area of New York State. As stated in our letter to you, dated October 28, 1983, the environmental impact statement for this project must identify the coastal policies (listed in NYCRR, Title 19, Part 600.5) that are applicable to the proposed project and must discuss the project's effects upon the achievement of those policies. The FEIS does not contain this required information. In our October 28th letter we offered some assistance on this matter by identifying the coastal policies which we thought were applicable to the proposed development project, based upon our knowledge of the area and the information contained in the draft environmental impact statement. Other coastal policies may be applicable to this project, however, we must rely upon the individuals and parties who have participated in the review of this development proposal to identify such policies, This deficiency of the FEIS may be easily rectified. We recommend that the Town of Southold request the project's sponsor to prepare a supplement to the FEIS which would address the requirements for project activities in Judith T. Terry December 9, 1983 Page 2 the State's coastal area, Enclosed for your use and information is a copy of the regulations containing the coastal policies. If you have any questions on our review, please contact us at (518) 474-3642. Sincerely, . /~ Coastal Resources Specialist WFB:cf cc: Dennis Cole, NYS DEC Reg. 1 Ralph Manna, NYS DEC Enclosure Regulations and Amendments pursuant to ~o~ 91~ o[ t~e En~uti~ ~w to ~pl~ent ~e provi- ~rw~n ~e gmt~ o[ ~ ~ ~d uons o[ ~e waterfront reviMl~don ~d ~st~ ~ act. ~mm~ate ~e ~s of ~ ~o~ ~ ~ (b) ~is Part is ~tend~ to pro.de [o~ s~te ~enc~ ac~ ~ ~e mere, ~ provid~ ~ ~ ~w. ~ 910 ~ 9]~1). c~stal ~ t~r n~)' framework toe ~e ~nsid~atio~ ~d appli~- ~nd~ ~at ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~f~ ~e 5sate ~ unique c~stal area ~ke place ~ a ~tdinat~ ~d ~- h~cly to ~[~ ~ ~t of ~ ~b~im ~d ~ ~our~ and t~e n~d to accomm~ate ~e n~s of ~pulado~ growth ~ ac~ns ~ ~en6[~ ~1 ~ u~den~ ~ a ~ w~h ~ ~n- ~at wiB ~it ~ ~neficial u~ of c~s~ ~our~ w~e p~ (4) ~ P~ ~1 not tpply m ~ for ~c loss of fiOng maline ~sour~ ~d wildliN, ~inu6on o[ ~ ~o~en~ ~ct sMt~t ~ ~n p~ or for w~b a derer- ~ent of ~m~ ~ur), or ~ent ad~ c~ to ~'~ on t~e en~o~t, ~u~t to NYCRR. Ti~ 6, P~ 61 (d9 In adopon8 ~c waterfront ~l~tion ~d ~ ~ (~) No~ ~ ~ P~ ~ ~ ~ to au~o~ or ~uire quir~ pu~uant ~o Ardclc ~2 of the ~utive ~w, to dct~ine ~c ~e approval of ~y ~t. ~ or other [~d~g a~s~ wbic~ ~nsisteno' o[ pro~sed acNons wit~ ~e ~hcies of Ar6cle ~2 ~d ~ d~i~ by ~e t~te ~cn~ ba~ j~n, p~t to ~y apph~bJc approv~ I~al waterfront tevi~tion pr~r~, ~ ~ons of I~ or ~hic~ is ~i~on~ by ~c~ ~en~ pu~u~t m ~er ~cludin~ reviews conducted under ~e ~te ~ ~o~en~ qu~ty ~ 4 IniN. l renew of a~om. As ~rly ~ ~ble ~ a ~te ~en- Rvicw act ("SEOR"), (Environmen~l Conservtoon ~w, ~cN 8). ~'~ fo~ulauon of ~ acdon it pro. scs to undone, or A~ordingly, ~ comph~ce wi~ ~le 42. ~is P~ ~ a t~te ~ency r~ivcs ~ appli~oon /or a [~di~ or appro~ at,on, [r~ework w~ic~ ~ com~dble wit~ ~d ca~ble of ~aNon wit~ a ~gl detc~e whether ~e ac~on is I~t~ ~t~ ~e ~ ~. Fo~ t~te ~ency's ~iting ~v~ew r~po~biNti~ ~der SE~R (NYC~, Ti- pu~ of ~8 P~. p~ni~ or mlemaki~ a~on~ wb~cb M[~t ~d de 5, Pan 6 J 7). or wat~ m ~e c~l ~ ~gl ~ d~m~ m ~ I~ ~.: ~[initions. (a) "A c6ons" m~n eider T~ I or unlist~ ac. ~c it ~ dete~in~ ~at ~c ac~n ~ I~t~ wi~in the ~n~ as ~[ined in SEQR FNYCRR. Tide 6, P~r ~lY.2). ~ ~ t~te ~ency ~1 follow ~ ~w p~u~ ~t [o~ unde~aken by state agencies: ~e te~ s~l not ~clude ~clud~ ac- dudinl t~e compleo~ o[ a ~stal ~ment [o~ (C~) ~ a [o~ bons as defined in 5EQR (NYCRR. Title 6, P~ 517.2) ot .c~ons not p~scri~ by ~e ~. The CAF ~1 ~ complet~ pNor ~bj~r to SEQR pur~uanz to toher provisions of ~e la~. ~ency's dete~i~tion of ~lnific~ pundit m ~ (NYC~R, Ti- (bi "Certifica~on "means a notice p~ ~d fil~ by a s~te ~en- ge 6, P~t 617) ~ ~t it ~ ~en supplement o~er ~[orma~on us~ by l~JI. w~ic~ notice s~aIl: I) ~n~m a s~tcment ~at ~ a ~[i~tion P~ 61 ?. If it ~ detc~in~ that ~ tenon w~l not Mve oFt~e state ~enO' and the n~e and telepbone numar of a ~n wbo ~vi~ at t~eir d~io~ ~ to ~[i~Non if ~ui~ by ~6on ~ provtdc further ~[orm.tion; 2~ brieBy s~te ~d pr~i~ly d~ Wbere ~y qu~Non on ~ ~ ~ ~swer~ ~, a bHe[ ~d p~ise ~e nature, ~tent ~d l~ation of ~e action: ~d J) bNc~y ~Mtc ~e d~n~tion of ~e oature ~d ~t~t o[ ~e ac~on ~1 ~sons sup~nm~ ~rtif~cation. ~e C~. ~d a ~py of ~e ~F fo~d~ to ~e ~; provided, ~orelands, as defined in ArNcle ~ o[ ~e Ex~utive ~*. It includes ~uons revolve [~er~ ~vie~, [~d~, or approvM. For ~e pu~ses ~tcs ~rie and Ontario, ~e St. Lawren~ ~d Niag~a Nvers, ~e Hud- of ~mpl~ ~t~ ~e ~M~ents of ~Ove ~w, A~c~ ~2, sMte ~n Hver ~ut~ of ~e f~e~al dam at Troy, t~e ~sr H~r, ~e H~I~ ~encie~ ~1 m~t ~c ~uir~ents of ~er ~ (I), ~vcr, ~e gill ~n gull and AH~ur Kill, Lon~ Isled ~und ~d ~e of t~s ~on, w~ic~ver appbt~. Atlantic ~n. and ~eir connecpng water ~ies. ~ys. ~rs, (I) Where a ~t~i~on is made p~u~t ~o NYCRg, Ti~e 6. ~lows and m~s~. Tbe s~iFic ~und~es of ~e ~ ~ ~ P~ 617 ~ar ~ acNon may ht~ a ~ifi~t eff~t ~ ~e ~v~on- ~own on ~e c~sr~ area map on File in t~e offi~ of ~e ~t~. ~ mens, ~e ~ency ~hall ~ply w~t~ ~e ~uir~ts of N~CRg, Title ~uir~ by ~Oon 914(2~ of the Ex~utive ~w. A ~py of ~e ~s~ ~, P~ 6]7, su~iv~n 617. We}. Fulfi~ sucb ~ui~m~ts con- ~ mag ~s ~n provid~ to ~¢~ sMte ~ency wi~ ju~ic6on o~r ~tutes a dete~a6on o[ ~dst~cy ~ ~ui~ by En~uNve ~, pro, rams id~tifi~ by t~e secretary punuam to ~u6vc ~w. ~ ~ 42. · : as ~a ~ing the ~tential to aff~r c~tal r~ur~ (2) W~ a ~t~inaNon ~ made ~nu~t ~o NY~A. Tide 6, glann~ ~d pro~ for ~plcmentaNo~ b)' a state ~ency. ~t ac- mens, ~d w~cre a ~te a~cncy b ~de~t~ . d~t or [~d~ ac- Oons include but ate not ~tt~ to ~pt~ proj~, p~u~ m~ ~, o~er ~ ml~aking. ~e ~te ~e~y, ,t ~e and ~licy make. ~sion on ~e tc~n, ~1 Erie ~ the ~' a ~ifictson (e) "F~dmg" m~s ~y [~ ~ug~ Wen by a ~te ~, mob ac~n will not tubs~t~ly b~der ~e ac~ent (0 "invol~ ~ency" m~n~ a s~te ~ency ~at ~ j~ by mb~daBy hind~ ~e achievers of ~)' ~cy. ~e ~w to fund, appco~ or die.dy undertake ~vea ~on. u~d ~[y ~t ~ [ollow~ four ~ui~men~ ~ ~te ~cn~. mc~ ~l~y; ~) ~e acNon ~len ~l ~e gl tdv~ e[[~ on ~) "~t~" m~s ~e ~ ornate, tucb ~im to ~e m~um ~tent pm~ble: (c) ~on. publ~ au~oHty ~ o~c~ ~ency of ~e slate, ~1~ ~y ~c ~ult ~ an ov~i~ t~onal or sut~e ~b~c ~nefit co~raoon, ~y merest o[ which ~ ap~t~ by ~e ~o~- ~f~tion ~ ~mgtute a det~a6on o; ~nststency of ~ 4pprov~ ]~ w. ter[tom ~4~on pr~ ~, ~d ~e 4c- (il ~e i~t~ble m~ificaNon of ~l~i~ f~s, ~ ~c- ~on is ~e ide~ti[~ by ~e ~ puget ~o ~n 9l~l~a) of ~on or ~ovM of ~e~on. ~c d~t~c~on ot ~ov~ o[ ~, ~n~ cl~ ~ou~ pr~urn, ~[o~aNon o~ ~e p~ ac~on lo ~e ~c quality o[ ~ M~[~ · e l~ ~ovc~meng ~d. ,~ ~e ume of makJ~ i~ ~n on ~ ,c- (~) ~r addition of s~ctu~ w~ich ~u~ of~ ot ~ ~ll would ~h ~ at,on w ~ Mken m a m~ner w~h would nm ~ur~ ~d [ac~ may ~ fury us~ by bficalion shgl constitute a detc~ination ~at ~e a~n is ~n~stenr w (3) Ac~ w ~e pubh~ly own~ ~.J C~t~ Poesies. In ev~uabn~ pro~ acgons ~st ~c ~ adjoi~ u~. Such ~ds ~1 ~ ~ ~ pubbc o~p. followi~ ~licies. stste ~encirs ~ s~ongl)' mcour~ w ~n~dg[ (~ R~r~gon (~) Faci~re the si~i~ of water de~ndent u~ ~d fa~'~ on ot ~st ~ ~ pro~d~ by new or (3) Encour~e ~hv developmcn~ of ~e S~rv's ~is~ m~or ~ b~ ~velopm~. ~cludin$ tbose under thc juri~ic~o~ of S~c pubb~ authod~s of ~d ~nal u~ i~ .pprop~te ~ I~ht ~stal ·rea map. shall ~ prot~red, pre~. ~d. whir p~cg~, Or) ~e fl~-pt~[~ of b~l~s or ~.s by mcr~sm~ ac~s w exisrin$ r~u~es, supplemend~ ~s~ ~nffi~ly m~crferc wi~ ~c narurg ~s~ pr~s which supply wildlife ~d ~Ht habitats, incr~e ~ofeline erosion or ~. ~ ~- (~) A~ ~d do~opm~t. ~lu~ ~e ~c~n or ~a~ Io~ or ~em would adver~ly af[~t ~e ~b~ity of ~ a I~n wi~m or a~ac~ ~o ~ ~n b~d ~ ~o ~ able th) #fat~ n'~ourcm po§c~es. ' Dgl~rt~e~t of waterfront ~evit~tion Pr~r~ ~ill ~ coa~d~ ~ d~d~; however. ~o~ water~ ~d)' overburd~ ~ c~u ~dvg ~w, A~cle 42. ~e unr~nab~y ~h I~ ~e ~e of ~e ~s~ ~ ~ of ~ ~110ve~t waterf~nt (3) ~st m~ement p~c~ will ~ u~ to ~u~ ~e mn~l o[ dud~: fan. water ~noff ~d combm~ ~wer o~rflo~s ~ mtn ~ (I) ~u~ ~u~eau for (5) ~st man~ement p~cbccs will ~ u~ to mlnim~c ~e non- ~1.2 Submi~oo oF [OWRP. (a) E~ ~bmi~n oF a LGWRP ~t~ waters. For appro~, must ~ ~ts o/~e Smte ~d oF its cit~ens, pro~ mgo~ ~ ~ ~e more ~ Sove~ents ~ ~a~y Jubmit~ ~ LGWRP, ~) Putsuut to ~e N~ Yori Oty ~r, · r appropriate ~y, ~1 approw ~e New York O'ty Pr~ ~[orc ir is d~mrd complete ~d eh~ible for ~w. (c) ~ch ~ G WRP ~1 include, For pu~ of a wmplet~ submis. Part 617 Amendments ~l.; C~te~a. I~ o~er to approw a ~ubmitt~ LGWRP m ~'ble l) Releaser d~finidon ir~s tO, ~), ~c. of ~617.2 (o ~ ~), ~), mc., Iovcmments ~tini ~provg; ~d add l Dew i~ (O lo r~d ~ follows: wi~ ~e ~bci~ of ~ 42 of 5) Renum~r ~617.1~]0~12) Lo ~ (I I~l~) ~d ~d I ~ i~ ~ iu Mcn~m ~ gv~ to (]0) m r~d ~ foUows: actions ~d f d~u~ion oF ~e eff~u oF ~e pto~ aC~A ~ ~ ~1.6 (a) ~e ~e~ ~ ~i~ly ~e~ ~e adm~A ~tate gursoant to ~on Pl~l~a) o[ ~e ~u6~ ~, ~e ~[~- ~) ~e ~re~ ~, after ~t~en ~o~ to 9/~ ~ m~on oF ~1 ~nc[i~ a~ming under ~n 916 oF the En~utivc NPW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC. N E '~' S U F F O L K, N. ¥' RECEIVED ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BEC 1 5 Town CI--~ e ..... .~. Dear Neighbor: The environmental consultant for blarine Associates, Inc. has filed 3 pages which purport to be a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Town of Southold has advertised for comment with respect to this statement, which is due December 20, 1983. A copy is on file in the Town Clerk's office and there are a number of copies available to inspect in und about New Suffolk if you would like to make comment to the Town Board. Of course the Association intends to file its own We were delighted with the turnout at the environmental hearing although some of us were reluctant to speak. When the next zoning hearing takes place, don't permit yourself to be intimidated as the Board is seeking our views. The audience conducted itself with diRnity at the hearing, although counsel for Harine Associates attempted to characterize us otherwise for the sake of the record. The Town Board was certainly not taken in by this tactic. We will keep you advised as to developments and take this opportunity to wish you all happy holidays and a healthy, prosperous, and condominium-free New Year. The New Suffolk Civic Association RECEIVED DEC 1 5 1983 5 Decelnb~r, 1983 Tewn Cl,-~, ~,,..,a-,.l~l New ~;LI f Fu 1 k , N. ¥ . ! ] 956 Hs ,Judith Terr5 lawr~ [] ierk TI,ws Ilo) 1 SOLIt hold, N.~. 11971 Dt.a[' f.ls I~'[ [}: Slmce the three-page Floal ~nvi:o~m~otai impact way From khe droll sta~emenk filed earlier, m) Feelings [hoe [he proposed de~elopn',enk w~uld be a disaster for New Suffolk are un- char~oed . [ remain convtnced khat thak ik weald damage our wake'r stJpp[~ pt~['manpntl~ . [[ wouJd deprz~e us of a ~iable local busJDPSS permanenkly . [k would take away a piece of waterfront foreve['. IL would erase all traces of an historic site, the old siH~mar[ne base~ permanently. I~ would incceasc flood and traFFic pr~H]lemsl pprlnan,'rl~ ly. Jl would er~cutJraqe o~her ~;m~h de~elopmerl[g, ar,d ulL[rnalL, l> i'h{lllgJ) Ibc ctlil['iigJp[' el Otll' hamleL L'OIIIpIP[(~I}. Ihe Loss; would De ~r'reparable... arid all Lu sat isf5 tfm greed of Harine Asaociates' shareholde['s none of whom ~s a local reszden~. [ hop[. Ill;,I Ih,' lcJwn [h~;ird wi] J il() all il cai, Ir) diutt~ul;]tp [hl'.s al[~a(l~ /h~,rm~clh[~ (J~aee'edlletJ de~plO[)lnerll. RECEIVED DEC 1 5 '1983 5 December, 1983 Town Clerk Soutke!~ New Suffc~lk, N.'I'. 11956 I.l.'i Judith [er'r} Tovm Hall 5;otJI I,ulrJ, N.~r. 11971 I)r ~,r I-I,; Since the three-page Final er,~ironmen~al impact 5iraft~rr, Pr,[ ,jusl fi]ed h} Marine As[;t~cia[PS differs in t~;Jy from Lht~ dral{ staken,e,~[ fi~ed earlier, m} reelings khak khe proposed de~elopmer, L v~buld be a disaster For New SuFFolk ace un- chahged. [ ['pma~n conair,ced [ha[ thaL ~k ~.~ould dan]age our ~va[e'r suppl> permaner]tl}. It would deprive us of a ~iable local buo~noss pel'u, ar,ent 1) . 11 ~,~ould take []via) a piece of tvalerFponk [(~r~ep_ Il tv,~uld prasr all I rob'es ~f [,~ hiuko['~c s[[e, ~l~e old sul:)ma[']he base, permaner~kl} . i~ tvou~d increase flood and fraFFie problems pe['ma[~eh[15 . Ct. v~ouJd encou['age okher such de~elop[nenis, ar,d u]L in,ate]) change fhu eharactp[' oF our I~a~nlp[ comple[ely, lhe lugs wt]ttld D,' i['[epacable.., a~,d ali Co sakisf) the greed of Marine Associates' sharcholde['b none of whom is a local pesiclen[ . l hwp,, ~hof Lhe lov~n Bo~rd t.~tli do all il can ko discouratle [h~ attend) Lhoroughly d~scredited development . Sincepel), ),ours, RECEIVED 1 5 · 5 D~c~mber~ 1~'83 '[own Clerk Southold New So£Folk, N.Y. 11956 Ns Judith Terry [sun To¥,'r. fir, 1 ] 5outhold, N.Y, 11971 Dear Hs it. try: Stnee thc hree-p[ige [ inaJ environmcnl a! . way From the drafL st[mie'm['n[ fiJed ea:-JJe~, rny FecJJrmt~5 that the proposed deve]opme~,t w~utd be a disester For ~]e~¢ 5tmFFolk are on- changed. ] ~'emain convinced that that J t ~ouJd damage our wate'r supply purmur:en[ly. [[ ',vouJd deprive us of a ~table local business p[:rmanenf]y, l~ ,,~ou]d take a~v~y a piece of' ~aLerFront Forever. It. t.¢auld 6,[ase al] [['r]cr]s oF an ,historic sitc. tho old problems pernmnrn'nt i~ _ [~ w~n~d ~,n[-rmurdot: r~/her nHeh lOSS would Df' trL'ri[J,';II~Jt:... [~rmd bil lu ~;/,[J~;l-} [he grec-d df' Assoc!ate~' sharetmoidcrs none of' wt)or,] [s a local resident. I hop[' theft thc [or, ri B~¢:~rd ~..'~]] do ail ~! can dl~.[,L~.m~ t. his 3l[e3dy thoroughJy discveai[ud dev[~lop,n,'nt Sincerely yours,, RECEIVED 5 1983 b Dc, cumhl.r, !98 ~ [own Clerk gouFhold New Suf[utk, N.Y. 11~6 I rJwrl ('Jerk I LIWrl Ila I t hi~i~thu]d, N.Y. 11~)7l Or.ut r.l~ %~nce thu Lhree-page F~rla] en~Fonmen~a~ ~t ;~( C'III~'H[ .JuuL I J ] L'd b~ H~I'II)L= A~SO(~J a[~.~ cl~ ~ ['~s lr~ rio e~s~l[ 1al L'h ~Jr,tJ? d - SLJLJIrI~J[ the buse, tat~l'lliaril~rlL 1).. [[ wouJd ~ncrease Flood ~r,d prul, l,.m% pr['r,a~,,.r~Lt). [I wuuJd Priouul'a~je othP[' %LdCh lLJhb VlLJUJd IJf' ~['(.p;JrabJu... ;JHd air to ual tu[~ tl~u g~'~t,d dtscuu[';~ge this aJreud~ [hu['oughty dzscredJ[ed development. ,4~A//-'/'-/-'.,c ~ y//4'. /'rE r £ RECEIVED OEC 1 5 1983 5 December, 198t Town Clerk Southold New SufFolk, N.Y. 11956 Ms 3udith ferry fown Clerk Fown Hali Southoid, N.Y. llg?l Dear Ms Terry: Since the three-page Final environmental impact staCement just filled b) Harine Associates d[f'rers Jn no essen[~a~ ~va~ From ~he drar~ sLaLemen[ f'~ed ear,Jet, my FeeZZngs thai [he proposed deve]opmen[ w'ou]d be a disaster for Nex SuFFolk are un- changed. I remain convinced that that it would damage our wafe:r supp]y permanently. If wou]d deprive us of a tiable local hus~rless perll~an~,r~Lly. Ii wuuJd Lake away a piece oF wa[erFron[ Forevwr, II would erase all Lraces oF an his[otto si[e, [he mid submarine base, perm~nenkly. It would increase Flood and traffic prmb]emG permanently. Ik would encourage other ~uch de~eiopments, ond ultimately change [he charaetee oF our hamIet eompIe~oly. The lo~s w~uld be ~rreparable... and ail to satisfy [he greed of Marine As~ociateG' shareholders none oF whom is m loeb] ee~ident. I hope that ~he lown Boaed will do all it can to di~cmurage this aire~dy thoroughly di~ceedited development. SlneeFely yours, RECEIVED gEC151983 r, New 5ur£o]k, N.~. ]]956 Town Clerk Soufhold his .),JCl i I' h Jowrl lawn I1~]] SoutheJd, N.~ . proposed deveJopme[~L wbu]d be 8 d]snsi, er J'aF New SL~FFOtk are un- wa~e'~ supply purmaneo[ly. ~L busJne~s permam~n~]> _ ~ wo~]~d Eakc- ;r...a~ a piece oF wa~el'Fron[ Fox,ever. [~ would e~'asc ali 3dbmar]m. base, pe~[ri,,ner~Ll~ . LL ~.,o,Jld JnL'['i?Sfie Fle~od ;~r,d traffic Jr~ss wr][Jtd be' Jl[rpurabJl,... tiled 311 Lu RECEIVED OEC15'Lq83 5 19U: [own ClerN 5outhol,:i r,l., ,JtJdilh [err) I or, ri Clerk 5u~Lhold, N.~ . J1971 Since the khree-page final er, vironme~tal ~mpaek ,t~kr'm~nk ,j~sl ri]{~cl b> Flarine Associates diFFers in no essenkial way from the draft aLa~emer~l fi.ted ear] ier, m} Fee] ings [hat the proposed dexeloprnen[ wUuld be a cl~s;]sker for New Suffolk are un- changed . I remain con~,inoed khaE [hal rE v~ou[d damage our v~a[e'r suppl) p~'rmanenkL). IL would deprive us oF a L~able local business ppr,,ar-,en~l) . lE would take axa~ a ptece oF ~vaEerFron[ Fore,pr. I[ would erase all [races oF an hLskoric si[e. the old suhm[~rir~, base, p(~rn,anen[l5. i[ woold increase ftuod and [raFFle [LiG[; v~tJuld b~: tiE'epa[able.., ar,d all tu swL~sr5 [hu greed oF HarJne d~:,r,,,tJJ'r.,j~, Ibis; alrf, r.rJy Ihor'tJuqhI5 d~se['~.cl~l~'d d¢.vt, lol~rn,,r,[ _ 75 Seco~ Street New $~ffolk, N.Y. 11956 RECEIVED DECt51f183 ~ December, 1983 Town Clerk Southold New Suffolk, N.¥, 11956 r,h; .lucltth ferry I uv;rt CLerk SouLhold, N.Y. [J97~ De~r Ids lorry: Sznce the ~hrec-page Final envJronmen~a} Jmpac~ 5L;~t~,mcnL just filed by Marine Assoczates d~ffers in ua essenl~al way from the draft statement f~led earlier, my feelings that the proposed development ~v~uld be a disaster for New Suffolk are un- changed. I remain convinced that ~hat it uould damage our wa[u'r supply per~nan~n~Jy. IL would deprive us of a v~able local business permanently. [t would take away a piece of waterfront forever. It wou~d erase a]l traces of an hzstorie site, the old ~uhrn;Jrtne base, pu['maner~tiy. [t would increase Flood and traffic problems permanent [y. [t NOlJld pncouFsge n~her such developments, and oil trna[ely change the character o~ our hamlet completely. iu[;s would be ~rrupacablc... u~d a[[ tu satisfiy Lhe greud of Marine Associates' sha['ehoJders none o¢ whom is a local resident. [ hope [b~ [he [own Board will do ali il can dinco{~rage th~s ;~lr,'~]dy thorauqhly discreditl, d d~,w'lopmcnt. SLncerely yours, Neu b-k~_f'o].lc, N.~. 11956 RECEIVED 0EC 1 5 1983 5 December, I983 Town Clerk Soufhold New SuFIwlk, N.~. 11956 [.1!; Jud~l h [el'v5 I wv/ri lS~erk godLl~o~d, N.~ . ~97~ :,lalr,rneul ju~l filed by r4aL-~nu As:~oc~ult,~ d~l'iu'~-u ~n nu w~) From ~he de'aF~ s~arement ff~]od earl~eP, m) Foe~n~ Eha~ Lhe proposed deveJopment w~dLd be a disagLor for New Suf'Fo~k are ehan~ed. ] remain convinced ~haL Lha~ JL wou~d damage ouP v, ute'r supply [)ul'll/alm('r/tly. l[ would dept'ive un u[ a ~[ablp lt~cal busiuess perman~nkly_ lk would take away a piece oF fot'evev. [t wt.,old erase ail traces of an historic sikr, [he old Associates' sl~areholdel's none of whom is a local ['esiden[. [ hr,p,' Ih;,I [h~~ [own Buard wi II du al I Il can RECEIVED 5'1983 New Su/Folk, K'.'r'. Town Clerk Saufholct Ms Judith Terry To'4rl JlaJ ] 5guthoJd, fq.Y. !!97L Dc:ar ~',~ fr. rvy: Since [he ~hree-F,.-',g,, final :,nvJronmenta! statemco[ ju~L Fllud L,y Nat'ine As~oc;aLe:; diFf'e~a irt un essential . t..,ay From the draf'k a~atemenL Fi]ed earlier, my FeeiinU.-~ [ha~ proposed development Ytbuld be ~ disacker For Ne~t 5u/Folk are chanflt.J. i remain convinc~'d khaL ~hak iL would damage our waker supply permanenLly. I~ wuuld deprive us oF a vzahle local bdsir, ess permonr, ntLy. It ,.,auld take av~,qy a pipce of ~,.att:rfcor, L forever', lb ~ould erase all L,'aces of an :~istoric site, bhe old submarine base. permanen[ly. IL ;~oulO incrcasc Flood and tr'afF~c problems ~,er~Olq?n[ Jy. If WJltJJd prjer;tll'aq¢ tlJJlf'r r;tlPJl devf,];lpflieptc;, Associates' shareholders no~3 :,.:' ~vho,n is a local restdenk. I hope [hr~t the Ir:~.m Board v;ill do at! i! can disc~,ura~c [his already thorouq,,ly .l!:,crrdib~d dcvelopmefl[. · Sincerely yours, [ FC 1 5 ) December, l'ownClerk Soufhold New Su£FrJIk, N.Y. 11956 ,-1~ .]~dilk Terry T(~wn liq] I 5irlc[' the tl')r~?,~ p~,je lirl'~J c'r'.',iro~un~nlol irm,pac~ ~L~Lcnm['rmL ju[,L ;-Lied ,J) fi,i[ ~r~[, .... [ I I cJirfel'~ iFI rl[J e~serm[ial p['OF, Osed de,,e!c~pnmnt w~mj}d ~L? ~ .lic[.s~-c, l' liar ,,u~¥~' Suffolk are un- changccl. ~ fe~I~[iir~ COI~Jr, L'C,:] th'~t /:ha[ ~b would damage our FoFe.~e[ . It would e:'ase ~,i1 L['a,'es uf Flrl 191'3~0TIC S~e, the old suh:rmElI JFm/. ];,'~S~', p,i'Fil]~lf,~'r~I !). [I '.,,,,:id ~-]c[',~e t~u~d ar,d N~IN NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC. Box 311, SoufhoJd, New Yorl~ 11971 C RECEIVED Mrs Judy Terry Re: ~Iarzne Associates /'own Clerk DEC 1 4 Town Hall ~outhold~ ?1.¥.11971 December 14~ 1983 Town Clerk Saufho~al Dear ~[rs Terry: The FEIS prepared By ~!arine Associates is incomplete and unacceptable, n fe[~' et our cuestions ,~re: 1. %~here are the studies to sinew what effec~ the effluent from the proposed reverse osmosis system would have on the surrounding waters or on reinjecti[[g the e~fluent into the gro[~ndwgter? 2. }{ow does the ~ewn Engineer come to ~he conclusion there would be no flooding on the site? 3. %~here does the F~I~ discuss the impact of removing 25 boat slips form public use? We ~ould suggest %he property be cleaned up environraentally and be used as a marina -- a use for which it was intended. We urge the Town ~oard to deny this applica~ ion. ~ ' Sincerely ~ ~',uth Olivet President RECEIVED DEC 1 4 1983 Town Clerk S,~utho[d 5 December, ].98.~ New SuffoJk, N.Y. 1].956 r,lm 3LIdith Terr~, I~wn [;Jerk l¢~wn tlalI t~uulhold, N.Y. 11V71 Dr'al' [.ir, S[nce the three-page Final environmental ~nipac~ ~;EaEemPnb josf Fi[ed by Marine Associates differs Jn no wa~ from the draft s[a[(~men[ Flied earlier, m) feelings bha[ the p['apoued de~elapnierlt wbuld be a disaster [or New SuF['olk are Lin- changed. ~ remain convinced ~ha~ thak ~k would damage our wasn't supp[~ permanently. ~ would dep~iYe us oF a ~able local business permanen~lt , It would kake a~ay a piece al wa~e~Fronk For-vet. I~ would e~ase all I races of an historic sil~', the ~uhmarirle base. pe~manenlly. ~ wou[d ~nepease flaad and problems permanently. It woold encourage o[her such deYelopmenEs, and ult~maLely change the charaeLer of our hamlet completely, the Foss would be ]rreparab[e... and afl [u sa~sfy ~he greed of' [,larine Associates' shareholders none of whom is a local reslden~. I hope ~ha~ ~he Iown Board will do all i[ can d~scourage thzs alread~ ~horoughly d~scredi~ed development. SJrlce['el~ RECEIVED JOHN DEC 1 4 lg83 Iown Hall Suulhold, N.Y. 11971 [)P;~j' 1,1,~ T~.F['% : 'Jlr~ce Lhe Ihl'~,e-lJoge [il]8,1 enviror, mental statement .ju~l fi]ed b} l'larine Assoeia[es differs in no essential ~.l:~ I~m~ ~h~. d[~ll uJ;iJlllli,llJ l~led Parlier, lily [eelings Lhat the proposed developme.[ wbu/d he' a dLsaske~ Io~ New SufFolk are un- ohaoged. I [em~lJ~ cure,ii,L-ed LhaJ [ha[ k~ would damage our ua[/r suppJy permangn~l). I~ ~,~.uld dep¢ive .s of a viable local SLibmarJnd base, pPrrnanPnll). It WOLJld Lnel'ease Flood and ~rarrfc problems pv['maoer]tl) . i[ would encourage ot:he~ such developments, arid ulf irna[('ly chnnqe the cha['actr, r oF our hamlef completely. I<~u~ ~.¢L~uld bE. ~['['op;~[abte... arid ail Lo s4~[[s¢y [he greed of' Narine [ hopr Lha[ lho fo~./n Board w[]l do all if can bo cltscuur;)gc, fhJs attend) [horough]y discredt~ed deveLopmenL. RECEIVED Deu-onl~,~', Tow. P'~rk Rou"~olfl Ns Judith Terry [,JWn L'le~ k Town Ilnl] fioutholfi, I'...~. I]971 ~c. ar M~ lc'try: Sirlc:e lhe thl'ee-pacfle I :.na] en~ i~srlm::nt :~] . way F~om tile drafL staleme:nt filed ca:lief, my feeliiig=: ti,at proposed deve]oplnenL wI)uJd be a disa~e~ f'o~ Ne;.I Suffolk ale un- changc'd. I ~emain cormvJneed th~L LhaL i E uould damaqo ouF wsLe'r supply permanunLiy. ~[ woul::l deprive us of a v~ahle business permanenLly. It qc,Jld take ~]~,ay a piece oF Focever. IL would erase ali ti'aces of an historic site, ti~e submarine base, permanentl) . [[ would inccesme Flood and probit'ms p~rman,~nl ]y. T~ w~uLd r'ncn,Jraq,' *,1 h['r ::heh Joss would b~ ir'cci)ut'able... :mad ail lo C;dLi~Fy thc g['t',_:d ul AssociaLes' shareho[deFs none oF ~hom is a local residen[, [ hope Lha~ Ibc lown Bo:~d ,,v~ll do ail [t carl discoul oOe Lhis alFeady [hocough~ d~scredi[c.d dc'.eiop;~mn~ . RECEIVED ,rl.~]C i ,~ '0)~ ~ Decembelr, ',.u.; Ne~' SuFf'olk, N,~ 119Y6 Tcw~ r'~'k Snu'hcld Town Hall 5oati~o!cl, N.Y. 1~9;! sLa~cmct~t: jubL i J [~'d b.. Fh~ .,,~e =~'~muc]al ~,~ ,ii tfe-s !il /ill esaent way Iron, the draf[ scaLernenL FiLed eqrlier, m',. Fe~ll~gs Lha~ the p['opo~ea de,.,e!opmepl ~.l~J.Ji~l ~:? a d.i~;asLe~ fei' New SulFoll< are ChaFl[je d. ~ ['P[Ii3JFi EDIi¥ ~t~c~d Lhat Eha[ ib would dalnaOe our waL-e'F supply permar,eor:}, ii wuuld d,~pr.;,u ua of a viable local foreYer. IL ,,u,,ld ecase ail L~ares .J; an hzstoric sito, the old SJr,ccrely yuurs. RECEIVED ~, I 3 ig3L1 Ms; .Judith T~wn I-IrJ J l Soulhol. d, r,,.Y. 1!97J ~.1 rice L~l~~ [ h ['(?1- - D~t~]O ,~ I ~q ,J '~ s, nvLronmcn[ a] way from fh~ draft statement f~]ed earlXer, rs) feelings kbat the proposed development t~buld b;~ a disaster for New Suffolk are changed. I remain convinced that that it would damage our w~te'r supply perr,~anently, it would deprive us of a xzable local business permanent1} . It would take away a piece of waterfront fore~cr. It would erase all Ltaces c~f En historic site, the old [:ubn~ar~r~e base, permaneuL]y. Ik u/~uld ~ncrvase flood and ~r~d ull~malpJ~ chafeD(, lh~. L'I~aI'~,(:L~,p of ~;L~ hHri~[~t c'.]nl[)l~'le~)', [e~i~ ;.IUU~[i hr, ~['[oparcJblt.... ~;id ~[J Lc ~aLio[y LIi~ grucd L) J J.hJri~e Associates' sbareholdet'~: Dune oF whom Js n local discourage Lhiu attend5 tborr,uui~ly diat'redttpd devulof,ment . RECEIVED DFC 1 $1983 5 December, 198} New SuFFolk, N.Y. 11956 I~wr~ Towrl Hail SouLHuld, N.Y. 11971 Sit,ce the th~ee-pa~e Final envi~nmen~a] impacE sE;~ement ~usE F~led b~ Ma~ne Associates d~FFe~s in no essenLia~ wa) F['~m ~he d['aF~ ~aEemerlE Flied eaF~e~, my Feelings Eha~ Lhe p~(]posed developmenE wbuld be ~ disasEer ~o~ New SuFfolk a~e un- chan~ed . ~ Ferna~n con~i~crd EhaL Lhat ~L would damage ou~ waLe¥ supply permanently. ~[ would deprive us oF a v~able ~ca] bu~ness perrnanenEly. ~L would ~ake ~way a p~ece ~F wa~eFF~on~ Forever. ~E would e~ase ail E]'a~es uF an hJ~E~'[e ~s~Ee, ~he old ~ubma~ne base, peFmaner,~ly. ~E w~uld increase F]o~d and E~afFic p~cJblems pe['manenEl~ . ~ would encou~'a~e o~he~ such developments~ and u[~maEel), chanoe Lhe cha~acte~ oF ou~ ham]e~ completely. The lures w~uld be ~r['epa~abJe... and all Lo ~a~sFy Ehe ~eed oF Na~ne Ass;ociaEes' ~ha['eholde['s none oF whom ~s a local ~esident. [ hope ~ha~ Ehe ]own Boa~d w~l~ do al~ ~E can d~s;cuu~a~e Eh~s a[read) thorou{]hly diseFed~Eed deveJopmenE. RECEIVED 'DEC 1 3 1983 5 Dec~:'nlber. 198~ Tow, II',.rk Sn,~t"~old New Suf F(,] k, N. '~ . t 1956 1.1~ JudLth lu['r'~ I i,wrl I~sJ] tJcJU[l~olcl, N.'~ _ IIVTl Des[' l.ls lr'l'l'y: !Since the three-page final environmental impact statement just Filed by i'larJne gssocLat~s differs in no esse~LLal way from the drar~ s~atemenk flied earlier, my feelings that the propused dexe[opment wBuld be a disaster For New Suffolk are un- changed. i remain convinced that tlnat ~k would damage our v~a[e'r supply permanently. It would deprive us of a ~able local bos~hess permanenkls. II would take array a piece of wakerfron[ forever. It would erase a~[ traces of an b~skoric sitn, the old submarine base, permanently. It would ~ncrease flood and traffic problems permanentls. It would encourage other such dexelupments, and uttimately change the character of our hamlet c~mpl~tely. Ihe loss wuuld be ~rreparable... and all ko satisfy kine greed of Marine Assuciates' ~hareholdecu none of [~hom ~s a local resident. I hope Lh~[ the fovCn Board will do all Lt dLseuurage bh~ atread5 thoroughly discredited development. Sincerely yours, RECEIVED OEC 131983 s December,19~ New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Tow. Cte~ r,l~ ,Jtld~Lh It-try Town Clerk Suutho~d, N.Y. Dear Hs ler~y: 51rlce khe three-page final environmental impact skaLement jua~ filed by Narine Associates differs in no essential way from [he draft staLemenL filed earlier, ay Feelings that Lhe proposed development wbuld be a disaster fo~ New Suffolk are un- changed. I remain convinced thak [hat zt would damage our ~ate:r supply permanently. It ,auld deprive us of a viable local business permanen~l}. [t would kake away a pzece of water~ron~ fo['ev~,r_ II would erase all [races uF an historic site, ti~e old submarine base, permanently. IE would increase flood and ~raFFic problems permanently. It would encourage other such de~.elopmen[s, arid ul[imalel~ change the characler of our hamleL completely. toss would be irreparable.., and all [o satisfy [he greed of Harine Associates' shareholders none of whom is a local I hope tha~ ~he Iown Board w~ll do all it can discourage ~his already thoroughly discredited development. RECEIVED 1 2 5 December, 1983 TownCle:~S,~:~hol,~ New SuFFolk, N.~. 11956 Hs JudiLh lerr~ rown HaL~ ~t~Lll hold, N.~ . 1197l Dear J-la [err'~: S~nce ~he three-page Final environmental impact s~a[ement jus~ Filed b) Harir, e Assoc,ates diFFers in no essential way From the dra['L statement tlled earlier, m~ £eelings that the proposed development wbuld be a disaster For New SuFFolk ace un- changed. ~ ['ema~n convinced ~hat LhaL it would damage ou~ waLe:r supply permanently. It would deprive us oF a viable Jura! business permanently. [L would take away a plece oF waterfront Fore,er. It would erase all traces or an h~s~oric site, the old submarine base, permanently. [l would increase FlooO and traffic problems permanently. It would encourage other such developments, and ultimately change the character of our' hamlet completely, lhe loss would be ~rreparable... and ali to satisfy the greed oF Marine Associa[es' shareholders none oF whom is a local resident. I hope that the lown Board will do discourage th~s alread) thoroughly d~scrediEed development. Sincerely , yours, RECEIVED 1 2 b, Oecemb,:'r, 1983 Town CI,n-~' %~?;~'o'"'J Ne~' Su, foJ ', N Y J'ls 3ud~fh rnrr~, I o~.~n Town Itsl! Southoid, N.Y. 1]971 S1Doe ~be [ hF~'-~g¢ FLail onv iPoJirH,'ri~3 ] s[atemcr, L j~JaL ~J]~d b~ MarJr,e AssoczoLcs d~FF~rs tn no essential way from [he draft s~aLemer-,t filed ear~Jer, my F.~e].l,~gs Lha~ the proposed deve/opmenE ~vbu]d be a d}sas~er For Nov/ SuFFoll< are chant]ed. [ remain cwnvil~ced tb~,L fh~ff J E v~ou]d damage wale'[ supply permanenL]~. It wod]d deprive us of a vlable Forever. IL would erase ali Lraces of an b~s~orLc si[e, Lhe old StftJ[!!~l/ ir,e base, pevll~arletll iv. It would increase ~lood ar,d ariJJ tJlL/lll;JJl~ly []ll;silijl, Jl,~, ChLll';Jtil"l' or' LIL/I' i,~lmJ['l Com/)J~ll'ly, [ho Asso~iahec' sha['ehoJdL, t's [.cr,~ o; ,vhom ~s a /uca~ res~deqL. ] hup~' Lba~ Lb~· lown Buard ,,~lJ [ do ail iL can to RECEIVED DE£: 1 2 1983 5 December, 1983 Town Clerk $oulhold New Suffolk, N.Y. ]1956 rqs Judith lerr5 T~iv~r, C]crk lawn Hall SoaLhald, N.~ . 11971 Dear r.ls ferr): Since thc' three-page Final environmental impact statemenb just Filed by FlarJne Associates differs in no essential wa~ f~'or[, khe draft statemcr,t filed earlier, rny feelings that the proposeO development wDuld bt~ a dZsaster For New Suffolk nrc changed. ~ ~emain convincud LhaL tha~ i~ wuuld damage wate:~ suRp]y pez~nanent]~. It would dep~ve us oF a viable business pe~manen~l) . [[ v~u~ld take away a p~ece of waterF~onl fareve['. It WC~Llld erase all traces r~F arl historic si/t~, the old submarine base, permanentl). It would increase Flood and traffic problems permanently. [t would encourage other such developments, ar,d ultimately change the character of our hamlet completely. loss would be irreparable.., and all tu satisF~ the greed of AssociaLes' shareholders none of whom is a local resident. I hope that the Town Board will do all ik can discourage th~s already ~horoughly discredited development. OFFIC )RNEY ROBER[ W. TASKER ,D TELEPHONE fo~m Attorne2, (516) 47%1400 RECEIVED 425 MAIN ST. DEl:: 9 GREENPORT, L.I., NEW YORK l1944December 8, 1983 Town CJerL' %:Jf~o~o Hon. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Marine Associates - Final Environmental Impact Statement Dear Judy: You have asked for my opinion with respect to the action which the Town Board must take relative to the final environmental impact statement of Marine Associates. The Town Board must make either one or two determinations. (a) It can determine that the action, if carried out, will not have a significant effect upon the environment, or (b) that the same may have a significant effect upon the environment. If it is determined that the same will not have a significant effect upon the environment, then the Town Board may proceed with the change of zone application. If, on the other hand, the Town Board decides that such action may have a significant effect upon the environment, then it is required to make the following findings in a written determination: (1) Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations of State policy, from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum exte. L possible, including the effects disclosed in the relevant environmental impact statement, and (2) Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations of State policy, all practicable means will be taken in carring out or approving the action to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects. (617.8 State Environmental Quality Review, Rules and Regulations) For your information and the information of the Board, I am enclosing herewith a copy of 617.8 and 617.9 of the Rules and Regulations. Yours very truly, ROBERT W. TASKER RWT: aa enc. 9B ;t7 RULES .~N[. REOUL~?IOm~ Form 434.P fleet a revision and ~qldating of the matters contained in the draft environmental impact statement in the light of further agency review, comments received and the record of aoy hearing. (i) Copies of the final environ~nental impact statement shall be filed nod made available for review in the same Inanner as the draft environmental impact statement A notice of comple- ti,m of the final environmental impact statement shall be sent h~ all persons ~o whom the notice of completion of the draft envir~onnental impact statemeot was sent. Each agency shall maintain a file open to public inspection of notices of comple- tion and draft and final environmental impact statements it has requested or prepared. 617.8 Decision making. (a) No decision to carry ont or approve an action which may have a significant effect on the environment shall be made nnti[ after the filing and consideration of a final envi- ronmental impact statement. The lead agency's decision whether or not to approve an action which has been the sub- ject of an EIS shall be made within 30 calendar days of the filing of a filial EIS_ (b) When an agency decides to carry out or approve an ac- tion which may have a significant effect on the en~4ronment, it shall make the following findings in a written determina- tion: (1) consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations of state policy, from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or ap- proved is one which ~nini~nizes or avoids adverse environ- mental effects to the maxilnum extent possible, including the effects disclosed ill the relevant environmental impact statement, and (2) consistent with social economic and other essential considerations of state policy, all practicable ~neans will be taken in carrying out or approving the action to mini- mize or avoid adverse enviromnental effects. (c) For public information porposes, a copy of the deferral- Form 434.P ENVlnONMF. I~T.~ QUALITY [rEViEW 9B-38 nation shall Im tiled immediately in the same manner as the draft t,liviri,llllielltal impact slaielllelll. Each agency shall maintain a file open to public inspection of notices of determi- nations prepared by it. 6~7.9 Criteria for determining what a~tiona may have a sig- nificant effect on ~e environment. An action may i~ave sigmficant effect on the dnvironment if it Call reas,,nably be expeeled to lead to one of the following (a~) a substantial adverse change to ambient air or water quality ,,v n,,ise levels or in solid waste production, drainage, erosion t,r fl*,,,ding. Example: Reactivation of a heavy manufacturing th) the removal of or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, the substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife s~- ties, impacts on critical habitat areas, or the substantial af- fecting of a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of such a species_ Example: clearcutting of a forested mountainside. (c) the encouraging or attracting of a large numar of peo- ple to a place or places for more than a few days relative to the numar of people who would co,ne to such place absent the action. Exalnple: acquisition of a large private lake for use as poblic park. (d) the creation of a material conflict with a community's existing plans or goals as officially approved or adopted_ Example: construction of a jail m an area zoned by the local municipality for single family residential use. te] the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, areheological, arehiteet,,ral or aestlmtic resources or of existing eom~nunity or neighborhood character. Example: demolition of a historical landmark listed in 9[;-;19 Rvl,~s .AN], [I~aOL*?IONS Form 41}4.I) the ,qtatewide luventory of Historical and Cultural Re- (f) a major change in ti~e use of either the quantity or D'pe of energy. Example: an agency deeision to centrally air condition all its existing public buildiugs. (g) the creation of a hazard to hmnan health or safety. Example: manufacture or disposal by an agency of toxic substances. (h) a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use of land or other natural resources or in their capacity to support exis6ng uses except where such a change has ~en included, referred to, or implicit in a broad statement prepared pursu- ant to section 617.2(d) of this Part. Example: cousrruetion of an airport_ (i) the creation of a material demand for other actions which would result iu one of the above consequences_ (j) changes in two or more elements of the environment, uo one of which is substantial, but when taken together result in a material change in the enviromnent. For the purpose of determining whether an action will cause one of the foregoing consequences, the action shall ~ deemed to include other contemporaneous or subsequent ac- tions (1) which are included in any long-range comprehensive integrated plan of which the action under consideration is a part, (2) which are likely to ~ undertaken as a result thereof or (3) which are dependent thereon. The significance of a likely consequence (i.e_, whether it is material, substantial, large, important, etc.) should M assessed in connection with its setting (i.e., urban or rural), its probability of occurring, its duration,' its irreversibility, its eontrolability, its geo- graphic scope and its magnitude (i.e., degree of change or its absolute size). Section 617.12 of this Part contains lisk~ of ac- tions which are likely to have a significant effect on the envi- rojm~ent and lists of actions which the commissioner has found not to have a significant effect on the environment. RECEIVED 9 ~, December, 1983 To,wnCl,~.~. .... . N~'v~ Su£fu k, N_~, llVb6 Mn Judith I u~vrl CJe['k TRwn Ilal ] 8outhold, N.", . 11971 De[ir I.l'.s re, ir),: ~lrlee the 'Lhree-paqe f [rial envirorlllmr]taJ ~nlparL ~-~a) From fhe draft ska[emen[ Filed ear]Jet, m) Feelings [hal [he proposed developmeR[ ~,¢buld be a disaster For Ne~v Suffolk are un- char,ged. I remain convinced [hal [hal ~[ ~vould damage our ~,¢a[e'r suppt~ permanenLly. IL wou]d deprive us ol- a ~tabte local btJstness permaneR[1). [t v¢ould Lake a~ay a pLece of ~vaterFroR( Forever. IL ~,¢outd erase all braces of an hisboric si[e, [he old sdbmarJr~e bathe, p~rmaneR[ l) . [[ ~ou]d tncreaae Flood and [raFFJc Df'Ill, Il,Ins; pecnlr) Reol [ y. [I C,ll~llld prlctI~JI'RrJI' n[ hel' ~;IlCh fJl,~elrJpmclll ~. liJf,:, ~,lrJu Icl h,. J ['PO[):]l [IUJL'... ar,d a11 L(J :;al I~if ) Lllu greed of Associa[es' shareholders Rune of ~.¢hom is a lacal resident. I hRp~' thnt [hc fo~.m Bunrd ~,¢i I ] du al [ il can dl~;CotJFq~Je [his atre~Jd~ thoruuql-,[y d [,f'rr'di[/'d RECEIVED 0£0 9 1983 5 Deeembec, 1983 To','.'', r!''''' '' '' New Suffolk, N.'~. 1[956 Hs Judith Terr> [own Clerk lown Itall Southold, N.~ . 11971 Since ~he three-paqe Final er, vironmenlal impac~ 5,1 at(-rr,,.r,L ju~;I I ilt'd b5 Mut'i.P Auuuciut ,':; clkf I~['~ lr~ r,o es~sel~t~al way fEUlll IbP dr'oft sta[enlen[ Filed earlier, m) Feelings ~hat propused development wbutd be a disasber for New Suffolk are un- chef, ged. [ remain con~ tnced I:ha[ [ha[ i[ would damage our wate'¢ supply pel'r, anenbl~. IL would deprive us of a ~ table locaJ bu~Jir,ess pet'rr, oner~tl) . I[ would [ak~ away a p~ece of waterfront fot'eve['. II would erase al~ Lcaees of an h~stocJe site, ~he old submari~,e base, pecmanenL1y. [~ would increase Flood and t~afFic and ult~ma[el~ chal,ge [he chucaefc'[' et our hamlet completely. lot;s WddJd bi irreparable.., arid alii [o sat[sf) the g['eed of Marine ~ b~d~[ I hal fh(' ~ow. []oacd wi] ] do a]I ~1 can d[bcuura,]e Lh~s a[ceod) ~ho['r~ugbly discredited develupment . Sincerely >our's, RECEIVED DEO 9 1983 5 December, ]gEt~ Town Clerk Soufhold New Suffolk, N.Y. ]1956 Hg Judith Icrc> I iJ v~'n Ulerk ]rlt, lrl /Iai l SouLhold, N.5 . 11971 Deau I.ls ]~.rr5: SJr~ce Lhe three-page f~naJ er, vironmenLal rmpact 5~kpmpriL just fi[ecl b~ r-farine Associates dLFfers in no essential way From the draft ~kakement Filed earlier, rn5 Feelings that the proposed development v~buld be a dJsasker for New Suffolk are un- changed. [ remain convinced that that it ~vould damage our ~vate'r supply permanently, fL would deprive us ~r a ~iable local business permanently. I~ would take avia) a [)ieee of waterfront Fore,er. IL ~ould erase all kraees or an historic site. khe old submarine base, permanently. [[ would increase Flood and traffic problems permar,~ntly . fL would encourage other utich dp~elopmenks, and tJltir, ately char~ge [he charauLer of our hamlet eumplek~ly. The Loss would be irreparablp.., and ull to satisfy ~he greed of blarine Associates' shareholders none of whom is a local rl"sJdenk. [ hope that the Town Board will do alt it ~an to d[s;ontJrr~tp, this flit'earl) Ihornt~hly discredited development. RECEIVED 0EC 91983 Town Cler~ Sou[hold b Decomber, 1983 New Sol f',~lk, N.~ . 11956 Pis .]udil h lorry, IowD IJ terk I,~vln lin] ] 5t~Ll[ hold, N.Y- 1971 L)Pur 1,15 lerr~, : Since ~he ~hree-pagP fi~al environmental ~fr, r)aet slaternent just filed b> Hap/ne Associates differs ~n rio essenLlal way From khe draft statement F~led earlier, my feelings that the praposed development wbuld be a d~sas~er fop New Suf'folk are un- chang~?d. i remain convinced that thak iL would damage our wa[e¥ suppl} permanently. IL wotJld deprive us of a tiable local business permanently, l~ would ~ake array a piece of waterfront f~i'ever. IL w~Juld erase all traces of an hisko~ic site, the old sub~narin~ base, pepn~anen~l>. ~ would increase flood and traffic ahH II[L~INuLel} chan~le ~he charac'Le[' ol our hamlek completely, lhe loss would be ~rrepa['able... and all Lo satLsf~ Ihe greed of Narine AssociaLes' shareholders none of whorl is 8 local resident. ~ hulH' II~al tl~p lciwN ll~Jard will do all ]l earl la dibcIHil'alJ(' I hl~; ;ill'Pad) ~hopnuqh l} (J i~;Prl~dl I('d CJl,vt, le~r)MPrll . Sincerel} }()ars, RECEIVED R~C~IV~D 1983 '_, [)~-,'umhc r. JgEl~ To~vnClerkSou,"hold I,;e~,~ ~,ul I-~,lk, N.Y 1]056 RECEIVED BEC ? lg83 ~ ., ~ , ,,,I,~i'. 1'/~.~ RECEIVED 2 December, 19~3 DEC 5 1983 New Suffolk, N.~. 11956 Town ClerkSouthold Ms Judith Terry Town Clerk Towm Hall Main Road Southola, N.Y. 11971 Dear Ms Terry: I have read the scruffy little a~dend~ to Marine Associates, Draft Environmental Impact Statement which Roy Haje mistakenly calls a Final Environmental Impact Statement relating to Marine Associates' ambitions to upgrade New Suffolk to South Fork status. My point ia that it isn't really a FEIS since it doesn't address the "substantive comments" made by Joe Fenton, Pat gallahan, and others at the bearing on 1 November. I think it should be given the attention it deserves, with all its scribbled insertions and misspellings. ~incerely yours, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Brookhaven National Laboratory Building 134 Upton, New York 11973 November 30, 1983 Clerk ~ Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) entitled "Condominium Development at North Fork Shipyard" prepared by En-Consultants, Inc., for Marine Associates. We provide the following as technical assistance. The DEIS inadequately addresses the potential for secondary development and associated impacts and potential impacts on the physical character- istics and quality of surrounding waters. The Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) has identified a public demand for boat launching and docking facilities on Long Island (personal con~unication - Dewitt Davies, LIRPB). This project would remove 25 boat slips from public use. A site on the southern bank of Schoolhouse Creek has also been identified as a potential condominium site which could remove another 25 boat slips in this area from public use. Up to two- thirds of the boat slips in New Suffolk, therefore, might become unavail- able to the public. Marinas in Mattituck and Southold are currently at capacity with waiting lists, and would not be able to handle the overflow from New Suffolk. Demands for boating facilities could only be met by con- struction of a new marina. Marina construction could have significant environmental impacts such as reduced natural shoreline, wetland encroach- ment, destruction of productive shallow waters, potential oil spills, and dredging associated impacts. Impacts associated with induced development and demand for boat facilities should be addressed in the final environ- mental impact statement (FEIS). The reverse osmosis process will produce between 6,000 and 40,000 gallons per day (gpd) of brine (DEIS Appendix 4, page 8). The continuous disposal of brine in adjacent waters could change their physical characteristics. Although this might not have a serious impact on the biomass of the eco- system, the conmercial and recreational use of the resources could be 2 significantly impacted. Riprap adjacent to the ~rth Fork Shipyard Marina supports a population of the co~on oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Hard shell clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) and bay scallops (Argopecten irradians Lam.) are sought in adjacent local waters, Predators of these organisms such as the oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinerea Say), lady crab (Ovalipes ocellatus), and Forbes' Asterias sea star ~sterias forbesi) generally prefer slightly higher salinities than exist in the project area. A slight change of only one or two parts per thousand in salinity could allow these predators to invade the area causing a serious depletion of the above mentioned organisms. Changes resulting from brine discharge and its affect on species of commercial and recreational importance should be addressed in the FEIS. The septic system which exists on the site has received citations for violations (personal communication - Joseph Fenton). If the septic system is not efficient, marine resources could be impacted. The influx of nutrients and heavy metals could adversely impact the ecosystem. Coliform ~cteria could cause the closure of local shellfishing areas. In addition, nutrients from fertilizers might enter the bay from groundwater or runoff. Impacts associated with the above concerns should be addressed in the FEIS. Thank you for allowing us to coment on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Tom Sperry of my staff at 282-3300. Sincerely yours, Frank M. De Luise Acting Field Supervisor CC: Mr. Joseph ~nton Mr. Roy L. Haje ~ ~, ;.,...~} .~-~ ~ ~/ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road "* ~,~- ~'' · ~'?--- ,' PO. Box 728 ~ "to "~ ( ;'"'~J Sottthold, New York 11971 R~c~srR.x~ O~ x~Txt S~ x~t s OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 30, 1983 Marine Associates, Inc. New Suffolk, New York 11956 Gentlemen: With respect to the filing of your Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Town Board must, by law, make a decision within 30 days of receipt thereof. Thirty days from receipt of your Final Statement is December 25, 1983. The Town Board would like to consider this for a decision at their December 27th regular meeting, and asks for your consent, in writing, to this time extension. 'May I have your reply as soon as possible so a decision may be made by the Town Board. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk h)wn Hall, 530'-15 Main Road P.O. Box 728 SoLtrhold. Nc,.,,, York I 1971 it l}l[lll II RI{",' TFItPI[ONI I,[I,,I'~IR\I{()[ \ll\1%1 \Il,Ih > OFFICE OFTHE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUIHOLD November 25, 1983 To: $outhold Town Board From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Re: Marine Associates Final Environmental Impact Statement The 30 day time limit for decision on the above is December 25, 1983. I would suggest scheduling a decision at the December 27th Town Board meeting. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF STATE O1: NEW YORK ) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ) ~: IMPACT ST&TEMENT Date: November ~, 1983 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AppLICANT: Marine As- sociates, Inc. ADDRF_.SS:NewSuffo]k, ~TUD~-TB A CHIEN of Greenport, in Ne~ York PERMIT APPLIED FOR said County. being duly sworn, says that he/she is AND APPLICATION NUM- Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, e Weekly BLUR: Change of 7.one ~rom "C" Light Industrial Dis- Newspaper. published at Graenpo~, in the Town Lriet to."M.t" General Mul- of Southold. County of Suffolk and Stats of New tiple Residence District, Petitien No. ~'7, York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is PB, OJECT DESCEIPTION: n printed copy, has been regularly published in Applicant desires to redevelop the property to said Newspaper once each week for o~_e (1) construct condominium weeks successively, commencing on the P~tO,I~CTLOCATION: Ne~v dayof ~r-~m~- 1~ Suliolk, Town of Southeld, County of Suffolk, New York, heuodnd north by Loria and Cutchogue Her- .~ ~ ~ I t; I ,"~ ,~'.~ her, east h), Cutehe~e Harbor, south by MacKay and C~J~gue Harbor. and Principal Clerk west by First Street. SI~QR DI~'I'F_3~MINATION: A Sworn to baforem~ this ~1-. Impact Sta~.ment has been NOT~q¥ FUBLIC. $?Af£ OF N~'W Y0~I{ day of ~¢~l~e~ 8 3 prepared on this pro:leet and NO, ~-4505858 AVAILABILITY FOR PUB- COMMI.~SION EXPJR~ MAI~H 30, 19~'J LIC CONMKNT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement amy be reviewed at the nd4r~s listed below. Comments on the project must bo submitted to the Contact Peraou indicated belo~ en Inter than Decatu- r)or 20, CONTACT PIERSON: .ludith T, Terry, Town Clerk Town oi Southotd, To~n Hal] Main Road, Southeld, Ne~ York 1197! (516) 76.~1801 ITDI-4418 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK o? P ECE r n *Acr ST TE m Patricia Wo~, being duly sworn, sa~ that she is the ~: ~ A~' Editor, of THE LONG IS~ND T~VELER-WATCH~N, ~D~: ~ ~, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in, Suffolk Count; ~ ~P~ ~R and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, ~ ~A~ON NUM- has b~n published in said k~ng Island Zraveler~Watch- BE[~ ~ ~ ~e ~m "C',' ~~ ~ man once each week for ................. ~ ..................... wee~ to 'M-i' '~ M~I~ / ~.:~, ~n successively, commencing on the .................................... No. ~7; ~ ~O~: day of .......~.~ ..................... , 19 ........ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~z:.~ ...................................................... (.:q'~ ............... ~ n~ ~'~d Cut~ ~ by ~wo~ on ~is~ ~ ~e. ~C ~MM~ ~ ~nal .............. subm~ ~ ~t~ P~- ~ ~: Judith T. Te~, T~ ~, To~ of Ro~, ~u~d, ~ew Y~rk STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SLTFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that site is over the age of twenty-one years: that on the 25th day of November 1983 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit:- Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office, Hain Road. Southold, New York 11971 Notice of Receipt of Final Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. Southold Town Clerk Sworn to be before me this 25th day of November 1983 Notary Public / ELIZABETH ANN NEVILLEL NOTARY PUBLI~, Sta~e of New York No 52 8125850, SufFolkCou Ullb~ Term [xpires March 30. 19 , ,,~ ~ ; ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road x ' ' ~ P.O. Box 728 ; Southoid, New York 1197l JUDI[HI JERRY tELEPHONE x~ ol v~r..xl s i x i i< m's OFFICE OF IHE ]DWN CLERK' TOWN OF SOUIHOLD PLEASE PHBLISH THE ATTACHED ~OTICE ON DECEMBER 1, 1983 AND FORWARD ONE (1} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO J~DITH T. TERRY, TO~N CLERK, TO~N HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Time~ The Long I*land Traveler-~atchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Br~k Commissioner ~illiams, DEC, Albany NYS Leg. Comm. on ~ater Resource Need~ of L.I. NYS Department of State .4r~..;,'l;d' -~.:'~:' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P O. Box 728 ~...'~ . .. -~:",., ,~,' Southoid. New York 11971 JUDIII[ I. TI RllY "~&~' ' ftc' -,~'- ' I'ELEPHONE '[OWN L'LI RN (516~ 765-1801 RI GISIRXN OI VI [ 4l S I xl I>[1~ S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUIHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 25, 1983 APPLICANT: Marine Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: New Suffolk, New York PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 257 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, bounded north by Loria and Cutchogue Harbor, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by MacKay and Cutchogue Harbor, and west by First Street. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 20, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 /-'..% ~.~' ~ ';~.~. ,t · ':" P.O. Box 728 s : Sout]lold. New York 11971 R[t;lSZa.aa Ol VIT.Xl SI ~II>[ICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON DECEMBER 1, 1983 AND FORWARD ONE {1} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TO~N CLERK, TO~N HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NE~ YORK ~971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Th~ Lon~ Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Plannin~ Board Southold Town Buildin~ Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder, DEC, Stony B~k Commissioner ~illiams, DEC, Albany NYS Le~. Comm. on Water Resource Needs of L.I. NYS Department of State ~m.~ j~ q own Hall, 5_~09>' ' - Main Road ~ ~e' .~-:' - ,~ P.O. Box 728 X~ q~¢. ~-. D ~)/" Southold, New York 11971 JUI)ITll T. T[RRY ~2.~2' 1ELFPHON[ R~c;~S~R..Xr ol Vn xt S~ x~l~.s OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 25, 1983 APPLICANT: Marine Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: New Suffolk, New York PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 257 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk, Town of 5outhold, County of Suffolk, New York, bounded north by Loria and Cutchogue Harbor, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by MacKay and Cutchogue Harbor, and west by First Street. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 20, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 ~ I)~ VI I.~I b~ ~l~ll~'s OFFICE OF THE I~OWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON DECEMBER 1, 1983 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany NYS Leg. Comm. on Water Resource Needs of L.I. NYS Department of State [own Hall. 530q5 Main Road PO, Bo× 728 Southokl. New York 11971 RI I,Iq [ R \R ' ~1 VII \1 2~ I x I1' I1' :' OFFICE OF/HE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 25, 1983 APPLICANT: Marine Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: New Suffolk, New York PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 257 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, bounded north by Loria and Cutchogue Harbor, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by MacKay and Cutchogue Harbor, and west by First Street. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 20, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PREPARED BY ROY L. HAJE EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. 64 North Main Street Southampton, New York 11968 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EN-CONSUL TANTS, INC. 64 NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 November 25, 1983 Supervisor William Pell Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Pell, Attached please find supplemental comments to the DEIS prepared for the above referenced project. Please consider these and the comments made at the Town Board hearing of November 1, 1983 along with the original DEIS as the final environmental impact statement. Very..~ruly yours, Roy Li Haje RLH:EF Enclosure Several comments on this project focus upon the water supply system and sewage disposal system. Questions were raised regarding adequacy of systems and the effects upon the environment. State-of-the-art proposals have been set forth for both sewage dis- posal and water supply. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has identified ni- trogen as the major contaminant of groundwater_ Domestic sewage supplies a large amount of nitrogen in several forms. To deal with nitrogen, the SCDH has recently required the installation of nitrification-deniErifica- tion disposal systems in many instances including this one. This type of system removes virtually all nitrogen from the sewage stream and releases nitrogen gas to the atmosphere. This is clearly superior Fo the present situation wherein the restaurant and office building discharge sewage into cesspools. (Nutrients from these enter the groundwater and nearby st~rface waters via lateral movement.) Odors from these systems will be absent fol- lowing installation of the denitrification system. %he SCDH has stated that "it appears that all of the matters before the! department can be satisfied" (Robert Jewell, September 16, 1983). In regard to the water supply, test wells drilled on site and tested yielded water of satisfactory quality and qaantfty to supply the proposed project. As a precautionary meast~re, the SCDH is requiring the installa- tion of a reverse osmosis system which will use brackish water and leave the existing fresh water supply intact. While reverse osmosis is new to Long Island on this scale, it has been used extensively elsewhere and been proven to be a reliable source. It is in use on Long Island in indi- vidual houses where naturally occuring groundwater supplies are inadequate. -1- In addition to providing sn adequate water supply, it will not en- courage salt water intrusion but rathe~ will resist it. Wastewater will be reinjected on site to form a barrier to the landward flow of salt water~ little will actually be "consumed" or removed from the premises and its water bridget. Fears of increasing the salinity of the bay as a result of discharge of salts extracted from the saline water supply are unfoL~nded. First, the volumes being considered here are small when compared to the volume of the bay. Second, the discharged brine will only be approximately 20 percent more cpncentrated than the water taken in. If so reqL~ested~ it can be further diluted by mixing with sea water. Any salinity ~hanges will be localized and minor and will not adversely effect marine organisms in the As a alternate to bay discharge, the brae reject cam be reinjected into the groundwater along with ~he wastewater. The anti-scalant agent, A-20, has been approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (~3-17AEB-83)~ The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEb,) requires new constr~c- tion to be at certain elevations according to the zone in which the pro- ject is located. This zone is "A4" and mandates a minimom first floor elevation of +8'. In A zones, land masses generally are subjected to waves less than three feet in height. These are not high velocity zones where stringent restrictions apply. The project must and will comply with flood plain regulations. By doing so, it will not exacerbate potential flooding on adjacent acres. Runoff from roofs and other impervious surfaces will be handled by dry- wells as required. Coversge of the p~rcel by impervious s~rfaces will be less than existing coverage. Fhe Town Engineer stated that "... flooding would not be possible as stated by Mr. Callahan." The effect of the project upon views has been dfscussed in the ori- ginal DEIS. Existing views are impeded by buildings and, when present, stored boats so that the proposed project will not impact an "untouched" vista The New York State Department of State acts in an advisory capacity only in local development matters. No permits or approvals are required for projects of this type. Of the 44 policies enumerated in the NYS Coastal Management Program, some do not apply, some can be satisfied while others cannot. Approval of the project rests not with the DOS but with the Town of Southold and other involved regulatory agencies each of which has its own binding cri- teria. Iraffic generated by the proposed project versus existing uses will be less as described in the DEIS~ Docking facilities will not be lost but will be shifted from commer- cial to private use. Adverse effects associated with tile operation of a marzna/bostyard (paint, thinners, bilge, etc.) will be eliminated. The project shoald be viewed in the context of present usage. -3- l'own Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O Box 728 Southold, New York 1197l JUDllH T TERRY TFLEPHONF RFC;IS I R~,R OI VIT.\L 5~ I \11% I I('S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: November 15, 1983 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the 5outhold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and public hearing on same, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and has requested the filing of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property at New Suffolk, in the Town of Southold, New York. Further information can be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. copies to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board NY5 Department of State Suffolk Co. Department of Health Services Town Clerk's Bulletin Board 'Fown Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. }lox 728 ~ Southold, New York 11971 IUDITIIT TERRY [FLEPHONE R[t;IS I ~.~I OI VI r Xl 5; I N llSlWS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 15, 1983: WHEREAS, Marine Associates, Inc. has heretofore filed a petition with the Town Clerk, pursuant to Article XV of Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code, for a Change of Zone on certain property at New Suffolk, in the Town of Southold, from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, Marine Associates, Inc. did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with the law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates, Inc. at the Southold Town Hall on November 1, 1983, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to speak, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of 5outhold does hereby determine that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Marine Associates, Inc. of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution. ~./7-'T.. -- '--- ~- " - Judith T. Terry ~/ 5outhold Town Clerk PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD 8:00 P.M. November 1, 1983 IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO "M-l" GENERAL MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK. Present: Supervisor William R. Pell, III Councilman John J. Nickles Councilman Lawrence Murdock, Jr. Councilman Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR PELL: What we would like to do tonight is open the first hearing scheduled at 8:00 P.M. and then at 8:15 we have scheduled another one, which we expect to be a shorter one, recess the first one, go into the second one, then come back for the first one. It is confusing, but we don't feel, if anybody is here for the second one scheduled at 8:15 we don't want to make them wait until we all get done with the first one. At this time I would like to open the hearing scheduled for 8:00 o'clock tonight, Marine Associates, Inc. The legal notice will be read by Councilman Murdock. COUNCILMAN MURDOCK: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of 5outhold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 1, 1983, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates, Inc., New Suffolk, New York, in connection with their application for a Change of Zone from "C' Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the easterly side of First Street, New Suffolk, New York. Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium; units. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Raod, 5outhold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: October 4, 1983. Judith T. Terry, 5outhold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit of publication by Patricia Wood on behalf of the Long Island Traveler-Watchman that it was published on October 20, 1983. I have an affidavit of publication by Joan Gustavson on behalf of the Greenport Suffolk Times that it was published on October 20, 1983. I have a notice of posting by Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk that this was duly posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. Since this is a report on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, there are no other letters from Town officials with regard to this. Page 2 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. SUPERVISOR PELL: This is a hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment which is a 22 page long statement with appendix to go with it. At this time I will turn to Counsel for them. Mr. Essex, are you going to represent t hem ? WILLIAM ESSEKS, Attorney: Yes, I am, but because we filed our statement, and because it's been accepted by the Town Board pursuant to the statute, I believe it's proper for the Town Board to hear the comments of interested people. SUPERVISOR PELL: Right, I just wanted to see if you wanted to make an opening statement. Thank you. At this time the Town Board will entertain any comments from anybody pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I will ask you when you care to talk to raise your hand, I'll recognize you, use the microphone and state your name. MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Supervisor, I know I waived my opportunity to speak, but perhaps you or Counsel or someone on the Board would advise the member of the public who might not be sophisticated with Draft Environmental Impact State- ments, as to the purpose of this hearing. It is not a referendum for or against. I believe it's the purpose of the Town Board know the environmental considerations that are incident to this type of application my clients made, so that the Town Board in making up its mind, if as and when you get to a vote on the change of zone, as to whether you have sufficient information concerning the environment at this site and this locality. Am I incorrect in my understanding of this theory? I'm sure the Town Board or Counsel or someone else will correct me, but I suspect there are some people present who may not understand the purpose of this hear- ing and even the purpose of the DEIS. SUPERVISOR PELL.: I think you did a fine job, Counsel. Bob, you want to comment any more? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: I think Mr. Esseks is probably right. The subject matter of this hearing is just to hear comments from the public concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of the hearing is not to hear comments with respect to the pros and cons of a change of zone of this property. That comes next at another public hearing. SUPERVISOR PELI-: Who would like to address this subject? MR. JOSEPH FENTON, New Suffolk, New York: I question whether censorship before people talk is in order. There are many issued raised in this vast environmental statement that have to be answered. I don't think they were properly included in the statement itself and I think we ought to give the public a chance to speak. SUPERVISOR PEI_I-: That is what we are here to tonight, to listen to the public in regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Yes, sir? MR. PATRICK CALLAHAN, New Suffolk, New York: I'm a summer resident, twenty-one years in New Suffolk, soon to be a full year-around resident. I'm a Civil Engineer with twenty-five years background and a Professional Engineer. I would just like to make a few quick comments regarding the issue. I think what Mr. Esseks might be focusing on, and perhaps the Town Board as well, the environmental issues per se, in terms of water, sewage, in terms of adjacent Page 3- Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. wetlands. They cannot be divorced actually within SEQR process, from, as Mr. Fenton points out, the sociological, the other impacts as well. So I just want to make that point. Again, tonight, with just a few prepared statements. I'm sure there will be much discussion regarding water supply and water stream treatment for the proposed project. It is my belief, while they're extremely important, they are not the most important issue, the most important issue, essentially the issue Mr. Esseks alluded to, of our community. I would like to highlight for the Board some of the previous comments which we have made, however, with respect to the water quality and waste stream. As we pointed out in our comments, New Suffolk being a peninsula, it is a very unusually and highly sensitive environmental area. A very small portion, actually, of its overall, roughly I think eight hundred and some odd acres, is actually on site of the Flood Plain Zone. Because we are an extremely Iow-lying, high infiltration, high coverability area in a glacial outwash. Again, it's a very fragile area and a high risk of contamination from infiltration and percolation. With regards to the proposed nitrification-denitrification system, I have a few points, they might sound in a sense a bit esoteric in terms of context of the 23 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but New Suffolk, the land upon which they propose to develop, is actually mainly a filled land. It wasn't there, shall we say, a good 200 years ago. It's a filled land, as the boring logs have shown, they're roughly about two feet below the surface of the ground, which is sand and a mixture of shells and you come into eight foot of bog. Now, that eight foot of bog, in terms of placing any nitrification, or any sewage treatment plant, as I guess perhaps some people here tonight could attest to in terms of the Galley-Ho and other problems, what you have, you don't have percolation. A bog is a highly contained area and so that any runoff has to be a lateral runnoff. There is very little percolation through that bog. Now, he proposes to construct, construct on a--I believe he initially talked of twelve feet of fill, twelve feet in order to make Flood Plain. His current Draft ElS talks of eight plus feet, however, as I understand---which might be in accordance with current FEMA regulations, I believe they're promulgated this past July. However, there's a bit of a quandry here in terms of the elevations. Should he be--if I might digress a moment--the County Department of Health has required, as I understand, six foot of fill. Now, that would bring the elevation of his property virtually up to a level twelve feet. The elevation of the street runs from roughly, I believe it's about five and a half down to three feet down by as you get closer to the boat ramp. So there is a great inconsistency in his sewage treatment aspect of his program, which again I'm sure the County will address in far greater detail. This is further compounded by the fact that he's proposing to put this system in a high water table area, again which his boring logs indicated. So I have great reservations with respect to its functioning. Further, he's proposing with the system, it would be roughly a million gallons a year, assuming giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of the actual usage, you know, which is like a very Iow usage. More than likely the units will be rented during the winter and it's hard for me to conceive of roughly, I think it's 2,000 square feet. That's a lot of two story--figure out what your own houses are. Two thousand square feet and he calls it a two-bedroom. So it's probably going to be more than just a two and a half occupancy, so it's going to get much greater demand, but the point is that the sewage will be a million gallons placed roughly at street level. Roughly at street level. It's hard to envision this. I wish he had his model here. It's very had to vision. That sewage would be at street level. Now, right across the street we have a very Iow hydrological gradient in town. If you kind of follow back--but if you follow back the Flood Plain, which goes roughly up to Second Street--roughly up to Second Street--that means it's very flat. Means it's got very Iow hydrological gradient. Now, his proposal--his proposal Page 4- Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. would call for--he was figuring that he's going to be able to--that the sewage of roughly a million gallons a year--is just going to filter its way into the Bay. In other areas that might be true, but again with the bog, what it's going to tend to do, it's going to tend to go inland. So this is going to be a pool. The water actually mounds. Let me just move on quick, because I realize there are a lot of other people to speak. So again I won't go on into any great detail regarding the reverse osmosis. I think the Suffolk County Department of Health has done an excellent job on that. I know in our original comments we appointed to the fact that it serves a great risk. It's a great risk Jn terms of the size of the units that he's proposing and they require a very high degree of maintenance. The County, I believe, in its comments to you--was the comment that perhaps they would even take such a system over should it ever, God forbid, be installed. Just touch on two other points. In terms of the flood zone, in terms of the flood hazards, I don't believe that any place else in the Town of 5outhold that you have a similar situation. It's very difficult to envision this, but like that filled area will actually raise up--roughly five hundred feet long--it's going to raise up two blocks in a sense. Now, with a northeaster, you know we haven't had a northeaster in a while, but with a northeaster I'm sure many many people here can attest to it--but with a northeaster what that tends to do is roughly about fetch across the Bay going up to past Wickham Creek, up to Cutchogue. Now, granted it's shallow water, granted it's shallow water--but just the hydrology of that situation is going to mean that there is going to be some increased flooding--maybe not a lot, but it's going to be some increased flooding in advance on the north side of the develop- ment, and I've requested that the Corps of Engineers--if this i5 not right, let them attest to the community, let the Corps of Engineers, who actually did the original studies--attest to the community that it is not a danger. I'll just make one last point is in respect to what's been going on the last two years or so with the New York State Department of State in that they've last focused on I would say developing a rather good policies and goals and strategies for preserving the areas such as New Suffolk and the entire community. I'm sure you, just a few weeks ago, were up there in Albany, the day after we were. SUPERVISOR PELL; Same time you were. MR. CALLAHAN: We were ahead of you. But if I might just read directly, just for the very very strong points we feel. Again they are very applicable to this project, and we believe that the whole process these points have to be truly considered. The 23 pages of the so-called environmental impact, it just completely missed it--completely missed it. If I could just quickly--strengthening the economic base of small harbor areas by encouraging development enhancement of traditional uses and activities which are providing such areas with a unique maritime identity, New Suffolk for sure. Protect, restore and enhance natural man-made resources which are not identified as being of state-wide significance, but which contribute to the scenic quality of coastal areas, certainly New Suffolk. Water dependent and and water enhanced recreation shall be encouraged, facilitated, given priority over non-water related uses. This is a very extreme--very important point. Water dependency. Water dependency is something that we had better stop and start to fight for, because that water--access to water is simply going--it's going--and this is just going to be another one going. Just mark my word. Protect, enhance, restore structures, district areas that are of significance in the history architecture archeology or culture of the state. Well, the report said New Suffolk really--you know--it said it really didn't matter. It said--and I guess Mr. Holland never really was down there, but it just doesn't make sense to allow such a development, and particularly I think we in the community found it even insulting in the Draft ElS the way the matter was just discarded, but that's another matter. In closing, Page 5 - Public Hearing November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. two points, I'm sorry to take so long. Two more points. What we're very concerned about and I'm sure Mr. Fenton- Joe Fenton will talk about it in much greater detail than I am, but the Bay bottom--roughly an acre and a half of Bay bottom right in front of the property, which I think roughly 145 years ago was the subject of a grant, a Commerce Grant from the State of New York. That means the owner doesn't have full rights to that property. It was given at that time for a purpose, a specific purpose, which for 1~45 years the purpose is commerce, that the area be used for the good of the people of the State, and we're the people. Now, what he's doing with that development is, he's actually getting an enhancement on his property in terms of property value by being able to use a grant of land which actually belongs to the State, I think it still belongs to the state, and yet that argument in terms of his maximum best use, it's really our land. It's really the people of the State of New York's land. In closing, I just want to note that Mr. Nell McCormick from the Coast Resources group had indicated that on last Friday he had sent a four page letter to the Town of Southold and he was urging many of these points that I have brought to your attention tonight, plus many others, with respect to Coastal Zone Management and consistency, or lack thereof in this case, that he was asking that they be addressed in a Final ElS or whatever such of an action the Board takes. I thank you very much for giving me this time. I'm sorry to take so long. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN NICKLES: Mr. Supervisor, I'd like to make a motion that we recess this hearing to go on to the hearing scheduled at 8:15 (Bouffard change of zone) and we'll come back to this hearing that we're presently at as soon as we conclude the hearing. -- Motion was seconded by Councilman Murdock. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Justice Edwards, Councilman Townsend, Councilman Murphy, Councilman Murdock, Councilman Nickles, Supervisor Pell. This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. This hearing reconvened at 8:30 P.M. SUPERVISOR PELL: We now return to the hearing on Marine Associastes, Inc. Does anybody else wish to address the Board on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Marine Associates, Inc.? MR. RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: First I just wanted to make just a brief observation about these Draft Environmental Impact Statements. It seems to me that we are, perhaps, going to have to go to Assemblyman Sawicki and ask some clarification, or they should be revised, for this reason: The developer is required to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement if the Board decides it will have a significant effect on the environ- ment. The developer hires an engineering firm who comes back with a glowing report that if we listen to it it would sound as if we could save the world with it. The the environmentalists come back and they have a report that says the world is going to rack and ruin, but there is no place that a report is given with impartiality so that the Board has enough information to really make an intelligent determination, and I would like to see our organization and the Board address this issue, perhaps in the next couple of weeks. The N.F.E.C. has read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and I reviewed the file again this afternoon. For the sake of brevity, I believe the questions asked by the Depart- ment of Health and the D.E.C. concerning the water, the sewage, the storm water run off, with the questions in the reverse osmosis process concerning the salinity, saltwater intrusion, its highly experimental nature, and expecially questions to Page 6 - Public Hearing ~- November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. maintenance are more than sufficient for the Board to review. I also read the reply from Mr. Fenton to the effects of this proposal on the hamlet of New Suffolk and I think his comments are more than adequate and I need add no more. Therefore, the North Fork Environmental Council requests the Town Board to request the developer to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PELL; Thank you, Mrs. Oliva. Anybody else wish to address the Board on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Yes, sir? MR. THOMAS McGOWAN, New Suffolk, New York; A number of years ago, back around 1970 or 1971 I had the pleasure of serving as an associate planner with the New York State Office of Planning Coordination. One of my primary respon- sibilities in that position was the preparation of a extremely lengthy and detailed report on the environmental aspects of economic development. Most that report has no bearing on the present situation, but there is one point I would like to mention. I found, both for industrial and also for residential development, that there was an economic impact on the community through any kind of development, either fork. The net was that taxes would go up over a period time with industry and with residential development because of the cost of the services that became necessary increased faster than the additional tax revenues brought in by new taxpayers. I would like to call that to the attention of this Board so that they may consider that in making their review of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mr. McGowan. Anybody else wish to address the Board on this subject? Yes, sir? MR. DANNY LYON, New Suffolk, New York; I'm a new permanent resident of New Suffolk. ~/e almost have four children. I'm a photographer and a filmmaker. The environment is a word that is used constantly now. Well, let's say someone put a Holiday Inn there, a big green one, and everything scientifically was correct or about. It only produced crystal clear water and the people never w~t to the bathroom, and they didn't have any garbage. Would that effect the environ- ment down there? I mean, it seems to me not only would it affect it, it would destroy the environment. There wouldn't be any environment, The only environ- ment there would be one that just revolved around this big green Holiday Inn. It would determine everything not only on the property that corporation owned, but everything in site of it would be dominated by the fact that this thing was there, you know? And that's what the environment means to me. This thing will completely control that whole peninsula there once you come within sight of it. It will affect the children who play there, it will affect me, it will affect anybody that passes it in a boat, anybody who looks in that direction, and the only choice would be to not go there, to not walk there, to not ride a bike down there, or not to look in that direction. So, I know that we're concerned about sewage and water and garbage and things like that, but I can't separate that from the environment, and to me the most important---I once worked for the E.P.A. as a photographer and they gave us a lot of money to document the pollution of the environment, and everybody photographed beer cans and dirty smoke and clean smoke and I said I just wanted to photograph the people because it's the people that breath the air, and if there weren't any people everyone could care less about garbage or water or anything else, and this thing, no matter what that statement says, is going to have a tremendous impact on the people and it will destroy the environment there. There won't be anything left. There'll be those condos. Page 7 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mr. Lyon. Yes, sir? MR. DAN BRASHICH, New Suffolk, New York: I am a resident of New Suffolk for the past fifteen years and I would second the motion with regards to a Final application or Final Environmental protection review. The only thing I would suggest to Council and to all of these New Suffolk people who are present, is that at this present time we do have a situation where there is an empty business, empty sheds and dangers. Everyone remembers what happened to the oyster house two years. There is nothing going on there. I would suggest that both the developer and the Town could find, perhaps, some form a compromise which would allow both the Town and the people who want the environment, which I heartily agree, I have children also, and they drive bikes down there, but I think some compromise should be arrived at so that there is a redevelopment in that area, whatever form it takes, which would revitalize that particular area. Everyone has driven by those old shacks. I do not wish to see my daughters hurt when they drive their bikes down there. There's nothing there at this present time. So I would suggest, perhaps, the developer and the Town should seek some form of a compromise that everybody would be happy with. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Anybody else wish to address this subject? Yes, sir? MR. PAUL LEARY, New Suffolk, New York: May I speak by parable in my opening statement. If there was a no-parking sign from my corner to the end of the street and I parked there and I got a ticket, I would pay the ticket, but the next person that parked there I would want to see get a ticket, but when it comes to environmental considerations, we don't have that sort of consideration where we can call the local policeman down and say, "Hey, there's a violation." If you or I go to the building department and get a building permit, as I did, to build a deck and the building inspector says, "Is it within 300 feet of the water?" I said, "1 would have to measure it." One of the questions on the environmental impact statement which you get from the building inspector, which is about this long, says, "Will it block a view?" My little deck, 11 by 18 fortunately didn't block a view. But I ask you, if you are allowed to build, as they propose to build, 35 feet in the air, on top of eight to ten fee of fill, will it block a view? How many views do you have to block before you disallow a permit? Thank you. MR. TOM LOWRY, New Suffolk, New York: I have a house on Jackson and Second. I addressing myself to Pat C:allahan's talk, I would like to say that every time there is a northeaster of any consequence at all, I get a lot of extra firewood to burn. All I have to do is clear it off my driveway and saw it up, and I'm a whole block west of First Street. On occasions such as this when the technicians hold forth and the lawyers and the engineers, those who have developed a language which is incomprehensible to the rest of us, I hope that it is appropriates for a generalist, a specialist in nothing, to speak from his heart, rather from his education. By great good fortune I'm a resident of New Suffolk and I charish the window that it gives me into beauty and tranquility. There are few such vantage points left in the metropolitan area, and I charge you, the members of the Town Board, with the responsibility of maintaining it unspoiled so that those who come after us may enjoy it and be renewed by it as we are. Thank you. Page 8- Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. SUPERVISOR PELL; Thank you. Anybody else wish to address the Town Board on this application--Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Yes, sir, Mr. Fenton. MR. JOSEPH FENTON, New Suffolk, New York: I live in New Suffolk. I am a member of a four person committee appointed by the directors of the New Suffolk Civic Association to carry out the mandate of the residents of New Suffolk, as expressed in their 168 to 10 vote in this matter. The other committee members are Pauline Krementz, President of the Association, Jack Fisher, Vice President, and Patrick Callahan. Whole I'm an attorney, I don't represent the Association as its attorney. Although the Association has consulted with paid special counsel in this matter, our efforts to date are those of rank amateurs. We hope the Board will make allowances. The 168 to 10 votes translates to 95% of those voting. As politicians you can best appreciate what this sort of percentage signifies. Based on New Suffolk's population of approximately 550, 95% is more than 500. Many people were unable to attend today. Since I will be speaking for many of them, if I take a few more minutes than others who have spoken here, I hope you will allow them. We would like to renew our request to the applicant to reconsider and withdraw this petition. Reconsideration will not only spare us this grotesque monument to profit, but it will save them from the same sort of fate the Commander caused himself to experience as Suffolk Outdoor Advertising. I'm talking about his eleven year struggle with our Southampton neighbors. The Commander appears to have a thing about polluting the view. Whether it's ours in New Suffolk or 28 billboards defiling highways in Southampton, we question whether it's worth the cost. While they collected rents on these billboards during the eleven year struggle and shared the cost of litigation with other companies, their efforts proved fruitless as will their efforts with respect to this application. Furthermore, since the cost of litigation in zoning matters is not deductable, but must be capitalized and added to the cost of the property, there will be no running tax advantage to a dis- gruntled litigant. We ask that they disclose the name of the 38th stockholder whose stock appears to be held in the name of Wall Street brokerage firm. While the desire for anonymity of this stockholder is understandable, I'd be ashamed to be a party to this. We are entitled, at the least, to an affidavit that the real party in interest is not a government employee, and it does the applicant no good to hide the stockholder's identity, and it harms potentially innocent people, as there is considerable speculation about the identity. Similarly the identity of the buyer has not been disclosed, or is the buyer the same old Commander in different company? It will certainly clear the air and work to the applicant's benefit if they are forthcoming instead of secret about these matters. Those of favor this project appear to have a monetary interest in the outcome. Aside from the lure of money, what these people have in common is that none lives in New Suffolk or its immediate vicinity. On the other side, we all live in New Suffolk or its immediate vicinity, and none of us has a monetary interest in the outcome. Bear this in mind when you are weighing our respective positions, and the basis for them. Our cause is not tainted by money, their's is. We are the most affected because we live in New Suffolk, they do not. I would like to discuss the moral environment in which this application is set. It is our position that this proposal reeks of immorality, and I will cite rep- resented instances. The conclusion is an obvious one. The Town Board is not here to reward immorality. Before I cite these instances, I would like to characterize the D.E.I.S. for what it is. I check the file in this matter periodically. Accordingly I had an opportunity to read everything, all the letters that go into it. I think Chick Morgan of New Suffolk said it best when he used the word "cosmetic". Someone else used the word "superficial". Ms. Oliva, who spoke earlier, described it to me as a fairy tale. Pat Callahan used the word "parochial." I'd like to add the word "slippery" to it. The comment from all sides exposed it for what it is. Cosmetic, superficial, parochial, a Page 9- Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. fairy tale, slippery. The Association's comment takes the D.E.I.S. to task for its attempt to mislead you into thinking that an only two percent population increase was involved. You may recall that Enconsultants compared the addition of 55 people, which we dispute, to that of Cutchogue-New Suffolk, claiming no population f~gures for New Suffolk alone were available. We have our own post ofl~ce and school, a separate tax district, and it took me all of three minutes to locate our population. Certainly an environmentalist, e×perienced or not, who can research the Latin names for twenty-one species of marine life to impress us with, and to sanctify his report, could have, as I did, research the truth, so as not to mislead you. By the same token the D.£.I.S. states, with respect to the view, the applicant's contention that the view is already blocked. What's wrong with his eyes that I~e must substitute that of the applicant, or was he, as his former colleagues at the D.E.C. suggest, so blinded by his fee, that he lost sight of the view as it exists, not as the Commander portrays it. Perhaps when the Final Environmental Impact Statement is written, and in view of all the comments, one must certainly be required, it will be the work of non-fiction as it is supposed to be. Now for the immorality that I alluded to. First, in 1960 Ruth Houston sold the property to the Commander, and another person, Philip Linder. The deed contained a covenant and restriction which the grantees, the buyers, accepted, "subject to the use of the conveyed premises as and for the operation of a boatyard or a marina, or any other business associated with the operation of a boatyard business." There were several subsequent transfers and the property ultimately ended up as that of the applicant, Marine Associates, of which one of the original grantees, the Commander, is President. I supplied you with this deed on May 16th of this year, together with all subsequent deeds and releases, constituting the chain of title to the applicant. The act that clearly lacks standing to make this petition. In any event, the applicants attempt to ignore the restriction is cynical. The Commander accepted the covenant and restriction, and now he attempts to hide his eyes from it. This is immoral. Second, in 1838 the State of New York made a grant of underwater rights to one of the applicant's predecessors at interest. It was a commercial grant. "For the purpose of promoting the commerce of this State and to no other object or purpose whatsoever." Later on the grant, which required that certain work be done within two years, it states, "appropriate and apply all and every part of the above described lands for the purposes of commerce by erecting docks and wharves thereon and filling in the sand." It does on to say that "everything herein contained shall cease and determine (that means terminate) so far as relates to any part of the granted premises which shall not have been so appropriated and applied." Every I is dotted with respect to the file which we inspected and copied at Albany. All was in order. Affidavits, applications, publication, except the most important document aside from the grant itself, proof of fulfillment. Why? Because the two year deadline was not met and we can prove that, with the possible exception of Steamboat Wharf, the remaining basin was not constructed until after 1840, where the slips are that the Commander--that the applicant wishes to provide to prospective purchasers of these condominiums. Nor can the applicant purchase a new conversion grant of other than commercial rights from the State. The State's Coastal Management policies will prevent such a sale. So what does the applicant have? At best questionable commercial rights to a portion of the grant. What is the applicant attempting to pull off? Non commercial use of the entire grant area. We submit to you that this is immoral. Third, Main Street in I~ew Suffolk is a public street. The applicant's proposal calls for it to be closed to the public and incorporated in the developed site. For generations no taxes were ever paid on this street, and the public used it continuously. For these reasons we believe it is immoral Page 10- Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. to utilize Main Street in the way proposed. We feel it is appropriate to call your attention to the geography of the situation. (Mr. Fenton presented picture postcards-aerial view of New Suffolk-to the Town Board members.) Here, these are aerial views of the site. Notice the contour of the natural beach to the north and to the south of Main Street. Notice that a line drawn from the approximate high water mark ....... Mr. Holly, Surveyor General of New York State on April 3, 1838 in describing the underwater grant, discussed previously, stated, "bounded on the west by the common highwater mark as it extends across Main Street in said village." As all roads lead to Rome, so in New Suffolk do all roads lead to a public beach or to a long-standing access to one, or in this case, to a public commercial port. Mr. Holly's survey proves this. Aside from the immorality of this attempt, we will, if necessary, in another forum, at another time, oppose the closing of Main Street, and assert our long-standing rights. Fourth, I have alluded to, and other people at this hearing have commented on the fact that this proposed project will block their views. Views that have been there for generations and for which nearby purchasers paid good money when they purchased their properties. At the least it is inconsiderate to block to someone elses view. We believe it is immoral to profit by taking something so valuable away from someone else, let alone from a neighbor. Fifth, raising the height of the site to eight feet or ten feet above high water creates a condition which will cause more flooding to neighboring properties than if nature were not tampered with. One does not have to be an engineer to comprehend what will transpire. The water and energy associated with northeastern storms, of which would otherwise wash over this site, will no longer be able to do so because of the erected barrier of fill and buildings. The water and energy must go somewhere. An alley is being created. The engineers refer to it as a flume. Most the diverted water will go up the alley between the site and the properties to the west of First Street. What is being created here is a miniature Bay of Fundy. The Bay between Nova Scotia and the Canadian Providence of New Brunswick where sixty foot tides take place twice daily. While we won't get sixty foot tides here, constricting the area which a given volume of water is to occupy, must raise the water's height and accelerate its pressure. It is immoral to flood thy neighbor, or create a condition that worsens its effect. Sixth, the consultants report refers to buildings on the site as dilapidated or decayed. We call your attention to several mortgages the Commander signed as President. I will read from one of them. This happens to be a mortgage loan made by the U. S. Small Business Administration in conjunction with an eighty thousand dollar disaster loan, later increased to a hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars. The application of the funds advanced by the United States is not a proper subject to an environmental hearing. We'll save this for another time or in another forum, but this February 1978 mortgage contains the following language, and I quote, "the mortgagor, North Fork Shipyard, covenants and agrees as follows: he will keep all buildings and other improvements on said property in good repair and condition. Will permit or suffer no waste, impair- ment, deterioration of said property or any part thereof." We are third party beneficiaries to this promise and submit to you that it is immoral to have disregarded it and to now cause the consultant to whine about the decayed condition. The record of this matter expresses concern about the proposed desecration of American's first submarine base. The S.S. Holland was sold for five hundred dollars in 1940. Today it would be a national treasure. We don't want the same fate to befall the base. The grasping and over-reaching that characterizes this application cannot be countenanced. Lastly I want to address myself to the bullying and to the threats. God knows we feel threatened enough by this monstrosity, we don't need any others. The Commander has called us a bunch of Socialists. He has said that he can sell the yard to the Black Muslims, that Page 11 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. he will litigate if he does not get his way, that he will create an eyesore, an attractive nuisance, a wasteland which we will not recover from. He invites arson. Our goal is to frustrate the Commander and prevent this rezoning from taking place. We know our cause is just. If the threats are made out of frustration, we understand them, but cannot condone them. We have made no threats. We want the Commander to know that we will assert our rights. That we have two superb resources, the knowledge that we are right, and that we constitute a group of dedicated people. Since this is an environmental hearing, perhaps it's appropriate for me to conclude by pointing out that we have some blacks, a lovely elegant family, we have a bunch of women, wonderful hard work- ing women, we have several Jews, we have a cripple, and we have some talent. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PELL: Mr. Fenton, if I could just address one remark to you and you said it, some of your statements belong at the change of zone hearing, if it comes that far. MR. FENTON: I apologize for them, and I won't repeat them at the next hearing. SUPERVISOR PELL: They might be proper at the next one. Thank you. Any- body else wish to be heard on this? Yes, sir? MR. DEAN BLAIKIE: I own the Galley-Ho. Mr. Fenton was saying--called Art and everyone else down there slippery. I don't know what that has to do with an environmental hearing either. Just to say that I've known him for seventeen years and he's never been slippery with me and I've rented the restaurant for eleven years now. He said everybody who supports it has a monetary benefit from it. Well, I think the man has the right to do it and I think he has the right to get the change of zone and I think the only thing I get out of it, I lose a restaurant, but I don't that's benefiting. Talking about the environment, we figure we have about an average of 200 to 220 customers a day, year around. If you figure three people a car, you have to figure on 60 to 80 cars each way, each and every day. If you figure, we have approximately 25 trucks up and down there a week, delivering. Twenty-four condominiums, I don't think, are going to bring that kind of traffic up and down there. It might and it might not. When it comes the water, I think we probably put more stuff in the water supply, or in the water table, than 24 homes would. We use a lot of different chemicals that are all approved by Suffolk County, but I wouldn't say that they're something you would find in a home, that's for sure. Again I wonder if it wasn't 24 homes that might be there, if it doesn't turn out that there's 24 homes not going to be there, what is going to be there? I don't know, I don't live in New Suffolk, but I've been down there 17 years. SUPERVISOR PELI_: Thank you. Anybody else wish to comment on this subject, this Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Marine Associates? Yes, sir? MR. JOHN LOCKWOOD: I used to live in New Suffolk. We still own a lot on Schoolhouse Creek where we keep our boat. I've listened to all this and of course I'm very interested in what does happen and I just think that one comment that Mr. Blaikie just made, and I've had some wonderful dinners at Dean's restaurant, if you walked down in March or April and you have your nice dinner and walk outside, or else walk in on certain bad days, you will get an odor out there that I don't care what chemicals he uses, it just proves that that soil is not taking them anywhere and it's very detrimental and I don't care what he says about a lot of people or no people, it's just to me a big red light flashing "no", this is not a good runoff. Thank you. Page 12 - Public Hearing - November 1, 191~3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Lockwood. Anybody else wish to comment? Yes, sir, in the back of the room. MR. JAMES DILL, New Suffolk, New York: I've lived in New Suffolk for many years. There isn't much to say after Mr. Fenton gave his views, which I think are excellent, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I would like to mention one thing. What's going to happen to the land if it discontinues to be a boatyard. It has, but I mean if they don't have the condominiums. I think the Boards aware that Pierce Yacht Basin sold this year for a considerable sum of money, terrific. Not for condominiums, not for development, for continuing as a boat- yard. Hauling, servicing, storing of boats, and he--the new owners now you understand--will not be able to service all the applicants they have for storage this year. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PE/L: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. TASO ZAMHIROFF, New Suffolk, New York: I live at Second and Main and am one of the fourteen property owners who qualify to protest against the rezoning for Marine Associates. Before I go any further, I would like to apologize to all of you have difficulties understanding my accent. I come from Bulgaria, now under the Soviet regime. This is one more reason why I appreciate being here tonight and being able to express my opinion, even though.., interest of powerful individuals. During the past twenty years my wife and myself have had many visitors from different parts of this country, as well as from abroad. Their opinion of this area is what a great little place. In addition to all the points so eloquently expressed tonight and based on professional expertise, I would like to add my own. We are being faced with the possibility of losing a beautiful view of Peconc Bay, probably to be replaced by ugly garage doors and backyards, no matter how expensive they might be. This will affect not only my family, but also tenants of three summer cottages that I rent. My tenants who have been coming for years have expressed to me that if the condominiums are to be built they will move some- where else. We stand to lose a great deal of income on which we depend, since ...the loss of income and view will ultimately result in devaluation of property values. Having once lost everything to Communism, I would be very disturbed if I have to suffer again financial losses to the benefit of people who are great deal better off than myself. If this comes to pass, it will be so much more disturbing and unjust because a society where the economic system is based on free enterprise will, against it's own principle, rewards a failing enterprise to the detriment of small and less affluent people. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else wish to address the Board on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Marine Associates? Yes, sir? MR. TOM FLURRY, New Suffolk, New York~ I live in New Suffolk for over-- almost ~fty years. I traveled every day during my working life to the city, back and forth, and it was such a relief to come home to a nice, quiet, tranquil place. Now I would had to see that--when I retired I could have moved south, I could have moved anywhere, but I chose to remain in this quaint village, and I can't see how anyone could--well it's ludicrous to me why they would want to put up such an eyesore. To me, it's not for senior citizens, it's not going to do any of the people in our bedroom community--that's what it is--it's all widows and retired people--any good to have an impact of this thrust upon us. With that I say, thank you for listening to me. Page 13 - Public Hearing November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. SUPERVISOR PELL: Yes, sir? MR. BILL STILWAGEN: I own Long Island Marine Service. It's one of the few business in New Suffolk. I was born and raised in Oceanside. Years ago it was very much like New Suffolk, beautiful. You could go to the water, you could have tranquility, it was very nice. But people didn't look, they didn't watch what was going on. Bit by bit it got more and more built up until there was no more tranquility, there was no more quiet places. It became ugly. It was very ugly. Everybody said we'll have more tax revenues, the more we build, the more taxes we can collect. Well, it's a very wealthy place, one of the wealthiest on the Island, but it's ugly, and the people turn ugly. I'm not saying everybody in Oceanside is ugly, but the trend is it's just not nice. left there thirteen years ago because I couldn't stand it any more, and now in New Suffolk I see the same thing starting to happen again. You go down Main Street now you can feel a lot of contentment, it's nice. You can relax, you don't feel upset about anything and I think Mr. Lyons made the statement before about what is the environment. The environment is what is going to happen to the fish, what's going to happen to the birds, what's going to happen to the animals? Well, we're the ultimate animal, we are man. We are the environment. Now, if you put these condominiums up where's it going to be to go? It's going to turn ugly again and I'm going to have to go. I know you all hate to see me leave, but I'll have to go. But as far as this petition, I think it stinks. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else wish to be heard on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Yes, sir? MR. PAUL LEARY, New Suffolk, New York: We've got to get to a sense of priorities. We've got an island of 400 acres where they want to build 28 units. Please let them build 28 units there. Please condemn Marine Associates for the public good and put in a marina there that would serve the public. Why? There is fewer and fewer boat slips available to the people who don't have access to the water. Every year you dredge the boat ramp for the guys who come from New Jersey, Brooklyn, Bronx and wherever. I'm there early in the morning and they say, "Gee, you know it only took us two hours to get here today." But if you were to put a boat ramp on Marine Associates property, those people, plus the people that don't have a place for their boats, would use that facility there, and I think that's really what you're leoking forward to in the years ahead. People who don't have the money to buy waterfront, beachfront, docks, should have access to the water. Why else are they here, really? And that's what you gentlemen have to face as Trustees and Councilmen and Superintendents. The people of the Town of Southold deserve that and I would be willing to bet that you could get such a thing as a referendum and the people would be behind it in terms of money. It may not have anything to do with the Environmental Impact Statement, but you've got a piece of property there that's going to go down the drain unless we do something about it now. Thank you. SUPERVISOR PELL: Anybody else wish to address the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates? MR. TOM McGOWEi~: Bill, could I say a word back for my granddaughter? She's here but she doesn't seem to want to speak herself. SUPERVISOR PELL: Tom McGowen. Page 14- Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. MR. McGOWEN: I was hoping my 14 year old granddaughter would speak on her own behalf, and on behalf of a good many of the other kids in New Suffolk. A very important part of their environment is a board sailing school which rents its space from its present ownership of the property under consideration. They realize that they will lose what has become a focal point of their recreational activities and I think it would be a shame to take this away from them. These are the kids of the community, the future of the community. Why do you want to destroy their environment, Commander Kenniff? SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Anybody else wish to address the Town Board on this subject? Counsel? MR. WILLIAM ESSEKS: May I speak addressing the people, or must I speak addressing the Town Board? SUPERVISOR PELL: Use the mike so everybody can hear you. MR. ESSEKS: I'm Bill Esseks, I'm an attorney, I represent the applicant. A few minutes ago when someone else spoke the person behind me said, "Sit down and shut up." And I trust that tonight not only the speaking who are speaking against this matter will be allowed to speak, and also people who might like to speak in favor of it. Am I correct, Mr. Supervisor? SUPERVISOR PELL: Mr. Blaikie already has spoken in favor of it. MR. ESSEKS: He was the one who was told to sit down and shut up. May I speak? SUPERVISOR PELL: Absolutely, yes. MR. ESSEKS: I didn't interrupt or object when anyone else spoke. I would hope that a little bit of couresty could be show. Not too much has been thus far, but I hope it could start now at least, This is not a situation, I believe, where it is within the power of the Town Board to say to Mr. Kenniff, or anyone else, that you must operate a boatyard on that site and lose money. I believe that anyone who thought about it for more than a few minutes would even think that they could say that, but most of the people who have spoken tonight have that in their mind. One of the last gentlemen to speak said, "We want that property, please condemn it." And you do have the power, but you must know that the contract that is out is for approximately a million dollars and if the Town wishes to float a bond issue and have a permissive referendum and condemn that a million dollars, or form a special assessment district and assess the good people of New Suffolk who want the property to remain the way it is, you can do those things. That, perhaps, is an alternative that hasn't been discussed thus far. But I don't believe that the people who are here tonight speaking against my client's proposal want to raise their taxes in order to acquire this property. It seems to be the thoughts of some people if they make enough of a stink on this matter, they can keep it the way it is, although I hear a few people saying they don~t want it the way it is because it is dangerous and dilapidated and falling down. Now, this property, as a result of the action of this Town Board and other Town Boards over many years, has zoned it not for recreational purposes, not for marine purposes, not to remain as it is, but they zoned it "C" Light Industrial, unless I'm very sadly mistaken, and I believe that if I read the ordinance correctly, the various uses that I will read, and I won't read all of them, I'll just read some of them, are Special Exception uses and your Counsel will tell you and the Board Page 15 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. and members here if they ask, that a Special Exception use is presumptively proper, you just have to meet certain conditions and criteria, but it is not a use by Variance, it's not a use by Change of Zone, it's a use that's now permitted. I going to read some of them: the first one under (B) is industrial uses, includ- ing manufacturing, assemblying, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, or other processing,, handling or storage of products and materials. That's a use allowed in light industry. Another use is wholesale storage and warehousing. Another use is building contractor's yards. Another use is food processing and packaging plants. Another use is yards for sale and storage of fuel and build- ing materials. Those are things that could be done on this property without coming in here and asking you or the people of New Suffolk for a change of zone. Those are things that my client could do and those are things that my client could sell the property to another purchaser and have that purchaser do without coming here and asking for permission. I speak often, and I attend too many public hearings all over the east end of Long Island and almost always those hearings deal with situations where the people who are objecting say, "Make that property residential." The theory is if you make it residential it won't be very valuable and therefore it won't be developed. But here we have a situation where the property has this commercial use and as such is valuable and my client wants to convert it not to another commercial use, which is permitted, but he wishes to change it to a residential use. I've never before--as part of my learning process-- I've never before been in a situation where we've gone from industrial to residential and the people have complained. It's always been the other way, but that's the way it is tonight. (outburst from the audience) I hope that you will allow me to speak a little bit more. Now, some people have talked about boat slips. Let me address that for a minute. There are 24 boat slips on the site. I am told, and I believe--no, to the contrary--I've been going there since I was a very small boy myself. I don't live in New Suffolk, it's a lovely community, but those 24 boat slips for at least the last ten years, two or three or four are rented out. The others were used by Marine Associates and there was such a demand for their use and their repair and sales business--selling boats--that they rented 12 slips in another marina in order to complete their use. So, no one should object if this property is used for residential purposes, to boat slips going out. That's not true. None will go out. As a matter of act, there will be 24 available to the people who live there. Each unit owner will get a boat slip to use. So the theory that there's a loss of boat slips is not correct. Now, people talk about he should stay there because there's a demand for marina business. I believe, and I've been advised, and I've seen the tax returns, after the calendar year 1982 the business lost in excess of $700,000. For the calendar year 1981 the business lost in excess of $200,000. That there are mortgages on the property almost of $600,000. Now, in the face of that, in the face of only 24 boat slips, in the face of the inability of the owners of the property, dispite applications to this Town for a period of years to improve the plant, in the face of the refusal of the Town to allow the physical plant to be improved, there isn't going to be a marina on that site. Now, on that site there's either going to be a public park if you condemn it, or there's going to be residential use, or there's going to be one of the manufacturing or business uses that I discussed. I don't believe that property which is worth between a million and a half and two million dollars is going to sit there vacant. Now, there is the discussion about visual view. I suspect there must have been an article in a magazine within the last two or three years telling about visual view rights, because it is the most popular topic of the people who are against things at all the environmental hearings all over eastern Suffolk County. I do not know, and I challenge any lawyer, or any non-lawyer, to produce any authority to the proposition that anyone has acquired an easement or a license to look across my client's property. In the Page 16 - Public Hearing November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. same fashion my client doesn't have the right to look across the property of the objectants. It may be that in 20 or 30 or LI0 years the law will get to the point where you do have visual easements, but it's not there as yet, so I do not believe that you should, can, or will take into account the alleged rights of people who bought houses or business on the west side of First Street, to be able to look across my client's property and therefore deny the application, or consider denying it, or take it into account in this DEIS proceeding. But take into some thought--go out to Aquebogue and go to the Lighthouse Marina. Now go over to Westhampton Beach and look at marinas where I have represented the people, you will see stacks of boats in cradles either set right in the property line or set in ten feet or set in twenty feet, or set in thirty feet. The side yard and setback restrictions for this property, my client's property, are 60 feet in some situations and 30 feet in others. Can anyone really believe that if boats were stacked 35 feet tall on metal racks, because boatyards are a permitted use in this district, in this industrial district, that we stacked boats 35 feet high all around the perimeters, in 10 or 20 feet all the way around to the full density of my client's property, would that really be to the advantage of the community or anyone else? It might well be a hazard, physically, it would have to be fenced, because people don't want their children running around on 35 foot tall racks. Now, people have talked about what's going to be more damaging to the environment. I go to public hearings in East Hampton and Southampton where people say, "You can not let that man build a house on five or ten acres, because on the five or ten acres he's going to have a lawn mower, and when he fills the lawn mower he's going to spill some gasoline and the gasoline is going to go into the ground and that gasoline is going to poison people." What we have in New Suffolk in the Town of Southold, we say, "Don't let 24 people live there." Summer residents perhaps, or all year around residents. No, instead of that, instead of 24 people we would rather had 200 boats where you put gasoline in, you take gasoline out, you repair them, you spray them (outburst from the audience)-- where you use power sprayers to spray off the barnacles and spray off the bottom paint, spray off the gel coat, and where you wax it and (outburst from the audienceJ--now, in the fall people rub, they take sandpaper or power sander, and take the bottom paint off the boat and where does the old varnish, the old copper paint, the old lead paint, the res'in, everything from the boat, where does that go? It goes into the ground. It goes into the same ground that people say is so sensitive that we can't have 24 houses on it. Now, when the group of you, as the Town Board members, consider the alternatives, and consider which use, my client's proposed use or my client's present use, is the least environmentally damaging. Which is more protective of the community? And you get to the question of solvents, paint, oil, gas, et cetera going into the ground on one use, and you have the uses of 24 houses on the other. Now, you all know, but I don't think the good people here know, that before my client, or anybody elses client can build a house, or build a store, or build a commercial use, or build any residential, we have to get a permit from the D.E.C. and we have to go to the Health Department, and the Health Department will say either your water supply is okay, or go spend more money for a water supply. When we get to the sewage disposal question, which is not before you gentlemen, it's before the Department of Health Services and the D.E.C., we will go there and we will show them how we will dispose of the sewage. Not the old methods used by the boatyard and the store and the restaurant, but new methods of disposal that the Health Depart- ment must approve, and they can make it very expensive for us. They can say you can't use septic systems. They can say you must use a package plan. Now, I say these things because when it comes to the protection of the environment for Page 17 - Public Hearing November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. water supply and sewage disposal, the D.E.C. and County Health will protect the Town, protect the people, and we don't have any choice. We're going to go there regardless of what happens on this hearing or any future hearings. Now, the final determination as what is going to happen here is the future use of the property. I don't believe that anyone can logically expect that it is going to continue as a boatyard and marina. It's not in the cards. New boat- yards and marinas require enormous sheds, 62 feet tall, and if you read Soundings Newspaper or Magazine and you read the periodicals in trade, you'll see no ones going to go in on this property or anywhere else unless they can have certain types and size shed where you can drive travel lifts into them and other pertinent uses of structures. I don't think that's going to happen. So, some use is going to happen to this property unless you condemn it, and I don't think you're going to spend nine hundred or a million--a hundred thousand or a million dollars to provide a park or a boat launching ramp. If you do, that's within your power. So you must consider what use on this property is least damaging to the environ- ment. Now, the people who live right there--I understand it--they want it to status quo, and I understand why they want it status quo. They're used to it, they bought their houses and there was a boatyard there and they think it's quaint and nice, but they don't have to pay the bills. They haven't lost over a million dollars. They don't have that $600,000 mortgage. You must balance, as your job, balance the alternative uses on this property, with the rights of everyone, including the rights of my client. Now, the statute provides at to what your rights and responsibilities are, or my client's are, with regard to this process, and I'm willing to abide by them. I would hope that you would finish up the proceedings promptly and then move on to the public hearing on the change of zone. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Gentleman right here. MR. JAMES W. LOUGHLIN, Southold, New York: I don't live in New Suffolk, I live in Southold, but I want to make one point, I'd like to, and that is the question of views. There's an ancient common law doctrine, I will pronounce it, Incorporeal Hereditaments, which means that if you have a view and somebody obstructs /t--and it's a long standing view--you're at risk--you're at damage. Now I know that in common law that had to go on for a long time, maybe years, but possibly we can make law here and reduce it from a long time to a small time. I'm sure that law still--the old common law still pertains. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mr. Loughlin. MR. TOM LOWRY: I have a question for Mr. Esseks. It sounds as though he is saying, if you don't let us do what we want to do, we will give you something worse than what you have now, and that sounds to me, although I'm not a lawyer, like a not so very veiled threat, and that makes me bristle. MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Supervisor, do you want me to respond? SUPERVISOR PELL: This is a public hearing for input for the Town Board on the Draft Environmental Statement. If you care to, yes, we're not requiring it of you. Page 18 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Dra~ Environmenta] Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. MR. ESSEKS: I think you have an exceedingly simple situation when it comes to whether or not it is a threat or not. The facts concerning the mortgage, and the facts concerning the value, and the facts concerning the losses are absolutely factual. If you don't believe it we'll have a forum and resolve that. Now, the property must be used for something. One use is what we've proposed. I don't believe the use is as a marina. The other uses you gentlemen have set forth in your zoning ordinance. The property is not going to remain fallow. If my statement that the property will not remain fallow is a threat, I am sorry, it is not intended that way. I don't believe many people intentionally take a million dollars worth of property and leave it fallow when they have a $600,000 mortgage on it. I do not intend it as a threat. It's a simple statement and as you people know, what you must do on zoning change and DEIS hearing is to consider alternatives, and the alternatives are in part setforth in your zoning ordinance, and what I did was to read them. So I believe there is a misunderstanding, it is a simple statement of act. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you. Anybody else wish to address this before we close it? Mr. Joe Fenton. MR. FENTON: I think what's happened is that the positions, the legal positions are being asserted here, rather than the environmental considerations. If I understand Mr. Esseks, and if I read the DEIS correctly, he wrote it, or he wrote part of it, because it was a legal brief. The same brief that he explained just now. That if you don't let this fellow rezone, that you've in effect condemned this property without compensating him. That's the legal issue that we're faced with and we will eventually litigate, because there appears to be no way of sitting down and discussing alternatives. God knows I've tried. We've also tried to bring buyers to the Commander, but he had sold the property. There will be a time and place when the zoning hearing comes up, to discuss whether ineptitude caused the $700,000 loss and another marina, another boatyard could do well there, and I don't think this is the place to argue about the fact that he doesn't have the right to do anything but use it as a marina and a boatyard. I think the Town Board should be careful. The grant, and I speak---I went to Albany with Pat Callahan, and we studied that grant very carefully, and we studied the affidavits that accompanied that grant. This man doesn't have the rights that he thinks he has and I think Mr. Esseks ought to analyze that very carefully. The Town--and this street ended at the high water mark in 1838. You don't get the property by adverse possession against the State, and I don't know what magic is going to be compounded here to establish that this commercial grant gives him rights which clearly they don't have. Now there are many areas of litigation that can take place here and I don't think it's a threat if Mr. Esseks points out what his client's rights are. By the same token, it's not a threat for us to point out what ours are. We just don~t want to look forward to eleven years of litigation which is what we---the Town of Southampton had---on this property. It's a form of blackmail and there's no reason for it. There's still an opportunity to sit down and figure out a use, kept a restaurant there, keep a boatyard or perhaps a public marina, some other use that the Commander can live with and that the people can live with, and that is consistent with environmental consider- ations. SUPERVISOR PELL; Thank you. Gentleman over here has his hand up. Page 19 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. MR, JOHN MAHONEY: I'm the consulting engineer. I'm a Professional Engineer licensed to practice in New York State, I've had a consulting practice in Suffolk County since 1957 devoted entirely to environmental matters. I've been retained by Marine Associates to seek approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health and New York State Department of Health, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on the sewage and water supply aspects of the proposed project. Land and engineering reports have been submitted to these departments. They've advanced to the stage where I can assure you that both the water supply and sewage disposal, I have written comments indicating that there will be no extraordinary problem in receiving approvals for water supply system and sewage disposal system to sever the 24 units on this site. To those points, as far as sewage disposal is concerned there is a letter to the Town of Southold Planning Board from Bob Jewell, Suffolk County Department of Health Engineer, indicating that the proposed denitrification system can adequately be installed and serve the project adequately. Now, the denitrification system is a relatively new requirement by the Suffolk County Department of Health and it address, directly, the major contaminate of the ground waters of Suffolk County, meaning the nitrogen constituents of sewage. In the denitrification process, those nitrogen constituents are removed from the sewage and returned to the atmosphere in the form of nitrogen gas, so essentially, there is almost complete removal of nitrogen performance from the sewage stream. The Health Department in requiring denitrification has increased the cost of the sewage disposal system from this project from approximately fifteen thousand to seventy-five to ninety thousand dollars, so that extra expend- iture of money, both the owners of the condominiums, as well as society in general, are going to reap good benefits. The Department of Health is not going to be a party to the horrors Mr. Callahan described. For this idea we go ahead and put in the proposed sewage disposal system. There will be no environmental insult or sanitary nuisance as a consequence of this system being installed and operated. I think that statement is almost self-evident. Again, the Health Department's responsibility is not to the developer, but to the community and there is nothing in their history that indicates they are doing anything else but assiduously follow- ing that . They are very tough organization--in times of environmental protection, As far as water supply is concerned. We have a letter--well, I'II just go through a short history first. On the way to getting Health Department approval we did test wells on the subject site. We found an adequate supply of water. The Health Department came and watched the stress tests on the aquifer. They took chemical analysis and they indicated that yes, we had a sufficient supply of water, and yes, the water that we were taking from the test well met their standards for drinking water. Nonetheless they said, we're not sure that we're going to have--that this water will be in the same and as good condition six years hence. That kind of a requirement is a very difficult one to met for most of the water supplies in Suffolk County. All right? They indicated that they wanted an absolute answer and they suggested, and it was their requirement and their observation that they would accept the reverse osmosis system. I've had, in my practice, a considerable experience with reverse osmosis. While it is the first--this is going to be the first reverse osmosis system for water supply in New York State, reverse osmosis is a common, accepted and very ordinary device used in many parts of the world to provide an adequate and assured water supply. Myself, I've been the project manager for a research project going on for four years, trying to use reverse osmosis for the polishing of an industrial waste--the largest bakery on the east coast. All right? And the recharge of groundwater of their industrial waste is a final polishing by reverse osmosis. I will assure the Board and for most people here who think this Page 20 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc, an esoteric and very exotic type of technology, that it is not. The only difficult part of a reverse osmosis system is its first cost. For this project--and I'm going to contrast the cost for reverse osmosis system as opposed to a standard well supply. All right? And it is my professional belief that we could use a standard well supply system on this site. That would cost approximately $~5,000. The reverse osmosis system the Department of Health is requiring to us provide is another $80,000 over and above that $15,000. And again the Health Department is not interested in seeing anybody spend that kind of money without a sufficient return for the investment. And what the owners of this subdivision--pardon me, this condominimum,are going to get is a technically sophisticated system that is not very difficult to operate and it will hold no surprises. At this point I don't think I should go into the type of system or any of its aspects. I don't think people are generally interested, but it is only a name that conjures space age technology- it is not, it is a very comman and very ordinary type of industrial process. All right? So in New York State and Mr. Paul Ponturo of the Health Department engineer, has sent a letter that's incorporated within the DEIS. All right? That letter in no way infers that a reverse osmosis system is not acceptable. Those comments that some people have made a big to do about tonight, is just the ordinary negotiations that go on at the very preliminary stages of the design. We are not intending to complete that design at this point. The expense to the sponsor, Mr. Kenniff, and Marine Associates, I think can be avoided at this point. All right? The sufficient monies have been expended for engineering fees to indicate, or to at least solicit, and we have received the Health Department's opinions that sewage and water systems for this site can be provided without difficulty. One further thing regarding flooding. Somebody was commenting earlier about the Bay of Fundy and 60 foot tides. That's an outrageous speculation, and it is not based in any kind of professional input, and it's hardly worth refuting at this point, because there will be no professional opinion that will be delivered here that will tell you that the construction of this project and the elevation of the site by a few feet will bring on the type of disaster that's been referred to. There's no way that's going to happen. Finally, we're not dealing with Robins Island here. This not a virgin site. The last a hundred and twenty years that piece of property has been used and used very hard. It's my contention, and I think I would like to emphasize what Mr. Esseks has talked about, that the ultimate impact of the construction of 24 condominium units on this site will be a very positive one for the environment. First of all, this site is presently being used a restaurant. The owner indicated that 220 meals a day will generate a sewage flow of about 3000 gallons, approximately half of what the condominium will produce. The strength of the sewage emanating from a restaurant is considerably more than what the strength of the sewage emanating from a residential is. Furthermore, the restaurant is a year around operation. The condominium at this point here appears to be a short term summer type of operation. Finally, there is an additional use that is going on on the site and that is the boatyard. There is a consumptive use of water in the boatyard that will not take place in the condo- minium operation. Now what do I mean by a consumptive use? When we're taking water from the ground and putting it through a sewage system and back into the ground again, we are not changing the water balance on the site. When you're taking water from the ground- groundwater--using it on boats, all right? You're getting evaporation. All right? You're getting losses by splashing on the ground, and again tremendous amounts of water are lost out of the balance to the ground- water., In effect, the condominium will redress the original balance on the property so there are no threats to the existing groundwater supply for anybody in the community. In fact, condominiums will increase--will help the remainder of the community in the protection of the water supply. It will do so in this manner: when a reverse osmosis system is installed we'll be going 70 feet down Page 21 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. below grade. We're going to be taking salt water, passing it through a membrane, that percentage of the water that passes through the membrance is fresh water. All right? That fresh water is returned to the groundwater on the site. It provides a barrier similar to the barriers that are provided in Holland and on the west coast of the United States, so that more fresh water can be extracted behind that barrier of treated sewage so that there will not be an infiltration of salt water. Now, what I'm talking about here are very small and minor effects and I will say, in truth, that most of the comments tonight have been addressing very small and minor effects, so I don't want to make too much of it. As a final point, the--- some comments were made concerning express about the brine that's going to be discharged in the reverse osmosis system. Very simply, the brine is not a very strong concentrated saline solution. It's about twenty percent stronger than ordinary sea water. Our intention is to discharge that brine right at the base of the bulkhead. All right? That water can be mixed with sea water that's been drawn in to dilute it further, so that there will be no slug of heavy density brine sinking to the bottom and infecting and other life there. In any event, the point of discharge and the materials that will be discharged as a consequence of the reverse osmosis system will be the subject of the Department of Environmental Conservation state agency and they will be satisfied as to its lack of affect. Sub- stantially my testimony tonight before the Board, there will be an improvement to the general environment in New Suffolk as a consequence of the 2~ unit condo- miniums being built. SUPERVISOR PELL: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. Before we close this meeting, does anybody else wish to add comment to it? MR. CALLAHAN' If it may be appropriate, since---I see that Mr. Mahoney mentioned me. Again through this whole process, I guess starting back in the beginning of March, I've tracking, shall we say, Mr. Mahoney's work. In terms of water supply, sewage and like, I just want to make a very very quick comment. My report to you--I never indicated in either the denitrification system nor the reverse osmosis taken independently and/or out of New Suffolk in terms of high tech, this is what we're dealing with all the time. These are good systems, let that be known, and very workable systems. The point is when you mix the systems in terms of our own sensitive environmental area the echo system of our area---what Mr. Mahoney failed to tell you, I believe that--again on the nitrification- denitrification system, the height to which he has to raise the property to get it above and out of the water table is a very significant thing, because it's going to reshape this whole project. The project you're looking at now on the plan which has been provided to you--in no way can accomodate what is even being asked for by the County. Now the County--what they are asking for is good. I think that's why he then alluded to the fact that he's definitely come to a point of phase one or something and not going into detail. That kinds of gets him off the hook on that point. So far as the nitrification system, again we concur that that system can work. I find it very ironic, however, that Mr. Mahoney himself admits that this is the first time--did he say in New York State? Did I understand that? That kind of gets me worried. In terms of the fiooding situation, Mr. Mahoney apparently--I didn't realize that was his area of involvement, but he evidently is attesting to it to the Board as a licensed engineer. Now I don't feel adequate myself to do that. I have been involved in a lot of heavy marine construction work. However, I don't personally feel that I am adequate to do that, so I have asked the United States Government, the Corps of Engineers, to attest to the Board regarding that issue. In terms of the overall area in Page 23 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. MR. ROY HAJE, Enconsultants, Southampton, New York: I prepared the statement, despite some comments to the contrary, I did indeed write it. I do feel that it is a forthright statement. It was not meant to deceive any- body. It is factual. We would stand by it. It has been submitted not only to you, but through you to other agencies who have made their comments or will still make comments. We will receive permits from these other agencies who will review it in depth. These forums are a crucible for projects such as this to review what will go on. It is not possible to be slippery in these statements. It is a statement open to review. This is a forum for soliciting comments. They should be factual. The project as we have proposed it entails use of a present marine boatyard. The uses and affects of that boatyard have been discussed and these too are factual. The proposed uses of 24 units of condominiums also can be documented. These are matters as far as water usage, sewage, traffic, etc., these are all documented by past and corollary uses. They are open for your review and we have presented them as such. We feel that there will not be a detriment to the environment, the way we have planned the project. We feel, in fact, as Mr. Mahoney has stated, that the present uses of the restaurant, boatyard, store, post office, etc., are stressing that property. We do not feel that the proposed use will nearly stress it as much. It will be more comparable with the property. I had not planned to make a statement. I do feel that the written statement speaks for itself, but I would be happy to make this comment. SUPERVISOR PELL: If there are no other comments at this time, I'm going to close this hearing. It is 10:00 o'clock. We've been here for two hours. The clock up there has stopped. The hearing is closed. Thank you. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Page 23 - Public Hearing - November 1, 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates, Inc. MR. ROY HAJE, Enconsultants, Southampton, New York: I prepared the statement, despite some comments to the contrary, I did indeed write it. I do feel that it is a forthright statement. It was not meant to deceive any- body. It is factual. We would stand by it. It has been submitted not only to you, but through you to other agencies who have made their comments or will still make comments. We will receive permits from these other agencies who will review it in depth. These forums are a crucible for projects such as this to review what will go on. It is not possible to be slippery in these statements. It is a statement open to review. This is a forum for soliciting comments. They should be factual. The project as we have proposed it entails use of a present marine boatyard. The uses and affects of that boatyard have been discussed and these too are factual. The proposed uses of 24 units of condominiums also can be documented. These are matters as far as water usage, sewage, traffic, etc., these are all documented by past and corollary uses. They are open for your review and we have presented them as such. We feel that there will not be a detriment to the environment, the way we have planned the project. We feel, in fact, as Mr. Mahoney has stated, that the present uses of the restaurant, boatyard, store, post office, etc., are stressing that property. We do not feel that the proposed use will nearly stress it as much. It will be more comparable with the property. I had not planned to make a statement. I do feel that the written statement speaks for itself, but I would be happy to make this comment. SUPERVISOR PELL: If there are no other comments at this time, I'm going to close this hearing. It is 10:00 o'clock. We've been here for two hours. The clock up there has stopped. The hearing is closed. Thank you. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENT8 § 1. In C~eneral § 1.01, What constttum :~ ~ l.Oa. ~nafer "? ~ I.M. ~wer ~ 1.~. ~men~ ~ 1.~. ~inent dom~ { 1.~. ~ent ~ 1.01. ~at co,tituS. The ~rm heredi~ent ~ ~ defin~ ~ a pro~rty r~ht which may ~ either cor~re~ or inco~r~ in nature. her~i~ent is physicS, visible ~d ~gible in form. By ~n- trot, an "inco~real her~i~ent" e~n ~ ch~ac~ri~ ~ ~y pro~rty which is not visible or ~gible, but which may ~ the subj~t of inheri~ce or convey~. An ~ement, ~r e~ple, is ~ in~r~re~ heredi~ent. It is not a p~t o~ the ~j~nt l~d, hut is a right to use it ~or a p~ticul~ put,seX u~l W the pl~ntiffs pro~rty. There is a s~ific ~neflt deriv~ which may p~s by d~d or inheri~ce ~ r~ es~.* Although a ~ in,rest signifies the land i~elf, including the sum of ~1 i~ uses, ~ in~r- por~ heredi~ent ~s con~n~ ~ a limi~ use,~ but ~th ~e tr~sferable.* Thus, an inco~r~ her~i~en[ is more th~ a l Afl,tic ~[ills Inc. v. New York ~ntr~ R.R., 126 Mi~ 349,214 NYS 123, revd on other grounds, 221 AD 386~ 223 5~4. 2 Slingsrland v. In~rnation~ ~n/r~ting ~., 43 AD 215, 60 NYS 12, I69 N Y 60, 61 NE 995: Jones v. Ma~o~li~ El. R.R., 39 St ~p 177; Saunde~ v New York Cent. ~ H.R.R., 144 NY 75, 38 NE 992, 26 ~A 378. ~ Miner v. New York ~nt. · H.R R., 123 NY 242, 25 NE 339. IN~RP HER -- 1 Gail S. Shaffer Secretary of State STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE RECEIVED 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE ALBANY, NEW YORK 12231 NOV 3 October 28, 1983 Town Clerk Soutflold Ms. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: Thank you for sending us a copy of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the proposed condominium project at the North Fork Shipyard site in the New Suffolk area of the Town of Southold. Projects of this nature can have considerable effect upon the wise use and protection of New York State's valu- able coastal resources. Therefore as the State's coastal management agency, the Department of State appreciates this opportunity to comment on this pro- posed project. The Town of Southold should be aware that the Department of State's role in local development matters within the coastal area of the State is advisory unless approval from a Federal agency is necessary. The daily implementation of New York State's Coastal Management Program (CMP) is the responsibility not only of this agency, but of all State agencies, such as the Department of En- vironmental Conservation, that have some existing regulatory or funding juris- diction over a proposed development project. Local governments which partici- pate in the State's local waterfront revitalization program will be expected to perform an important role in the implementation of the CMP. Given the Department's advisory role, our comments on this do not indicate whether or not the project is consistent with the coastal policies contained in our agency's Part 600 regulations. Instead, we have identified the coastal policies which we think are applicable to the proposed project and provide a number of ques- tions/statements that should be considered in judging the consistency of this project with the identified policies. The EIS on this development project, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review regulations, must include the identification of the applicable policies and a discussion of the effects of the project upon the policies (NYCRR, Title 6, Part 617.9(e)). Ms. Judith T. Terry October 28, 1983 Page 2 The applicable coastal policies and related questions/statements are as follows: 600.5(a)(1) - Restore, revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and under- utilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recrea- tional and other compatible uses. The proposed project should be viewed in terms of: (1) how it would improve any deteriorating conditions on the site; (2) the compatibility of the resulting residential development with the existing character of New Suffolk; (3) the effects upon the community's economic base; and, (4) the use of the site for multiple purposes. 600.5(a)(2) - Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. The intent of this policy is obvious -- waterfront sites should be used for activities that require such locations. But in determining the application of this policy, consideration should be given to: (1) the demand for water dependent uses in the immediate area; (2) any unique characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters which are essential for specific types of water dependent uses; and (3) the possible pre-emption of such uses on the site in the immediate future. 600.5(a)(4) - Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activities which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity. The project should be evaluated for its possible effects upon Cutchogue Harbor with respect to resulting in uses that are substantially different from existing activities, removing certain uses or activities that are publicly identified with the Harbor, and improving the level of economic activity in this small harbor. 600.5(a)(5) - Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate, except when such development has special functional requirements or other charac- teristics which necessitates its location in other coastal areas. Two important questions must be asked under this policy: -- Will the on-site water supply and sewage treatment systems adequately serve the resident population? -- Will the project induce similar types of development at the periphery of the New Suffolk comunity? Ms. Judith T. Terry October 28, 1983 Page 3 600.5(b)(2) - Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources .... Fishing is a major recreational activity throughout the coastal area of New York State. Development projects adjacent to the shoreline often present opportunities for increasing the public's ability to reach coastal waters for recreational fishing purposes. This proposed project may offer such an opportunity and should be evaluated accordingly. 600.5(d)(2) - Protect, restore, enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal area. Siting structures back from the shoreline, removing deteriorated build- ings, clustering and orienting structures to create open space and provide views, maintaining existing land forms and vegetation and the size of struc- tures are points that should be considered in determining the effect of the project upon the scenic quality of New Suffolk and its waterfront. 600.5(f)(1) - Water dependent and water enhanced recreation shall be en- couraged and facilitated and shall be given priority over nonwater-related uses along the coast, provided it is consistent with the preservation and enhancement of other coastal resources and takes into account the demand for such facilities. In facilitating such activities, priority shall be given to areas where .... the use of the shore is severely restricted by existing development. 600.5(f)(2) - Development, when located adjacent to the shore, shall provide for water-related recreation as a multiple use, whenever such recreational use is appropriate in light of reasonably anticipated demand for such activ- ities and the primary purpose of the development. Given the nature of the proposed project, the above two policies should be addressed at the same time, for the purpose of each is the same -- in- crease water recreation opportunities. If there is little or no demand for new boating services and facilities in the area, the applicability of these policies lessens. But should there be a demand for such recreational boat- ing services and facilities, attention should be given to how the project would accommodate these boating needs. 600.5(f)(3) - Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology or culture of the State, its communities or the Nation. We have been informed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (State Historic Preservation Office) that all of New Suffolk is situated in an "archeologically sensitive area" which may contain archeological resources covered by this policy. We recommend that this agency be contacted prior to the preparation of the final £IS. Ms. Judith T. Terry October 28, 1983 Page 4 600,5(g)(1) -Whenever possible, use nonstructural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion. Such measures shall include: (i) the set back of buildings and structures; (ii) the planting of vegetation and the installation of sand fencing and drainage systems; (iii) the reshaping of bluffs; and (iv) the flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above base flood level. The DEIS addresses this concern, but it should be discussed under this policy, However, this discussion should state the probable effects that the filling in of the flood plain may have upon adjacent properties. 600.5(h)(2) - Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the cost of conventional facilities are unreasonably high given the size of the existing tax base of these communi- ties. It would be beneficial to the review of this project, if the positions of the Suffolk County Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on the proposed on-site sewage treatment system were included in the discussion under this applicable coastal policy. 600.5(h)(3) - Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. The DEIS indicates that the site will slope towards First Street, thus preventing stormwater runoff from directly entering the Harbor. Does New Suffolk have a surface drainage system to handle this runoff? I hope the above staff comments will be of some assistance to the Town Board and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the review of this proposed project and in the preparation of the final EIS. If there are any questions on our comments, please contact me. My telephone num- ber is (518) 474-3642. Sincerely, , / (.',~, ;~, '.' William F. Barton Coastal Resources Specialist WFB:dlb cc: Dennis Cole, NYS DEC Region 1 NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK 11956 ~ewn Cle~S~uthald Nove~be~ 2~ 198~ Brookhaven National Laboratory Building Upton, N.Y. 1197~ Re: Condominium Development at I~orth Fork Shipyard, New Suffolk, l~.Yo Dear Mr. Sperry: Enclosed please find the following data: DEIS Prepared for Applicant (together with Append~ces 3,~ & 7 Comment by DEC dated 10/5/83 Comment by SuTfolk County Dept. of Health Services dated Comment by John Wickham Comment by Patrick Callahan, P.E. Comment by New Suffolk Civic Assn. Summary by New Suffolk Civic Assn. Recommendation by Southold Town Planning Board Resolution by Suffol~ County Planning Commission Please be sure to eEamine the effect of increase~ salinity o~ shellfish. The Applicant's engineer stated at the environmental hearing that there would be only a 20~ increase in salinity of processed malt water as a result of the proposed reverse osmosis system, but not a word ~s to what this would do to shellfish. Please see the Association's comment wdth respect to this on pa~e 6 of their comment. Mr. Callahan (pages 12 & 13 of hi~ report~ and Mr. Wickham refer to this in their comment, as does the DEC. The cumulative effect of increase~ salinity in a relatively closed ~ystem was dismisse~ by the Applicant's consultant. It reminds me cf the pharmaceutical house w~ marketed THANI~I~DE~ They ridiculed the Pure Foo~ and Drug Agency's refusal to license this product in the U.S. - although thousands of deformed babies were prevented as a result. This engineer's credentials to give us this "no problem" patter are open to question. I was unaware that your Agency was not copied in this matter. I believe the Town Board is obliged to accept comment from a Government ~'~gency at any time i~ the course of this pro- ceeding. ?urthermore, it will enzble us to raise any issue you m~y feel is worth~; of comment at the time a fins1 hearing in this matter takes place. Please do not hesitate to cai1 on me if you require further data or would like to inspect t~e site° SincereIy, Joseph Fenton cc. Southold Town Board RECEIVED _~ ,. ,~ ~.~_~.=~. NOV 3~ ' ~1 I/ .z ,.~ ~, _: r' I .'~ l"] .' . . ,~ ~. ~y / V ~ ! ,:~ / //' . , , ROBERT BERKS Halyoake .Avenue, Orient, N. T. H957 Tel. 516..t23.3507 RECEIVED NOV ! 31 October, 1983 Southold Town Board Southold, N. Y. 11971 Gentlemen, We are unequivocally opposed co the proposed condominium development for New Suffolk, The Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates is a fine example of magic thinking, but we do not want our town to serve as a guinea pig for unproven technologies which are likely to have a negative effect on our existing resources. Moreover, we believe that, contrary to Hr. HaJe's conclusions, a boatyard-marina complex, if properly managed, can be highly profitable with or without swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, etc. The purpose of an environmental impact statement should be to plan intelligently for future use of an area's potential. We believe that Mr. HaJe has "missed the boat." Boat registrations in our town are increasing every year, and it is becoming harder and harder to rent dock space. To close down a boat yard simply to bring in more people - many with their own boats makes no sense at all. A shortage of suitable boatyard-marina facilities will inevitably increase the press to bulkhead wetlands and to build docks out from those bulkheads. We hope it is not necessary at this late date to point out the folly of destroying the food source on which our fish depend in order to make room for more fishing boats. Di~ Mr. HaJe consider the environmental impact of that when he recommended scrapping one of the last existing marina potentials on the North Fork? The fact that there have been boats at the North Fork Shipyard since 1842 suggests that the present owner must be doing something wrong - or is not being allowed to do something right - if he cannot make a go of it. We suggest that Marine Associates be encouraged with whatever permits they need to expand and modernize the marina operation and make it profitable. And we urge that you protect Southold Town from yet another costly, impractical and undesirable scheme by outside developers for a high-class shanty town that will abuse our precious resources. Very trul~ yours, Dorot~ M. Berks TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE Take the LIE to last exit 73 (co. rd. 58- Orient). Travel east on Rt. 58 (which becomes Rt. 25) about 13 mi]es to the village of Matt]tuck. On your right- hand side you will see a sign for Car- vel as well as an arrow Indicating New Suffolk, Make a right at that corner (New Suffolk Ave.) Continue on this road about 3 miles past the red blinkir~g light. New SuffoJk Road dead-ends in our yard. WELCOME TO THE NORTH FORK SHIPYARDI (516) 734-6330 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK :. :,?.,.. ~,~ ~ PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H. October 24, 1983 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: SUBJECT: SEQR - CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH FORK SHIPYARD, NEW SUFFOLK. We have reviewed the DEIS (8/83), the "Engineering Report on Water Supply" (4/83) and "Supplement" (9/83). Because there was no comment time period stipulated in your transmittal letter of September 21, 1983, we hope that this response is still helpful in your evaluation of the project. Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Mr. Ponturo of this department sent to the NYSDOH regarding the engineering report and supplement on water supply. Several significant comments are presented in this correspondence pertaining to the design, operation and location of the water supply facilities and possible impacts relative to nearby land uses. It, therefore, seems advisable that the town's decision on this submission await the resolution of these important issues. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Vito Minei, P.E. Supervisor, Planning Unit VM/lst Enclosure cc Robert A. Villa, P.E. (w/enclosure) bec: Vito Minei COUNTY OF SUFFOLK October 20, 1983 Mr. G. Faustel, P.E. New York State Department of Health Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection Rockefeller Plaza Tower Building Albany, NY 12237 Re: WSA 10-83-0085 Marine Associates Inc. Dear Mr. Faustel: This office has reviewed the April, 1983 engineering report and the September, 1983 addendum which addresses a proposed modification for a Reverse Osmosis treatment system. Copies of these reports have been forwarded to you by the New York State DEC regional office.. My understanding is that DEC's position is that this application, as part of a multi-permit under the SEQR - process, is incomplete until the time that the project receives a decision on the Environmental Impact Statement from Southold Town. Southold is Lead Agency under the SEQR process Because this project involves advanced water supply treatment con- cepts, and because it will set a precident for a number of similar projects likely to follow in Suffolk, I suggest that our prelimi- nary review and full consideration is appropriate at this time. I would appreciate your consideration of these comments, and would like to discuss this project before you notify the engineer on this proposal. Mr. A. Candella of NYSDEC.will receive a. copy of this letter. I am also enclosing a copy of my comments to the engineer on the initial report - several comments to which the September, 1983 Supplementary Report did not respond. Mr Faustel, P.E. Page Two October 20, 1983 My current comments are as follows: 1 - The engineer should base his average day demand on a devel- opment of anticipated per capita demand. The engineering report does not develop any estimate for maximum day or peak hour demands. Since these two figures are critical to the design of the treated water storage tank(see com- ment 6) and sizing of the service pumps between the ·"con- tact tank" and "pneumatic tank" shown on page 6 of the Addendum to the September report (see comment 5), they obviously must be developed. The Numbers given on the enclosed San 96 for~ (max day of 6,000 gpd versus an average day of 5,400 gpd, and a peak hour flow which is only two times the average day flow.) are not acceptable. 2 - The site plan should clarify the location of the two proposed wells. The plan submitted with the original engineering report is inconsistant with well location information presented with the draft Environmental Impact Statement. A~I neighboring cesspool and private well locations are to be shown on the site plan. .~' 3 - The wellhouse .plan originally submitted with the April, 1983 report showed a standby generator. No generator is shown on the new layout plan. It is to be noted that the high pressure R.O. pumps and requirements for additional ser- vice pumps will undoubtedly call for a much larger gen- erator than was origionally envisioned by the engineer. .~ ·_ 4 - Detailed plans and specifications for all supply, treatment · and distribution facilities are to be submitted We regard .-.~ the current submission as only conceptual in nature. '~-- 5 - No information is given as to the sizing of the service pumps. · ~· If the 5,400 gpd average day flow is accurate, with an in- stantaneous demand factor of 10, the service pumps must pro- vide a total capacity on the order of 40 gpm. 6 - The design basis for the "contact tank" as the usable treated water storage for the project is presented in the enginaer's August 25, 1983 letter to me. I do not agree with the engineer's use of a maximum 6 hour flow at 1.5 times the average. I w~uld like to present the following calculations of my ow~ for your consideration Average Day: 5,400 gpd .- 1,440 = 3.75gpm (From the Engineers Report) Use 4x Avg. Day = 21,600 for maximum Day. The reverse Osmosis Units yield a total of 9,000 gpd ac- cording to the engineer, yielding a draw from storage of 12,~00 ~allons, on the maximum day. M~_.. F~ustel, P.E. Page Three October 20, 1983 The two tanks proposed can only yield at most 4,500 gallons as usable storage. Please note that this calculation is based upon continuous reverse osmosis unit operation in this period. Since the~e units would be responding to elevation or pressure ccntrols in the tank, and since the maximum day flow is not uniformly distributed over 24 hours, I do not feel that even This calculation is realistic, and is only intended for illustrative purposes. 7 - As the reverse osmosis units will undoubtedly produce a corrosive water, pH control will be needed to protect the the copper pipes in the homes. 8 - The engineer presented no information on well drawdown dur- ing the pump tests. Since adjacent homes and co~.ercial buildings are served by individual wells, the location of the freshwater - saltwater interface and its movement with pumpage is of concern. 9 - Raw and treated water taps must be provided. A continuous recording conductivity reter and alarm system should be required. 10 The discharge of saline reject water from the reverse osmo- sis units to the bay should be reviewed by NYSDEC as a dis- -- charge. At the minimum a letter from DEC accepting the discharge to the bay must be obtained by the engineer. The discharge must be through an acceptable air-gap. -"~ ' '~ il - Because .~{~ the complexity of the operation of the system, ~ ~ ' .i-~ an opera~or certified at an advanced water treatment plant ~_ operator ~lavel is needed, ? 12 - I am c0nc~rned that the details of operation~ maintence and their costs 'are not discussed in detail by the engineer. I would suggest that Mr. Faustel's 1979 advisory concern- ing an operational manual (copy attached) be modified to allow State approval prier to construction of this project.' '-~'~-_-... 13 - At this point in time, it is considered likely that this system will be turned over to a homeowners association. ,~ ..... This office, and I am sure we are not unique, has had ' great difficulties obtaining emergency repairs and even routine maintenence form such systems. At any given · -'- moment-in-time, such a-complex will have tenants, absentee landords, year-round retirees and seasonal owner-residents. Getting all these persons together to scrape up operating or repair funds as needed will be difficult. I believe that the owner must bear the responsibility for setting up a homeowners association in such a way as to eliminate these problems. Our first choice would be that the system be turned over to the Town of Southold or the Suffolk County Water Authority and run as a self-contained, self- sustaining operational and financial entity. Mr. Faustel, P.E. Page Four October 20, 1983 If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Paul J0 Ponturo, P.E. Public Health Engineer Drinking Water Supply Section PJP/vc Enclosures cc: A. Candella, NYSDEC ~ ~ g2.., .~'*~i;:: ~.~:, Town Hail, q3095 Main Road , ~'-~ ....... ' ~ '. P.O Box 728 '- '; ~ - ....... ~' Southold, New York ll971 R~GIfiIRA ROI VI IAL S I ~ lis l l['S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Sepgember 23, Mr. Peter Grodski Box 5 New Su£folk, New York 11956 Dear Mr. Grodski: In response to your letter to me which appeared in The Suffolk Times on September 22nd, concerning the petition for a Change o£ Zone by Marine Associates, New Suffolk, I would like to correct misconceptions by the public concerning my role in the procedure for a public hearing. Public hearings are scheduled by the Southold Town Board and published by me ar their direction. A public hearing has not been scheduled on the abovementioned proposal because the petitioner was requested by the Town Board to submit a Draft Environmental Impact State- ment, with a public response date of October 1, 1983. The statement was furnished to me, as contact person, and circulated to the proper state, county and local agencies. The clock is still running for comments. I assume the Town Board will soon be scheduling a public hearing on this Draft Environmental Impact State- ment, which is required under the New York State Depart- merit of Environmental Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality Review rules and regulations. Once the environ- mental process is resolved, the Town Board will schedule a public hearing on the petition for a Change of Zone. Thank you for your interest and concern in this matter. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: The Suffolk Times · ,:: ' ' -~-," , 7ovm Clerk · ' ~'~'~' ' " d,_:~ tc itl size, '~t_z'~ron% ]mcr. tL:n ".ost ~e~rely yours, (, t-~ ~e~t, tozi ~ohbins Joai* ~o!'~-' -, e', ~oz 147 '"' _ 983 Fourth and Main New Suffolk, N Y 11956 OctObel' 3, 1983 Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall l~in Road Southold, N.Y. Dear Sirs: Plesse let it be known that as =esidents of Ne~; Suffolk husbamd and I ace one hundred percent against the construction of any struc~rea within the town limits that are not within the already established zoning laws of Southold Town. The preservation of the air, land, and sea environment being of the utmost importance. Just as importantly, however, is the preservation of the atmosphere and quality of the town itself The charm which attracts developers of condominium projects is also consumed by them. It is a futile chase of the cat trying to catch its own tail and in the end all that occurs is that the scene of the chase is a shambles. We strongly ur§e the Southold Town Board to use eve y legal means possible to prevent our beautiful, quiet ret:eat from be- coming just another scene of the chase. Sincerely, Susan and La land Brandes COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a Potricia Wood, being duly sworn, soys that she is the public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, Tuesday, November 1,, 1983, at the Southold Town Hall, o public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk Count,/; Main Ro~d, $outhold, Now and that the notice of which the annexed is o printed copy, York, on the Draft Environ. mental Impact Statement sub- has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- mitred by Marine Associates, man once each week for ...................... [ ................ weeks · Inc., New Suffolk, New York, in connection with their appli- cation for a Change of Zone successively, commencing on the .................................... from "C" Light Industrial ~ ..L~.!~. T.~. District to "M-I" General day of .............. .~.. .................... , 19...~... Multiple Residence District on certain property k~cated on the '~~-~- : ....... "="'"~ "-~C',J" easterly side of First Street, New Suffolk, New York. Appli- cant desires to redevelop the property'to consu-uct condo- minium units. SIRQR lead agency is the Sworn to before me I~qis ~ ~ t~, day of Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Im- . .......... ~..~ · 19....~...? pact Statement is on file in the ......................... ot~ce of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for ins pectiondnring reguinr bus i- ~~..~.~ ~ ness hours. . ...... :. .................... DATED: October 4, 1983. ,IUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLEia. K 1T-10/20/83(:2.3) C~ME:~T d. 7HO~.~,p$oN NOTARY PUBLIC, State ol New York ;:o. 52-~321725 Kes~ding in Suffolk Ceur~ Comm;s~lon Expire~ M,~rt LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN lhat the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 11 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 1983, at the Southold Town Hall. Main Road, Southold, } SS: New York, on the Draft COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates, Inc.. New Suffolk, New York, in JOAN GUSTAVSON of Greenport, in connection with their said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is application for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Principel Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, s Weekly Industrial District to "M-II' Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town General Multiple Residence District on certain property of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New located on the easterly side of York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is First Street, New Suffolk, New York. Applicant desires to a printed copy, has been regularly published in redevelop the property to constructcondominiumunits, said Newspaper once each week for eric , SEQR lead agency is the weeks successively, commencing on the ? 0 Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental deyof October 19 83 Impact Statement is on file in the office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, ~ Southold, New York, and is ~-' /.'~'.t available for inspection during regular business hours. Principal Clerk DATED: October 4, lga3. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD ~ Sworn to before me this 2 0 th TOWN CLERK IIOTNff I~l~ day of ~ 19 ~ iTO 0- STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUVFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, Ne~t York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years: that on the 10th day of October 19 83 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a propel- and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, ATew York, to wit:- Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office, Hain Road, Southold, New York 11971 Notice of Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Marine Associates - 8:O0 P.M., Tuesday, November 1, 1983, Southold Town Hall. Judith T. Terry / Southold Town Clerk-- Sworn to he before me this lOth day of October 19 83 otary Public ELJZAB~H ANN NEVILLE NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Y~ ~0. 52 S125850, 5u~i01k C0un~ Term rx.i~,[ M~ch 30. I9 ~ / . ,'~. ,: :, ,- :- LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board o£ the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 1, 1983, at the Soufhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southo]d, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates, Inc., New Suffolk, New York, in connection with their application for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the easterly side of First Street, New Suffolk, New York. ~:Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the office o£ the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: October 4, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK '.PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, OCTOBER 20, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN ' HALL~ MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Beard Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Marine Associates, Inc. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 1, 1983, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates, Inc., New Suffolk, New York, in connection with their application for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the easterly side of First Street, New Suffolk, New York. Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: October 4, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, OCTOBER 20, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following; The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Marine Associates, Inc. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at S:00 P.M., Tuesday, November .1, 1983, at The Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Marine Associates, Inc., New Suffolk, New York, in connection with their application for a Change of Zone fi'om "C" Light Industria] District to "M-i" General Multiple Residence D~stric~ on cert~in property located on the easterly side of First Street, New Suffolk, New York. Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draf~ ~]nvironmental Impact Statement is on file in the office of the Tow~ :Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: October ~, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, OCTOBER 20, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. ~ies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Mari~e Associates, Inc. R~i~E~ Jackson Street New Suffolk, New York 11956 October 1, To~nCle~S~o~d uts. Judith c.'~ Town ~all ~outhold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: Re: Marine Associates, Inc. Proposed Condominium Project at New Suffolk I have read the Environmental Impact Statement with regard to the above mentioned project and have found that Marine Associates has f~iled to: 1. Show that the development will be seasonal in nature(four months) as applied to water supply and the proposed fifty-four hundred gallons per day average ume. 2. Prove that extensive watering of ground cover (irrigation) will not take place, as the ~eport states "...the development will be extensively landscaped." 3. Prove that reverse osmosis is a well-proven method of water supply, considering that the Suffolk County Department of Health has Just received a grant to investigate the uae of reverse osmosis for wa~er supply. 4. Prove that the discharge of concentrated brine from the reverse osmosis unit will cause no detrimental effect to the environment. 5. Prove the effectiveness of reverse osmosis should it be used seasonally only. 6. Understand that UIS.P.H.S. Standards are no longer in effect when applied to drinking water quality. 7. Provide standby power for both water supply a~d sewage operations should Lilco power fail. 8. Provide fire protection as well as eliminating the best source of fire protectlon water suppl3 in New Suffolk by %he proposed closing of Main Street. 9, Show that the local fire department can provide service to the proposed development (excessive height of occupied buildings). 10. Even know where the children in New Suffolk ~t%end public school. I hope %hat the Town Board as well as the Planning Board takes into consideration these shortcomings and the many other~ and will see fit to reject this ill-conceived proposal. Respectfully yours, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Martin cc: Mr. William Pell New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit RECEIVED Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 OCT 5 ~ HenryG. Williarns Commissioner ( 516) 751-79OO Town Cler~ Southold September 29, 1983 Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: 10-83-0085, Marine Associates Dear Ms. Terry: Below I am listing comments received from our technical staff concerning the DEIS: 1. A-20 antisealant - indicate what is its chemical make-up. 2. Report does not indicate how the brine from R.O. system will be disposed of. Drawings show discharge pipe into Bay. Will antisealant be mixed with brine? 3. The DEIS does not address whether this project is consistent or incon- sistent with Section 600.5 of Part 600 Coastal Policies pursuant to NYCRR, Title 19, Chapter 13, Article 42 under the New York State Coastal Management Program. Specifically items 600.5(a)-(j) of these regulations. Contact Kevie Cross or Bill Barton at (518) 474-5063 for additional informabion. Very truly yours, Dennis W. Cole Environmental Analyst ce: Bill Barton, Dept. of State A. Candela, NYSDEC, Stony Brook Bureau of Tidal Wetlands DWC:co's ,JOSEPh FENTON ATTORNET AT LAW JACKSON STREET NEW SUFFOLK, N, Y. 11S'56 i516i 734-5099 0c. tober 3, 19~ Mrs. Judith Terry Town Clerk ~own of S~uthold Southold, :i.l. ]1971 Re; Petihion of Marine Associates, Inc. Dear ~rs. Terry: In my letter to you d~ted SeptemOer 28, 1983, I advised you that a ninth (gth) protest, that of Michael Greenly · ~nd Jcseph ZcMay, would ultimately be submitted. Enclose~ find th~.s proteot, in completed form. Please note that ~n the comment addressed you, d~te~ September ~O, 19~3. by the New Suffolk Civic Association, Ins, wkich refers to the protests filed Ly the i~ediate bors (top (,f p,~ge 8), there apb,ears to b~ a typographical or ctker error in the second paragraph on that page. The co~ment ~efers to Section 246 of the New York ?[ate Towt, Law, when, in f,=ct, the ap[ropriste Section is 26~, as more particularly set fzrth in each such t:rotest filed with the Town Poard in this matter. NEW SUFFOLK CiViC ^5$OCIATION INC. N,:~' SUFfOLk. ~' Y' September 30, 1983 Town Board Town ot Southold Soutbold, New York 11971 RE: Application of Marine Associates, Inc. No. 257 Gentlemen: This is a summary of the subjects we have addressed in respect of your invi- tation to cow~ent. It would be irrational for the To~,m Board to take anvaction except to reject ~is application, and by unanimous vote. The bases for this, in summary form, are as follows, and are discussed more fully in our detailed co~ent. 1. Rejection by Town Planning Board 2. Rejection by Suffolk County Planning Commission 3. Vote of New Suffolk Residents (168 to 10) 4_ Covenant and Restriction in Deed (which applicant accepted) 5. Cow~ercial Nature of Grants of Underwater Rights 6. Lapse of Underwater Grants 7. Inconsistency with Coastal Management Criteria 8. Fresh Water Problem 9- Patbo%enic Hicroorganism Problem of Purported Solution 10. Salinity Problnm of Purported Solution and Effect on Shellfish 11. Sewerage Problem 12. Contamination of View 13. Tidal Problem 14. Flooding Problem to adjoining properties by raising height of site 15. Population impact on small community 16. Historical Nature of Site (America's First Submarine Base) 17. Protests filed by vast majority of nearby property owners (under Section 265 of New York State Town Law) 18_ Project ~ut of Character with New Suffolk 19. Elimination of Harina and Boatyard Facilities 20. Elimination of Port of New Suffolk 21. Overintensified use of site 22. Absentee Ownership of applicant and consequent lack of concern with con, unity 23_ Excuse for Postal Service to Eliminate New Suffolk Post Office 24. Loss of Galley-Ho Restaurant 25. Loss of Employm=nt to twenty to thirty people 26. "Best-Use" is Restaurant, Boatyard, Marina, in the hands of Competent Owners 27. Imp~t on resort bus~ness Respectfully submitted, New Suffolk Civic Assn., Inc. NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ^SSOCIATION lNG. N I 4' S U F F O L K, N. Y, September 30, 1983 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Statement Marine Associates, Inc. Dear Mrs. Terry: The Association respectfully submits the following comment on the project, pursuant to the Notice dated August 22, 1983, and associates itself with the accompanying comment of Patrick Callahan, P.E. and of John Wickham. Taken as a whole, Mr. Haje's report reads more like a legal argument in favor of the proposed use, than an objective environmental report of a professional. We believe his professionalism has been compromised and that he has permitted himself to become the spokesperson for conclusions which have no basis in fact, are out of his field of expertise, and which cite no supporting data. We suspect they are not his own work product. The principal thread of disinformation which permeates his report is that boatyard marinas can't make it. What qualifications he has to support this conclusion are unavailable to us. (Real Estate Broker? Appraiser? Business Broker? Financial Expert?). We are aware of no diminution in the number of boatyard marina operators in the town of Southold in the past 20 years. In fact we believe there are more slips now than two decades ago; that more boats are sold and registered in the area each year than previously; and that the mere assertion that such enterprises can't make it in the Town of Southold, does not make it true. Enclosed are two articles (or pertinent parts of them), taken from the September 8, 1983 issue of the Long Island Traveler Watchman, coincidentally published at the time this comment was written, both of which indicate that two local boat dealers, in this instance Strongs Mattituck Marine and Port of Egypt Marine, are doing well. Strong cites annual sales increases of 15% to 25% and Port of Egypt received an award from Grady-White for "outstanding achievement based on total sales volume for the 1983 model year". Mr. Haje is a hired gun for the so-called "developers" of our society, and his report must be read, keeping this fact in mind. "Developers" who, having created the country equivalent of grid-lock on summer weekends on the South Fork are now eyeing more fertile fields. Have any of you ever tried to drive in the Hamptons in July and August? Mr. Haje's report (page 4) indicates that the property has been owned by "principals" for 23 years. The applicant, Marine Associates, Inc., acquired title on September 25, 1981. The transfer of the property to the applicant by the boatyard owners will be discussed in more detail below. The report (page 11) admits this is a demographic change. We believe it is for the worse, not the betterment of our society. Urban pollution of the waterfront is not progress. The report (page 12) refers to the historical nature of the site as America's first submarine base. We believe it is inappropriate to construct condominiums at a historical site and to expose the site to a use thoroughly inconsistent with its history. The report attempts to assert that the present view is blocked by boatyard buildings, and presents selected prejudical photographs, taken admittedly, by the chief proponent of this project, James A. Kenniff, as evidence. We submit herewith, photographs of the site which present a more accurate picture, and disclose a picturesque view of the bay which will be blocked by the proposed fill and structures. We oppose this proposed pollution of the view, call attention of the Town Board to the periodic use of the site as a subject for painting classes and invite the Board to inspect and judge for itself. On the same page, since there is no present noise created at the site, the report is, at best, misleading. The report was written so as to intentionally or inadvertently suppress the obvious fact that the plan calls for 4 feet or more of fill over present grade, on top of which the structure will be built, having the effect of an impenetrable penitentiary-like wall of earth and buildings. The report (page 16) acknowledges that extensive landscaping is required but fails, at this point to acknowledge that irrigation, in dry weather, will be required, taxing already inadequate water resources. The report (page 18) fails to acknowledge chat other boatyards are flourishing in the area and the wrfter's comment about the demand for swimming pools at marinas, indicates his lack of familiarity with the North Fork. He is a resident of Centereach with an office in Southampton- The issue is not the building of a swimming pool at this site. This very concept is entirely out of character with New Suffolk a~d raises the specter, which the Town Board must take into account at this time, that we are net dealing with just 2& condominium units. Each unit will come with a boat slip, water and electricity. Each purohaser can and probably will have a boat or rent the slip to someone who does. The proposed prices indicate that prospective purchasers will not be from an economic class that will be docking 12 foot rowboats or outboards, hut 30 foot to 50 foot yachts with the capacity to house additional live-on related or unrelated fzmilies in all but winter months. We are dealing with up to an additional 24 non-taxpaying families (water, sewerage, traffic, etc.). The report (page 19) dismisses present and past public access (for more than a century), a well known fact, a practice encouraged by generations of ownerS, including all owners until and including Marine Associates, Inc. We view Peconic Bay (or Cutchogue Harbor) as public property which New Suffolk residents and others have used without interference and with no problems for hundreds of years. If the Board will refer to the April 3, 1838 Grant (photocopy attached) of underwater property by the State of New York, it states: "...for the purpose of promoting the Commerce of this State, and for no other object or purpose whatsoever .... " (underlining added for emphasis) Marine Associates, Inc. is pleased to be the beneficiary of this underwater grant to enable it to offer boat slips to prospective purchasers, but appears to ignore, 1. the purpose clause of the grant, namely commerce, and 2. th~ fact that the portion of the Grant where boat slips mre now located, lapsed in 1840 by reason of the fac~ that the two year deadline was not In the same grant, the State, in addition to reserving to the people, all gold and silver mines, reserved to the people - "...the full and free right, liberty and privilege of entering upon and using, all and every part of the above described premises, in as ample a manner as they might have done had this grant not been made, until the same shall have been actually appropriated and applied to the purposes of There is no evidence, despite a detailed file with respect to the grant that any part of the property was appropriated fo commerce within the two year deadline required by the grant's terms. In any event, such use has been abandoned. It is our position that the grant lapsed and that all ceded rights to the underwater property revert to the State, enabling the people to use it. Moreover, Marine Associates, Inc. has breached the express covenant and restriction "for the purpose of promoting the commerce of this state, and for no other object or purpose whatsoever" . Attached is a photocopy of a map of New Suffolk, taken from an Atlas published subsequent to 1842, when Goldsmith & Tuthill was formed, which shows an extension from Main Street into the water, called Steamboat Wharf (the wharf appears to coincide with where presently the abandoned gas dock is situated). There was no boat basin at the time or any "docks and wharves" where the present pier and boat slips are located. Clearly, the N.Y. State Grant had lapsed in 1840, w~th respect to the portion of the site the applicant is now attempting to convert from commercial use to its private ends. The November 13, 1897 grant of similar rights from the Town of Southold contains homoousian language. Accordingly, we hereby petition the Town to take whatever action is appropriate to return such property to the Town's exclusive use, or to that of the people. On the next page, (page 20), the report compares the effect, population-wise, with Cutchogue-New Suffolk and comes up with a 2% increase. Had he compared to the town of Southold, the percentage would have been even lower, and while he admits a comparison to New Suffolk alone would yield a higher percentage, he fails to utilize available data (L.I. Regional Planning Board) which would show a 10% increase in population (accepting his 2.25 per apartment figure and ignoring boat people). The not so subtle attempt to leave us with a 2% impression when the correct figure is 10%, while covering himself with an admission that it should be something else, is hardl~ praiseworthy. The report (page 21) fails to acknowledge that the so-called abandonment of the boatyard business was self-inflicted. We are reminded of the man who murdered his parents, and asks the court's consideration because, after all, he is an orphan. We have consulted with other boatyard and marina owners and operators in the community and as we indicated above, many are prospering. Since the report puts into issue the viability of a boatyard operation, we must emphatically protest. We live in a free-enterprise system. Some entrepreneurs are succcssful, others not, at the same locations. For example both Hills (Cutchogue) and Bohack (Mattituck and Southold) were unable to stay in business at these locations. New people, Key Food (Cutchogue) and John Malinowski (Southold) took over at these locations and are doing splendidly. The report (page 4) blames the town for the boatyard's troubles ("difficulties in securing approvals"). But is this fair? The same people control a boatyard in Freeport, L.I. (Bates). They are also discontinuing business at that location (see enclosed notice). Can the town of Southold be blamed for this? Surely, the oil crisis and escalation of the cost of hydro£arbons and interest have taken their toll, hut many automobile dealers and boatyards survive while otheri fail. Perhaps the yard's management is at the root of the problem if there is one. This is the perception of the residents. While we are not in a position to evaluate whether certain corporate practices are cost effective in this business because we recognize that one man's business expense is another man's high living, the local impression is a critical one. This, and a pervasive sales tax problem as reported in numerous newspaper articles are perhaps more influential than the town's purported role in the so-called abandonment. For many years, a stranger, dropped from the sky at the North Fork Shipyard, would have sworn he was in the State of Delaware. A majority of the boats docked there were so registered - to avoid the sales tax, which, on the larger boats, was substantial. Inevitably the abuse was checked with apparent consequences. New York purchasers, subject to the tax, penalties and interest plus the cost of incorporating and maintaining a corporate entity in Delaware, a non-sales tax state, are not likely to buy a new boat from a company who recommended or orchestrated the unsuccessful attempt at tax saving. The biggest single source of customers for new boats are previous purchasers according to boatyard operators we interviewed. The extent to which the so-called abandonment referred to by Mr. Haje was influenced by these factors, whether the transfer o~ the property from North Fork Shipyard, Inc. to Marine Associates, Inc. (the same principals according to him) is in anticipation of back sales tax assessments is speculative at best, as is his accusation that the town is at fault. We call the Board's attention to the fact that the property was purchased in 1960, we believe, for approximately $150,000, $20,000 cash and a purchase money mortgage of $130,000. We were unable to locate any registration statement with respect to the sale of stock in North Fork Shipyard, Inc. to the public, or determine the price at which later transfers of the property were made. However, we believe the principle motive for the so-called abandonment is the profit which rezoning might achieve, and for attempting to ride roughshod over all natural and legal obstacles to this project. Aside from some of the Kenniff family (4 stockholders), and Tom Uhlinger who worked at the boatyard, there is only one stockholder who lives in the Town of Southold. The geographical - 5 - distribution of the remaining stockholders (32 in all) is as follows: Nassau County 6 California 6 Florida 4 Virginia 4 N.Y. City 3 Maryland 2 N. Carolina, Ohio, Kansas, Rockland County, New Jersey, Illinois and a Wall Street Brokerage Firm I each No one lives in New Suffolk or is concerned with the destruction of the quality of life which would inevitably be wrought by this proposed project. After their profit, the problems inherent in the site and in the plan of this ill-conceived project will be ours. We attempted and were unsuccessful in determining the real parties in interest, who Marine Associates, Inc. have reportedly contracted to sell to (or who the Wall Street Brokerage firm represents, if it is not for their own account). We believe it is important for the town to know whom we are dealing with, its reputation, etc., not merely have assurance, which we don't have at present, that no employee of government is involved. In our comment we have refrained from dealing with technical matters beyond our expertise. The accompanying comment of Mr, Callahan and that of Mr. Wickham, address the many such vital issues which the proposed rezoning and project would create. However, one in particular, cries out for your attention - the serious fresh water problem and the "quick-fix" solution of a "reverse osmosis process." This processj in this location, constitutes a veritable time bomb. Aside from sabjecting New Suffolk residents to what amounts to an experimental process, a cursory review discloses the prospect of PATHOGENETIC MICRO-ORGANISMS (treatable by a RADIATION process) - but not who will monitor this process when it shuts down; and the fact that reverse osmosis, by removing salt from brackish matter, deposits it back into the system thereby raising SALINITY levels in the ground water or Peconi£ Bay - but not the inevitable consequences to marine life which increased salinity brings to closed or semi-closed systems. While processing 40,000 + gallons of water a day results in 6,000 + gallons of acceptable water, the remaining 34,000 ~ gallonsj which have to be put back into some system, can destroy or help destroy shellfish (which require low salinity). Peconic Bay does not flush out at every tide and inevitably the higher salinity, perhaps not in a year or even a generation, perhaps not alone, but in conjunction with similar installations in the area, but ultimately, will destroy an industry which must be saved. Salinity, like lead poisoning, can be cumulative in a closed or semi-closed system and do we know its effects sufficiently to permit this "quick fix"? In people, excess salt causes hypertension high blood pressure; in shell fish it enables their natural enemies (oyster drills and starfish who prefer saltier water) to thrive with disastrous consequences. While real estate "experts", like environmental "experts" can be recruited to espouse almost any cause, we believe the "best use" for this site remains the existing restaurant, boat yard, marina use, in the hands of competent owners. Mr. Dean Blaikie, the operator of the Galley-Ho Restaurant, who attended our May, 1983 meeting, admitted that he had the most to lose with the Galley-Ho's closing. It would be a pity to see it close and to lose what has become an excellent landmark, well patronized, with good food and wonderful ambiance. By the same token, the restaurmnt, together with a properly managed boatyard, marina gives employment to twenty to thirty people, ms compared to the onm caretaker we could look forward to with multiple dwelling While 23 years of neglect have caused deterioration to some of the structures at the site, we mall attention to the fact that inside storage in winter is not the norm today as it was before the advent of fiberglass boats. Also, what Mr. Haje characterizes as "deterioration", appears to others as "weather beaten , lending character and charm to the existing site. Insofar as inviting arson is concerned, this is a by-product of the self-inflicted abandonment and coincidentally would play into a developer's hands by saving the cost of razing the structures, and/or reduce current tax assessments based on the portion allocated to buildings. With respect to Mr. Haje's last comments (pages 21 and 22) relating to different ownership or at a different time, these have been discussed above to some degree. We take exception to the first. We are aware of no listing with brokers for sale prior to the attempt to rezone. We believe that what the applicant has for sale, namely the ownership subject to operating a boatyard - marina, is eminently salable. As far as the time element, the applicant has chosen to close down its operation to establish a'basis for Mr. Haje's conclusion. This decision to commit economic hara-kiri is, as we have indicated, self inflicted and in our view, unnecessary. Lastly, we call your attention to the mandate of the residents in their vote of 168 to 10 (see report of Association dated May 10, 1983). Mr. Haje ignores community opposition; Marine .Associates, Inc. ignores a restrictive covenant in their own chain of title (to the principals) (see letter dated May 16, 1983 from the attorney for Ruth Tuthi]l Houston) which limits their use to a boatyard or marina. Nor did the principals oppose existing zoning when it was proposed durfng their tenure. - 7 We understand the vast majority of the immediste neighbors o~ Marine Associates, Inc. have filed protests to the proposed change of zone, far in excess of the 20% needed to require a 3/4th vote of the town Board instead of a majority. This is, but another persuasive basis for the continuation of existing zoning. Mr. Sal Loria, proprietor of Captain Marty's (New Suffolk Fishing Station, Inc.), whose property abuts the site and who lives across the street, ~bile stating his opposition to the proposed change of zone and recognizing it as a threat to his business, declined to "protest" under Section 246 of the New York State Town Law, for fear of reprisal. He rents space from the applicant to store his boats and while he recognized that if the condominiums were to be built, he coold no longer continue to do so, the potential for economic coercion weighed too heavily for him to join his neighbors in protest. We understand and sy mpathize with his predicament. We respectfully request rejection to the proposed change of zone in accordance with all of the above, the comment of Mr. Callahan and Mr. Wickham, the recommendation of the Town Planning Board and the resolution of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. At the date of the submission of this comment the Department of State (Coastal Management Program) had not yet been heard from. We would be astonished if they do not join the chorus of protest, inasmuch as the applicant's proposal tramples on almost every New York State Costal Policy (see enclosed). Out of 44 policies, some of which are not applicable because they deal with major ports or public funds, there is no policy which supports this application, and dozens which oppose it. The community was not consulted about our neighbor's plans. We have questioned their attitude towards the Town of Southold and to New Suffolk. It is unfortunate that we feel threatened and compelled to react strongly, with attendant escalation of feelings. At the same t~me it has not been constructive to receive veiled threats. We represent a well informed and independent citizenry. We would very much like to continue a harmonious relationship, respect one another's rights and obligations and recognize that all of us have a stake in our marine environment. It is not the unfettered property of any of us. Man did not create it. We believe the town board will be responsive to the overwhelming array of facts at their disposal and reach the only possible sensible decision of rejection. At that time we would like to estab]ish a dialogue which will enable us to resume a neighborly relationship with the Applicant or its We request a public hearing if one is not already contemplated by the Town Board. Respectfully submitted, New Suffolk Civic Association - 9 - .lllllll~)),l~'].~or sa]es '~cre up this summer. But (Continued from Paee 1) he's noticed thai s~¢s have year· · nowhere in sight for him. boats and servicing engLnes I:or winter." said Strong. He also said · since the marina offers free --BI~ lnmes A~:arding to Jeffr;~y St~-ong, of ~ ~_ONC~ ISLAND TRAVELER[WAI'CHk4AN ¢ i. "~' ~ . y,,.' ...-,,., :. ~ PORT OF EGYPT MARINE WlNS G~ady-Whlte Key Dealer Award: Scott and Elisa Thomas ot Poll of Egypt Marine, pictured above, have t:~gn awarded the Key Dealer Award by Grad¥-White boats, Inc. at the Grady-Whlle natio~aJ d~!er meeting heJd August 14-16 in Greenville, N.C. The Key Dealer Award is presented to h',,~'ine dealers for their outstanJing ~hJevement based on total sales volume f~ the 19~3 model year. "It's thanks to the enthusiasm of dealers like Scott and Elisa Thomas that Grady-White is entering our 25th ~'esr with recDrd sales and success," said Ed Smith, cente~, President of Grady-VVhite Boats. fiE}"/BOATS BATES ... HORTH FORK SHIPYARD 1983 48' TOLLYCRAFT SPT. SEDAN TIS GM DSLS 1982 47' BLUE-WATER 1EN~2. 4~' MARINE TRADER TIS LEHMAN DSt. FIB TIS SEDAN 1E~B3 33' PENN-YAN FIB SPT FSH TlS 1953 26'PENN-YAN FIB SPT FSH TlS 1963 25 PENN-YAN WALK. AROUND SINGLE 1983 23' PENN-YAN F/B SPT FSH SINGLE t" ' i 19&?. 25' LANCER SLOOP 1982 39' FAST P~GE CL,II I'I=R RIG I' 'i USED BOATS ; .: 1981 37' TOLLYCRAFT SPORT SEDAN TIS CATS DSLS. 19~D 49' MARINE TRADER LOADED .~, 1~81 34' TOLLYCRAFT DBL CABIN TIS VOLVO DSLS 1979 44' MARINE TRADER SET FOR ; 1E~D5 37' EGG-HARBOR SEDAN FIB TIS FVVC PALMERS ~VE ;ABOARD '-. 1979 2~' FORMULA OPEN TIS "IgF~ 33' CHRIS CP, AF'F NEED~ ENGINES ' 1975 23' BAYLINER F/B I/O :;1 ~97~ 2~' PENN-YAN F/a S~ -' 1969 23' PENN-YAN F/B SF [ . ; 1977 21' WINNER CUTTY 140 H/P O/B . " 1978 27' BUCCANEER SLOOP 15 H/P O/B i 1979 3~' CATALINA SLOOP 20 HiP DSL 1974 24' BUCCANEER SLOOP 10 H/P O/B 1974 30' PEARSON SLOOP ATOMIC 4 " 1976 22' CHRYSLER SLOOP 6 HiP O/B You will ne'er get a better (teal. Sal _r~P~D~__ ~ e ~ b~T~ lint r~'t~l to r~,er all r~'~,r~e offer to me--So ~ will know we am · ' sincere In cla~n~n,g tl'~ wix:~e Irrvenl~'y o! baa[ equl~,~t, IDC. FI~, ofTR3s equlj:h'~,'tl etc. It a, II rr~-.-e! go. KORTH FORK SHIPY~eD' 5;[6-73,~.-6330',," ~_~-.- .~.~F:~, ~ATES [P~EEFORT 5:1,6-37§-[355 ~" ~' , ....-: .- .' :. . :...' ; i;' ~ : NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC. ,T:t~.~. ~y 10, !9S3 William .ti. Pall,III : Supe~,£sor, Tm,'n Board Southold, Lex York !!~71 Duar Supc. rvisor Pcll, On Friday,'!L-y 6th.I9~3, the r~sidencs an~ property o~merg of l:eu' Suffolk held a ~<-erin~ ro express their ooini'ons regarding the con3o~nium project proposed by the North Fork Shipyard in Ne~ Suffolk. A vote ~'~s held by the co~unit7 as to k-berber they favored rl,e project. ~e Results ~,~re a rusom~ding nacativc yore 165 27~lns[ to l0 in favor. %r. 1~; ~'as tl~o ]ar/-~hl n,ea[ing held ir. tlc histo~' of the Neu' Su5fo!k Cxvzc 3_ssociation. ~e membership c~:press.~d [o the as~oclat~on ti;ac an attorney should be hired to represent tl,e interest of the corounJry aaa ra~ ~'haaavcr leaal steps that are necessary to stop tl,e apFroval of rh:s Frojecr. L'or~s cannot cypress cbc tree:endows coLesivcness in this co~,unity in opposition to this .reject. ~is opposition ancompa~s:~s a total cross btCEiOil Of risc cO:.;:aur, it}'. ','cry truly }'ours, Pauline A. Krc:r, ar, r z Pres!dent c.c..Daniel J I.arl:in c.c- !;enry F3>mor c-c. Lee E- !4oppelman RECEIVED_ u~so, MA¥,i 6 1983 NEW SUFFOL~,,N.Y. 11956 Tow~ ~ ~ To~m ?la~nin~ ?own At tomes', ?o~. of Sou%hold, Southold, I~.Y. 1197~ i.:ay 16, 19~ Re: Application of KarineAssoc- tares, Inc. for zonin~ chan~ I represen! Ruth ~ Houston of .... Southold, Suffolk n ~oun ~y, New On Hay 29, 1960, the Grantor, Mrs. 5ous{on, by deed iecorded in Liber 4915 pa~e 376 conveyed ~o Applicant's pre- dece~soPs in in~eres%~ Js~es Arthur Kenniff an~ Philip hi, {~.er, tl~e subject property. That conveyance was ~bjec% ~o c~_~in~ ?overer.% ~: restriciion: - = ~ iremiue~ ns and for 'cuslnezs associated with the c?:~=tion cf ~ 2:at Var~ [:usi:ess." (see page ..77z I enclcse a copy of this ~eed tc. geiker wfth er.f[~s ali other subsequent conveyances of ~ts proper~y whffc~ con- stitute the chain of title to the Applicant. In the above referred to deed, Grantor created certain tenancies and uses for her life and/or the life of her husband and another, which were reIease~ by subsequent dee~ datefl E~.bruary 13, 1978 recorded in Liber 839~, ~age 60. This ~oc'~ent contains the following lan~aze: "~:.,i~'- laed is lirited =~:elv '~.~ the release of life Ri lef ~ , ) conveyance (on ~mfe J77) d~a]!~.£ .i%k the ~rc~.~erty's use as a boat yard, ms mare ~rt~cu!arl} s=~ fo~tl, in t~e deed and quoted above, was not release~ and c~rs~itu~s % -o~t~ui~£ restriction with respect to ~he property's use. Accordingly, multi~le dwelling use was mot ?s!-templated or pe~itted by Grantor's con~eyance~ This re str~cfion prevents Applicant from utilizing the pr~pcrty in %he man, er proposed by and set forth ~n ~ts Application, and cons%itu%es, Zy 1±self, a preclusive bssis for continuing e3~is~ing ~cning~ Respectfully submitted, cc: R and F Houston LIST OF STATE COASTAL POLICIES New York State Coastal Management Program Department of State August 1, 1983 List of State Coastal Policies The following are the State Coastal Policies included in the "New York State Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement". Full explanations of the policies may be found in that document. Policies marked REQ are those policies that a municipality is required to consider in preparing its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, as provided under the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act and DOS regulations 19 NYCRR Part 600. Policies marked ENC are those policies that a municipality is strongly encouragsd to consider in preparing its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The remaining policies are applicable to the entire Coastal Area, but are enforced primarily by State agencies acting under various State laws. A municipality, therefore, is not required to include these policies in its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. If it wishes, a municipality may choose to include related local policies as a guide for local actions and programs. S/A2E CCAS/AL PCLIC!ES REQ--Municipality is required to consider in preparing its LWRP. ENC--Municipality is strongly encouraged to consider in preparing its LWRP. Development Policies REQ Policy 1 Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for conunercial and industrial, cultural, recreational and other compatible uses. REQ Policy 2 Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. REQ Policy 3 Encourage the development of the State's existing major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdens- burg, and Oswego as centers of commerce and industry, and encourage the siting, in these port areas, including those under the jurisdiction of State public authorities of land use and development which is essential to or in support of waterborne transportation of cargo and people. REQ Policy 4 Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhance- ment of those traditional uses and activities which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity. REQ Policy 5 Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate, except when such development has special functional require- ments or other characteristics wich necessitates its location in other coastal areas. ENC Policy 6 Expedite permit procedures in order to facilitate the siting of development activities at suitable locations. Fish and Wildlife Policies REQ Policy 7 Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, as identified on the coastal area map, shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats. ENC Policy 8 Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bioaccumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources. REQ Policy 9 Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks and developing new resources. Such efforts shall be made in a manner which ensures the protection of renewable fish and wildlife. resources and considers other activities dependent on them. REQ Policy 10 Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish and crustacean resources in the coastal area by: (i) encouraging the construction of new or improvement of existing on shore commercial fishing facilities; (ii) increasing marketing of the State's seafood products; and (iii) maintaining adequate stocks and expanding aquaculture facilities. Such efforts shall be made in a manner which ensures the protection of such renewable fish resources and considers other activities dependent on them. Flooding and Erosion Hazards Policies ENC Policy 11 Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. REQ Policy 12 Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs. Primary dunes will be protected from.all encroachments that could impair their natural protective capacity. REQ Policy 13 The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least thirty years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replace- ment programs. REQ Policy 14 Activities and development, including the con- struction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development or at other locations. REQ Policy 15 Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such land. REQ Policy 16 Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures where necessary to protect human life, and new development which requires a location within or adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing develop- ment; and only where the public benefits outweigh the long term monetary and other costs including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features. REQ Policy 17 ~enever possible, use nonstructural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion such measures shall include: (i) the set back of buildings and structures; (ii) the planting of vegetation and the installation of sand fencing and draining; iii) the reshaping of bluffs; and (iv) the flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above the base flood level. General Policy REQ Policy 18 To safeguard the vital economic social and environmental intereSts of the State and of its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the State has established to protect valuable coastal resource areas. Public Access Policies REQ Policy 19 Protect, maintain and increase the levels and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities so that these resources and facilities may be fully utilized by all the public in accordance with reasonably anticipated public recreation needs and the protection of historic and natural resources. In providing such access, priority shall be given to public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas and waterfront parks. REQ Policy 20 Access to the publicly owned foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly owned shall be provided, and it should be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses. Such lands shall be retained in public ownership. Recreation Policies REQ Policy 21 Water dependent and water enhanced recreation shall be encouraged and facilitated and shall be given priority over nonwater related uses along the coast, provided it is consistent with the preservation and enhancement of other coastal resources and takes into account demand for such facilities. In facilitating such activities, priority shall be given to areas where access to the recreation opportunities of the coast can be provided by new or existing public transporta- tion services and to those areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted by existing development. Energy and Ice Manag~ment Policies Policy 27 Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compati- bility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location. REQ Policy 28 Ice management practices shall not damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, increase shoreline erosion or flooding, or interfere with the production of hydroelectric power. Policy 29 Encourage the development of energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water bodies, and ensure environ- mental safety of such activities. Water and Air Resources Policies Policy 30 Municipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to State and national water quality standards. P~EQ Policy 31 State coastal area policies and purposes of approved local Waterfront Revitalization Programs will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; however, those waters already over- burdened with contaminants will be recognized as being a development constraint. Policy 32 Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are unreason- ably high given the size of the existing tax base of these communities. REQ Policy 33 Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. REQ Policy 34 Discharge of waste materials from vessels into coastal waters will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas. ENC Policy 35 Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit require- ments, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands. ENC Policy 36 Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or at least minimize spills into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur. REQ Policy 37 Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the nonpoint discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters. ENC Policy 38 The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies, will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters con- stitute the primary or sole source of water supply. ENC Policy 39 The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal ~reas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricul- tural land and scenic resources. Policy 40 Effluent discharge from major steam electric generating and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform to State water quality standards. Policy 41 Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause National or State air quality standards to be violated. Policy 42 Coastal Management policies will be considered if the State reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act. Policy 43 Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of ac~d rain precursors~ nitrates and sulfates. ENC Policy 44 Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wet- lands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. September 29, 1983 SEP 383 Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk ~ ~ Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, I.I.Y. 11971 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Marine Associates, Inc. Dear Mrs. Terry~ In response to the call for public comment on the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the attached comments are being provided for consideration by the Southold Town Board. It was in mid-March that I first became aware of the proposal and that my negative feelings about the project were shared by so many neighbors. In the interim I have had the honor of working closely with them and participating on the New Suffolk Civic Association committee formed to preserve our little hamlet. We each tried to give of our talents in a manner that would in some small way help defeat this proposal. The common denominator among all of us is our love for New Suffolk. The proposed condominium project at the [~orth Fork Shipyard is simply too big, too destructive and without feeling. Condos may have a place, but is that place really in New Suffolk? For my part, while preparing these comments, I have attempted to draw on my twenty-five years experience as a Civil Engineer dealing with planning, design and regulatory matters. I trust that the comments are responsive and that after review, a public hearing will be scheduled. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Patrick E. Callaha~, P.E. Third Street between Orchard & King Streets New Suffolk, Long Island [,Iew York 11956 50-11 212th Street Bayside Hills, Queens New York 11364 SEP E~: .... t. h~vironr, er, tal impact c ~ [.!arine Associates, Inc. teL:~ Ir:-,-1.:ea for ~rnsideratio,', bi,~ the Souznold Town was in nii-[.larch that I first became aware of the Froposal tJi~[ F,'.. ".:~:-Sa-~ive feeii}lgs a%out the project were shared b'.- r,~nv, llei2l,ilcrs._ ~n the r~irer~m' ~ ~ have had the horior' of , _o=~_.. with tken ar~a ~articipating on the New c +-- ,-~'~{,- Assc215tlcn cc, n],}itTee fort,et to preserve our li%~le t~ar. let. ',.e es,Ph 5rie{~ *~.,~ give cf our talents in 5 manner that ¥,'a~i~ in s~xe small v~a}' hel~ defeat %his proposal. Phe common l~:.. ....... ~ = ..... -: ali cl us is our ~ove for New Suffolk. · ~-~,-=~{ ,--~,:,-~"i~'iu~ ..... jeer 5t the North Fork Shipyard is silhpilc z.:,c ~i[', ~c,o ~__t_uc.t=,e an! without feeling. Contos have a :!zc:e, t,~t is that olace really in New Suffolk? r._.,.__ .'~",. ~,~l., v. kize pre~.aring. ~ ~"~:,~= comments, I have attemptefi ir~v, c'n m., t',.ens>~-f'!ve years experience as a Civil t'n~ineer thst the 2,3l,Pie:iZs are responsiYe ~nl ~h~t ef~er review, .... l ..... 1..a v, iil be scheduled. ......... latrick z. Caiiah~n, eNO . Inird Street between {reNard & Kin6 5%reets New S~:ffoik, Leng Isi~hi rCew York 11956 ~0-11 212th S%reet Ba}~side Hills, Queens New York 1 6ver tke pas~ ?]onths the concern and awareness by She ~eo~ie of riel' £uffoi~. and i~s environs has deepened re~ard- lng tlc prri:sei condominium project at the site uf the Nort}i ~ork S~.ir[.ard on Cutcho6ue Harbor. A greater teller- star, lib6 }ar alsc developed cf the potential impact of the ~FO}OSSI h,[, 5lariNe Associates, inc., t~e enormous maghitude of ~he ~rc,2e.Dt anJ the implications it would nave for simi- l~r ccndoKihi2}l ani other hi6h density construc~io:~ i}_ the immeaiate ari adlacent areas. At a meeting of the fuffo!k Oi.;ic Association on May 0, 1983 by a vote of !o6 t{ 16, strcne oc~ection was reccraed agait~st the yr'cjeot. New Swffoi,: for well over a hundred years has experi- encel a leisurei[.', unhurried aha graceful deveiornen~ a respectful develogment. The condominium projec{ :roffered by Marine Associates violates traditional values an.! threat- ens the existence of one of {he hamlet's most vaiuas!e scenic ahd f~istoric resources ah identification with the past w}tich sLouii no{ be lost. The sheer size of the develop- merit looming forty feet on tr_e average above the grade of Firs: Street, nearly five hundred feet long like a giant wall will obliterate a cherished vista. Ironically, it would appear that the management of the former North Pork Shipyard who for so many years shared the peaceful ambience of the nautical refu~e so willingly with the co~:munit[,' flow as I!arine Assocites, Inc. is ready to re- move just about every last ~race of the yard and impose a [crc, gram cf cohstruction completely out of context with New ~:uffoi<. A litany er serious issues are raised that must ~e a,~dressed Cy ~he To~','n of Southaid, the County and the gt~_:e i~clu:ie ~ut are ~ot limited to status cf riparian mana~le?:e:',t [ro6rams, zohihg, density, water supply ano se¥,.a~e aisFrsa2, work i~ designated tidal wetland area. histcrir, setting etc. Should the project be deemed ac- cepZahle it would signal the beginning of the end for the i..ew Suffffoir; we wis~ tc preserve. The "condo-~ever" all arcu::fl us ~',ruld team tr~rough tee little hamlet leaving only memories. As the process goes forward we trust that fair consideration- will be ~iven to all points off view - that reascz~ole people will work toward a reasonable solution. Ccrs~rborion of a 2h unit condominium ~roject of itself ~.,'ouia nc% be thought to trigger such a public outcry as has hagyehefl in i~e;. Suffolk. The number of units is not that many. the type construction wou!~ probably be in accord wlZh applicable svandards; the ~rounds landscaped and maintained; due consideration to aesthetics etc. Condominiums are liter- ally being co~zstructed all over. Town planning boards are working actively with developers, thelr consultants and eom- munity groups to assure appropriate enviror~enta! aspects are programmed into the projects and efforts are being made to avoid the so called "patchwork" developments of the past. ','.Ny then are we ex?-~essing such strong oppesitio~i to imri-:e Associates, i}-~c. ~_roFosal. Our reasons slosely parallel ~he reasoms set forth by the Sou~hold Town Pisn}~ing Boari in its reconmenlei de~tial for a change o~ z~ne a~a the Suffolk Cs,~a~ty ~lanning Commission resolution !isalprsvi~g the ap~l. icP.%ion, ire have attempted to assess zhe material presented ann avai!ahle on the zone change inc!uiin~ of course, the l:raf't Environmental Impact Statement ~reEarei hy Em-Consultants, Inc., an~ accompa-a~~- i~ engineers report, k'e finz no comfort in the Consulta~t's evaluation of the yroject. Much of the material is factual hut the conclh~sio~s in many ir~stances ~'rom our point of vie~,,, are c~ear!y parochial and non-responsive. in the ensui~g pages an attempt has been made to furtLer iientify some of the issues and where appropriate reference is made to the re~u!ator[,~ setting, Although iimitei by hath resources and time, it is our objective ~[,- this sub~ission to help sharpen the focus on the m[,'riai of issues raised and trust that full recognition will be 6ivan to all the Erimar~ and secondary negative impacts that v, ould occur if the pro~ect were ever permitted to proceed, tipping the fragile environmental balance of oar community and consuming so much of its valued resources. 2f:~c =~g~-'~t ~i0, 19~2 edition of The ~'- ~ _,~,r~,.~ Pork Life w~s a fir:: of ~=,~.li;~r,ith a iuthiil at the site of ~(hat is now the I.,crth r-, ~- ~}}%i~,-.~mrd,. It recouLIed the lor~f ani successful . i.~ .... .s .... ~'~'-~ mean~'hile resistiz~ the ~'~-- iz'.vs -= c}Leure a~,d tra:~sition. " I% tola of .... ~' *'E' '-=~'~uu C,i~ tl,e ]la~icn~] Sc'eJle ~ cenZul'y k, efore: "John vier was ]:-esi:}e:-~,..a::d tJ]e ]~ation was in %he 6rip of hard tir~es...vhs s*.:~bh:'r~'~ Sensible, les finally 6ave up and smoke,t the ' ~ .... . .... el!s~ Charles Dickens, Lewly },i~e cf Ferule with ~,?le Sam.. '~-~ - ~-" the i,r, tal seethe i'~ i~al, "-'~ ~- - becoming = ~:5 Harbc, r...while Southoli was losing it shir, kuiiii:~6 i~iustry...Peoy!e were arguin6 whether a rail- road '.,.,~'~ [e a benefi~ or ~ b, li~h~ to Lo, n6 isiand....,=,m:._ou ',,'ez'e teSi~2:~ing to ~ro'.,,, Irish [otatoes ~nd Brookhaven's est ' ' ~ =he ' - Tuthil! i~,~us~'[~' ~,,'ss cc, rd,',=,oo~...~- ~=~m~'~ of Oo!dsml~h ama Dur~nE ils t'irs~ centurl,- m~n~~ s~iliz~g vessels were oon- ....... at ~ru,=~e= t}~e [,-er~m~,-~ I[e~,; S~lffglk~ to its ~'harf came vessels ic,~de~ v.'i~h coz! e~d ~hous~nds of fee~ of timber from ~nd side-'.,=},eeiers t, rin~ing pessen~ez-s and frei~-ht. In the ~-,=r=~- i~L?'s, the uard 'because Zhe _~ito~ selected by the =or===~, ~o~t ,~,. ~nd the newi~~ formed ~lectric Boat Co. to esua~!ish their bsse for ~ssembll~ mnd testin~ of submerines Db' the m~n most responsible for their development. John Philip 7:.e 7i[er miss pail ~ri~.tte to the l,'ard's f'ait_Lful em- ;ici:ess aha zsseeia~es, mahy c= whose family names are still far~iiiar ~a.iay - Tut}~i!i, Horton, Bennet{, Su!liven, ~ergen, Kr~_~. , _isb~rsci~, ~u~terv.'orth, ~urkhar~, Jacobs, hie}-mond. ~_..0 ~.~_"~,-~=, until re._~_~t_.., hoste! e rarest_ deal ,-.~__ :~.rti-.it~.'; s churning ccmpieme~t to the peaeefui surround- i:.~s zf .... ~_f~._~. it wcul,l ~e diffieult if ~.z~, 1.3. ez.nvlnce virtual!l,' ahl.~one in New Suffolk thzt ~:,e ,:"i. Ii2C'.'.llli.~m Droject v. ou~c benefit then in any way. [.k~sz ~f us v:?ui~ readily ~ ' ~unzt zo being traditionalisv .. ~ ~,= issue mnvoives ~reservation of a way of li~e. .... ,u=~ come and the nearly _=_.~e ohmt sc. me change ~ cer:z'ar2 and a hslf histor[f of the yard attests to change aud a~=~.:en~. T~e propc, sed change, while an ccc. heroine l:c:. t? tlc developers, is not rhange that teken i~z str'ile. !t would tear at the ~_1_ o~ our Yhrou~hout the years, ~he si~e eitho~:~ uader private .~._~_~. ~$, :~r~e!y w~s open for public use primarily for weter dependent ~ctivity, Th~ is the type usage we w~nt ~o see c.:,n~inued, ~ANP s]:e aeslre of our cortmur, it2 to maintain the wa!er .iener. uer_t dsaas sf the si~e of t].e North Pork Shipyard :.c~ jsst due io {he 1~5 }~e~rs of Frior usage to which we }-~ve grown a.Pcustrm; it has bas~s in the 18}8 grant kT.- the grate 2I [[ev Yo"k yermitti~g the upland owner to develop r'ouch_[,' i.~ a,:res r,~ bay horror, belcnging to the pegple with zhe e',.nressed commotion thaz the lands be use,i "to the ~LYri.~aS l'f C l:;~e!-ae''. /,f, 1 r.:l.Th ~:2re recently, we flri that {l e New icrk S-a~e Lepartment o~ State has been entruste.Z with the az~ inistraticn oS a ,2oasZal I,~anagement Pro,ram for tke 2zate v;kiah ~rc¥ides for the development of local pro6rams. ~le h~r.aers~nfi tk~t the _-own of Soutno!d, subject to of e [.faster Fi~n ,...ill also h.e participazin~ in the pro,ram. [~e ti'sst hcv.'ever tNet in the interim its decisions Oh failln[ within the .iefihet limits of the State's l,lahasement [r.:.~ram will be in accord with the policies therein ,,'hicN ar/iculaze so many relevant goals we hold important stre~6tkerin{ the economi2 z~se of smaller harbor areas ~y encouraging the development and enhanceme~,t of tl~ose traditional uses and activities which have ~ro,'idel such ~reas with their unique maritime ehtity. ~rctect, restore and enhance natural and m~n-m~de resources Which ape not identified as bein~ of statewide significance but which contribute to the sceni: quality of the coastal area. 'rater .iepen.ient a!:i water £r.?.ancei recreation shall ehc~'.rra~'eJ a!,d facilitated an! si~a~! be given prieritl.- c~.er nJn-".-zter relater] uses areAS 2F sites zhaZ are of sig]~lf~cance in the history, arc'hioectuFe, ar,ohcal, cgy cr ,i:ultmle of the State, its ~ ~ er the Nation. .=~_...-~ "-:__ aT,ear that z. hese =_oz~--~-- aris - oiicies were fr,~l:arei .{uat for evaluatin~~ the proposed project in New ......'._:_, f.ather t~.e.~ were ~re[ared in response to a reco~- '~--.. ~'~ serious reccgnlticn given h,v. ~he Yown Board in the S.ii:Th2!.i ...... ~ ,'e Piannin~ ~o~r.%'s r,~.oltzOh~ ~ ' : ~ ZkaZ the proposal is rfc cc. mpazi~!e .... the De'.elopmen{ Plan of Zhe Town of ~zh,~, t}lat marine recreation sno'dld '[e encouraged ant e>lr. sn.ied recognizin6 the shortage cf dock~fe space throughout Sruthc. ld. A similar positioll +-k ~ ' ' - ' di?ates inconszstency with ~he Len6 Island regional element -~' the r;ew York SZate Ccasta! Management plan which designates tee area for coK. mer2ial recreational use. A unilue element of Marine Associates, Inc. proposal is provision for berthing for the owners of the condominium units. The bay bottem which would enhance the marketability _-f_ the. ~__=,=r~, is the=~.~,--o~ ha','~ bottom which was part of the e. ffc. rer':er, tic,~eJ i[3~ gra:~t, ?,e find it incredulous that a re$r'esei~=~'~=i-ce pro~orZio:-t of the developer's ]:,rofiv ~ou!d Oe ,aerz'~ed zror; lal~ds to '.v)~ich the sec[.le still r.a~ntazn rl~h.s. Z~ e ~,ro~,osal wc~uli ~e6a~e all the pla~ni~~ goals of tr~e york S]~iy,[..ai':[ l:,r ri~.rl~e use, ~',e believe t ..... the site ,:",?'z:.Ye~-istics a~u marl:et for2es dr.!ike ~hose pert. rz[~-ed ir: ~_~ esr::~cw:edzes the high dem~n~ for ren%ai slips but a~ ~__.F~_~t ~,~ feei!i~ete r'~rinm operations. W= weuid hope ~z::~ ~n aiternstive mmrin~ ~e-.elo~ment, if proposed woulu ~e_ support a:zd not be subject to uncue deZays New Eu~io~: is e-,:!~-.tiy aware cf its iimitaticns wizh ree~ect to Zhe siti~ of a relstivel], intensive development t:.at ~,~cuifi consume so much off its resources. Perhaps one i:ev, fuffoi~:'s stro~mest atZractions, as described in a ~920's real estate ~uiue, "...I(ew Sufffolk where the air is ever a~.~ invi6or-ating, flue to its delightful !ocaZion which is fii:~rzly ~.~;:,~: ,;]reat Peco~:ic ~ay.". is also o;<e oS its great- es~ ii~:ii=fi,:,ns ~o deve!oBme~t. [:e~'.' Suffolk is essentially a peninsula surrounded b) salt v. zter - ~','es~ Creek along the westerly portion, Great Peconic Sef.' at its southerly tip and Cut~hc~ue Harbor and Wickham Creek generally to the east. While such a ccnfi~uration is not zhat u~i'_;sua2 along the land forms of the East End, what is unusaal is the high percentage of developed ~roperties in anE adjacenZ to ~-ioo~ hazar~ areas and zoo. es cf ai~h infi!tra- zio~ [cte~:zia! i~ i]ew Sufffclk. TLese two factors are cause for considerable concern with res~.ect to potah!e water suzply in [';e,.,' S~;ffolk since we mainly use a shallow a~uifer within outwash derosits. These deposits consist of very permeable sa~ds an~ ~ravels with high conductivity and permeability. Taus whe~ we term our water su~p!y as being "fragile" wha~ meant is that we have high risk off contamination by increasing salinity con, tent of the ground water by both infiltration along shore ~roperties and by percolation in [lood prone areas which encompass the entire hamlet. The risk is further in- creased by the potential for massive salt water intrusion fr'cm the :.?rtn ;',hereby roughly one hundred acres of !ow lying ~asin i,i,z salt water }~ercc, lation should their ~rotective Tke T~',':~. Planning ~oard and the County are also eminently ~ware of ~kes~ iimitaticns and },ave expressem concern for the quanZity of s~:scainaoie ¥.~itLdrawai, the limited underground pro[zss! '..'i~?, Zne Long Island 20~ Water Qualiz[,- [,[anagement ?lan anti s'~zseTuent rela~ea studies or the Suffolk County [,e~artme~.Z ,~ Heait~ Services wr. ich indicate severe water sups, iS !ir.i:szic:.s. An initial review of the proposed handli]lg of the water su??![; ama ~.,aste treatment would seemingly appear tc address these concerns. 5, ut what is actually indicated is that the Fro~ose~ ale'.eloper is aski~%g Yet approval of systems which, given the YniAue hy~rolo~ica! site conditions may introduce ?,'e are %~maware of any nitrifying - denitrifs'ing sev;age disposal s>stem actually in operation in Suffolk County. ?drtner while we are aware of such pilot-system operations %,~e believe %~at the effluen~ reckarge which the E, hIS char- acterizes as preventing salt v;ater encroachment can, after a period of time, extend its zone of influence to water supply sources ~{esz of First Street. The potential for this occur- fence is made even greater considering; 1) The test well dug at the northeast corner of [.iain and -irst Stree~-s t:~zvides data i¥~dicati:kg that the 6rourlflwater is a~[~r,-.xir~ately four feet be;~eath the surface elevation of 2.1 feel, The first tv.o feet of the test well reveaie~ a cc~position of miscellaneous rill sand and shells wh~!e th~ next s=~: feet was identified as compacted bog beneath which was fouhJ ~ieah s~nd. This indicates, as repcr~e.~ in the =~alS, ~.~h cf ~e si~e is not ih its natural con- citi.rn, rather L% has ~eeh filled, it is ~}roh~le i~ aiii{i~ai {es~ '.,ells were .lu~ fur%her seaward cf Pirst Street, similar Gate wok~ld be obtained. Thus the orificial s)-orellne would h~ve included a marsh ereR, now iLllei, u!iter!LixS the site ~nd identified ~s "c?~pactei So6". The hydroicgicai effect of the bog woulm be tc iocmily restrict iresh water - upper aquifer flow towari the t~l.r . 2} Were the deveioymeht to be in operation for even only six Yinrl%hs 8 ye~r aui if the Co}~su!tants estimate of iemani is reLresentative, rou6hiy ohe million 6al!ohS of treatei sewaEe ',.,s~.~ii be returned to She semi-confined upper ~quifer, This quan~iI}- is no doubt iow in light of ih- creasin6 trends for more year round use of such Erojects ahd i~.tremsing off-seaso~2 rental activity. The lack of aepth to the groundwater and high chloride conter, t are other co~cerns we have regarding the b~sic s}stem. On She water supply site, after futile attempts to demon- strate that sufficient wa:er of an acceptable quali~y ceuld be oktained on-site utilizing shallow-wells, the Consultznt -11- ,i,b-.ile t::Ts{' r_ stems .rver t~-e !-~st 3'eaPs here h~sts.!!at: ~c_: i~ Suffolk =z~,~,_~ Sk~f~oik is being pr_,}o=e,l as a ~rcvlx6-6rc~h,is f,zr environmental ex:}erimen%~tisn. Remember- are eritiosi i~ i~s st~oP6ss. IJere the nana6ement of the pro- 2~,-stel}, R~il'~r~2tl?il ',..ouid be likely. ~he mer~rane S}-steKs are .... ~=ln~ aha depen,flln6 "~-~ {he q~allt[J cf tke wa~er sz'a:-'ce ca}~ ~ave nicro-org~nism l~iiiup. ~[e ~re ,2 t.i~e o~erat~,~- el the units ,,n ax anr:u~l basis as2. r~,xN,r_tei[. } miiii?n gai!.cns of water (assux:in~ ~ ..... of potable .at__ If the brine frsr: the s3~stem were rec~rge.d into the lower brask!sh a%uifer, we are censerned that after a perio~ cf time, it will ~lter the ho.s. niary between the saltwater ani freshwater su~ly. If it is proposed to dischar6e the brine to the bay · ,.,e are :.:u:'erhe,:t ,_~ .... h= ].,,JZ=..~]~ affect on water resources, ~ri~tLne v.'ater shouli :tct be ~'.-~ ..... ~ %o a disehsr~e which ~a:: ~,t, ~easz l::~li>' Z~a-,-e ~,.~ ~ cn salinity affecting shell- ~.-,:- rai.~eJ ~,- the .:,3~;rse of z ..... ~ review will no doutt be ~lveti aT~.z~?,[llste conslderst'- h',' the Town Board relyin~ ,Dh its e:,:i:ertis~ a~:i innu~ from ~he Ii'fSi, bk. aho She c ...... . .=r.z~__. While considering ~_c~ ..... ~=__=~L~ cf Zhe ]:,rc,~e~ty would he, il.' r,ainzaininz the ~resent uslge, even with some up~radins =:~ ~ r, ~ il.rear, cf overintenszfication elin:inated. ~' -~ risks ~ itnmn our small eco-sL~stem, we rerce-ve are very site s~e~ifi.-: w. ' '. Give~: a difierent set cf ?ar'ameters, a different location, the - '~icn _. the c~zimur sc!~tio~.. 3iven Uev: Suffoik's location, we have serfi:us dc. ubt. i. .:~ =r_~~ referer,,_-es are ~,a~e re, the conditio~i o£ the it is in~icated vhat "...the "no action" alternative v. oolJ leave ~.n=-- yarse! vacant a~';d abandoned. The v.c ..... ~uii~:~-~'=~z.~ are a likely., target for vandalism s~n~ se~-iot's fires ~o~ld result. "No action" would ps, si~i~r, i~ that the closure or the yard was an acticn - h~ cicsure of [~]ai~ Street an~ the construction there on ~,f tlc enormous structures would totally ~_~._~t ~is,~az access to the public waters. a. ?kc secondary effects cf additienal development, ~,~,,l~h=~.~.:l~l~ '~'?r~suztal'~'s comments on the ~. The Cc, nsult~t's i~e~tific~io~ or ~dverse efreo~s ~,h .... ~e~]~,~ be evoided felled to cite ~he most lmr~_t~.~t effect, ~.e, "loss of ~ historic marine resource." ~. While epprcpri~te provision ~ppe~rs to h~ve been m~de ~o protect the s~ruct, ures in ~ocordanoe wi~h FE[~Z~ requirements ~ potential is ore.ted for in- creased inland fioodin~ ~t the northerly end or %he proposed site (see ~%&~ched letter to COK), £ep~smber 2'.3, 19~ U,S. Arm2,-Corps cf ~n~ir~eers Ney. York E;istrict 26 Feder~i Z'iaz~ New York, N.Y. 1027& AIter_tion: En¢ineerin6 Division Subject= ~RINE ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL TO C,i~NSTRUCT COICDOi{INiU}iS, NEW SUFFOLE, N.Y. Ir:CREASED FLOJD HAiAR2S GexZiemen: Presently, before the Town of Southold Town Board there is a proposal by Marine Associates, Inc. for approval to develop a condominium project aU the sits of the New Suffolk Shipyard in the hamlet of New Suffolk. The site is roughly 7.5 acres and is immediately adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor along'its easterly boundar~~. l{arine Associates, Inc. comtemplates construction of 2~ condominium units in clusters of four units each. Eenerali~ runnin~ 500 feet from the north bound- ary of the property to its southerly propert~ line. Since the proposed pro,eot falls entirely within an A-~ Zone as designated t~' the Federal Emergency Management A~ency (FE~), the developer would be required to {~ke certain measures to minimize potential flood-related personal and property risks. One of the measures called for in the proposal is %o place a~preximately ?000 cubic yards of fill material cre- atin6 a terrace and first floor elevatinn of +8 feet. The existin~ elevation of the property varies but generally follows the profile of the ad~acent street, First Street i.e. approximately 5 feet at northerly end, 6 feet a~ center and } feet at southerly propert~ line. Reference Mark 21 (NO 8 ~93}), elevation 5.69 feet is located roughly at the center of the site. Amon~ the manN concerns we in the eo~uni~y have re~ardin~ this pro,eot is its affect on worsenin~ the flooding potential in the immediate area and the related secondary impact of extendin~ the landward limit of the flood hazard zone. In this connection it is our understandin~ that ~he New York Distric~ of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under an a~reement with ~he Federal Insurance Administration performed the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the Town of Southo!d Flood Insurance Study. Thus since the Corps -2- has had major technical input to the Study we aeon it appropriate to address the matter to the Corps. I~ew Suffolk is esse~:tlaiiy a peninsula surrounded by salt water - West Creek along the westerly portion, Great Peco~Lic Bay a~ i~s southeri3' tip and Cutchogue Harbor and ~fickham Creek generally to the east. A very high percentage o~ deveicped properties are in or adjacent to flood hazard areas. The most intensive development occurs along the south easterly portion cf r~ew Suffolk between New Suffolk Avenue ama First Street an~ Orchard and Jackson Streets in the vicinity of t~e proposed condominium project. As in other icw-iyi~,~ East End communities the threat of the dangers associa~e~ ;,ith storm flooding is ever present. It is not a theoretical phe~omenon~ it is a very real concern to the people livin~ in the area. Virtually all long time residents can recount their experiences over the years whereby they were exFosed to severe stor~s, particularly northeasters and hurricanes which inundated large portions ef New Suffolk. We can personally attest to the accuracy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area which delineates the landward extent of the A-~ Zone designated by ZZL~. In fact a neighbor Tom Lowry, residing at the north west corner of Secon~ and Jackson Streets salvaged from his front lawn sufficient wood to use for a fireplace mantel in his sitting room plus taoles for his porch after a storm in the late ~96C's. He also, as so many others living within the A-a Zone experienced a long period of well contamination by the salt water brought by the flooding from the bay. Were it net for the unique ~eographical position of f~ew Suffolk, the proposed fill, in combination with the earthen and rook berms along the bay side may be considered to function as a barrier, thus reducing storm damage potential to adjacent low inland areas. New Suffolk however is positioned in a manner whereby its entire easterly shorefront is directly open to the storm surge of severe northeasters. The placement of the fill as proposed, would restrict the dissipation of the surge and would create a flume between the proposed development and the present landward extent of the flood hazard zone. this configura~ion's effect on our community is our concern since we believe the flume will induce an increase locally in the elevation of the flood and cause increased upland flooding. We are pleased to note that the Suffolk County ?larming Commission in its disapproval of the proposal included among its concerns the impact of storm tides. __l_~=_.-=m.,, destructlve ~iortheasters occur frcm .... ~ L=r ~_~r~= az~d u~on reaching maturity the disturbance can rez~ire three or four day£ to dissipate and can affect a==-'-=~, _~.~lmt., for two days or more. Unlike a hurricane it r.=-n~=~:.e mrs strength over a long perioi which if ~n cox- ~:~,__.~_~..: .... ~'{-~.~._ astrono~ica! tides Euarantees disasterous effects in iow areas, In the December 1982 Draft ~1~ Wave Height Analysis for ~- ~..e Town of ~ou~ho~, we observe that of eight stor~s si:~ce 293~, classified as severe or unusually severe, t::ree.=t~r~ _ (i950, 1955 and 1962) were northeasters. WiCk c:n-:~r:t v,'e note that the repz, rZ also indlcaZes: ~:..,~t=~mo.~s the Sara and engir_eering method- c_.:g:., 2r. cludlnE a }...o~,ze_a= of wave ~eneration and 2:. ~i~e, Ine magr~itude anJ extent of wave hazard ta::nct be accurately determineJ at present, anti these ~_=__ ...... i:ave been omittea frcm rigorous analysis, Areas e×zst ;'.'z~n[n -~u~,~l~ where greater f!ocd hazards may be exz:ected than are presently indicated on the re- visefi YIR[.[ due to potential ~raVe actio~. These areas i~clude, tut may n~t be limited to, Great Peconic ~ay, fizzle ~econic Bay, and the Southold ~ay shoreline ......... ~ Riverhead/Southcld corporate limits to Fanning fc~-'. 2ecause of the limitations of Zne methodology, :ce c~astai flooding on Great Peconic Bay, Little ?etonic '..'nile we have empathy for this position we do not want to see our c.., ...... mt~ exposed to even greater hazards created by the develc$er, i,:anaging construction in flood srone areas is a relatively new process. For many years construction of groin, s Eroceeded relatively unimpeded by regulatory constraints only z.: finJ that in many instances the shoreline downcoast of ~he groin was suffering erosion. Similarly the proposed fill for the condominium project would largely assure its safety but the reconfigured topography within the flood prone zone weuifi create an impoundment north of the project directly exposed to the force of the shallow-water breaking wave front. Under flood ccnditions, water within the flume would be relatively stable a~ding to the energy differential between the ap. preach force and the proposed fill. Thus at the transect across the entrance of the "flume" the conversion of the kinetic energy of the wave would result in an increase in elevation. The penetration farther inland at this location would appear to be facilitated by the wave defraction around the westerly end of the project fill. As previously indicated we do not regard storm flooding an~ the dangers associated with flooding as some theoretical phenomenon. Our resources are limited as to obtaining pro- fe~°~-~-=~ assistance to address the issue. Although I am a prcfessioYal engineer, I have a very sketch}' background ih these matters. Accordingly, or~ behalf of the New Suffolk 2ivic Association i am res.~ectfuiiy requesting that the Corps review this matter an~ if, in fact our concerns are unwarra:~.ted, certify to the comm.,unity treat there will be no increase i~'~ the ihlan.~ f!oo~ing penetration alo~-~ the ncrtheri2 end of the yroposed project. I am sure that through the ef£ioe of the Town Clerk, Town cf Seuthcid, detailea drawings of the proposed project could he r~ade avai!ah!e. Your assistance ih trois matter will be greatly appreciated. Si}:oere!}-, }a:rick E. Ca!laban, P.~. Third Street between King & Crchard Sts. 50-11 212th Street New Suffoiz, New York 1195~ Bayside, New York cc: New Suffolk Civic Association JOSEPH FENTON ATTORN~AT LAW NEW SUFFOLK, N. Y. 11956 September 28, 1983 Mrs. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold $outhold, NY 11971 Re: Petition of Marine Associates, Inc. Dear Mrs. Terry: I enclose herewith protests signed by eight (8) owners of property qualifying to Protest in this matter, as more particularly set forth in each protest. Attached to each protest, shaded In red on the pectlon of the map prepared by R. Van Tuyl which accompanied the application, is the location of each protester's property, for ease In identification. I believe, and the engineer for the New Suffolk Civic Associ- ation has confirmed, that, in all, fourteen (1~ property owners qualify to protest as set forth on the attached schedule. Inasmuch as Section 265 provides that if twenty percent (20%) or more pr~test, rezoning shall not become effective unless three-fourths (3/4ths) of the members of the ~own Board vote in favor of such change. Accord- ingly, since eight (8) out of fourteen (14) constitute more than twenty percent (20°/°) , would you kindly confirm or advertise the applicability of the three-fourths provision. An additional protest was duly executed by another qualifying owner of property (Michael Greenly and Joseph McKay). However, their signatures have not yet been attested to before a Notary. A photo- copy is submitted for your information and may well qualify as a protest, since the law is silent as to form. The original of this protest, either in present or completed form, will ultimately be submitted to you, making the ninth (gth) protest. It is also possible that further qualifying property owners will come forward as well. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the property owners have protestedj while only twenty percent (20%) are needed, should not be lost on the Board. Respectfully submitted, !.~-,r, ,.,/ ~ .~ ~.,~ f ~seph Fenton QUALIFYING PROPERTY OWNERS (14) Southold Development (Mackay on map) Murray Victoria Vangi Fisher McKay Majeski Avant Loria Wood Avent Kinczel Zamphiroff Polashock .~.o: NO: 257 STATE C'F .NDW TC~',71 OF 50E~HOLD II~ THE I.Z~TTER £,? Th~- PETITION OF ~.'~RI~ ASSOCIATe, INC. FOR A C~2;GE, MODIFICATIO1; OR A~.~]:D~,F~NT OF TR~ BUILDING ZONE OSDINANCE OF THE TO'Ri iTS',',' TO THE TD'~g; BOARD GE T~ TO~'~; OF SCI~HOLD: i [we~, Ine o~Y, er (s) of property qualifying usder Section 265 of the applicable ]{ew ]'c~ State Town Law, hereby PiCTEST against a ch~_~e of zone with respect to the ~royerty of i,L~II~ ASSOCIATES, INC. located at %he foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N~Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Beard of the ~o~ of Zouthold. New ~u~.ol_., I~.1'. September , 195~ Sts~e of New York ) ~ SS:- 2o'~n±y of Suffolk ~ ~EIifG DI~Y SWORN, deposes and says that (s) he has read the ~oregoin~ [forest and k:,ows the contents thereof to be this day of September, 1983 I;ot=ry ?.~blic ~ i'/~z N ' k- .~oe, ~ . ~ ~ . .. ~ ..., ~ ~ ,,-. b- ---4 ~ ~~~: ...... L. ~ _~J L:--~ ,~ ~ ~ . -.. ~ ~ .L~ ~ ,-z ~.5'o8'~'E -2~r.ot 4 ¢¢ ~ E 50.0 6-7 0.85'21'10"E. 155't ,_""~'~_.~ NO: 257 PROTEST STATE OF NEW YORX TC:nT~ OF SOUTHOLD IN T~ ~NTTER OF T~ PETITION OF r.~RII~ ASSOCIATe, INC. FOR A CH~{GE, MODIFICATIOI; OR A;~NDS~NT OF T~ BUILDING ZOLm ORDINANCE OF THE TO~ OF SC. UTHCLD, SL~POL}[ .... [_~, TO ~x= TO}~; BOARD OF T~ TO~ OF ~HCLD. I (we), the o~er (a) of property qualSfying under Section 265 of the applicable l, ew Yc~: Sts~e Town Law, hereby PROTEST against a cha~e of zone with respect to the property of i.~II'~ ~SOCIATES, INC. looated at the foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N~Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before {he Tow:: Board of ~e 1'o~ c.f Sou~hold. September ~, 19~ Sta~e of New Ycrk ) County of Suffolk EEII{S Dray SWO~'i, depose~ and says tha~ (~-~/ha~dread the Soregoing ~rotest and k:~ow~ khe contents thereof to be t~e. Sworn to.~before me this -25 day of September, 19~3 No. 52-~95150 ~i~on Expires March 30, 19 ~5 / Z-3 ZOS'27'C~'E.- ~9B.45 C: .-Lt_p ?AGE N0:257 .PROTEST STATE OF NEW YOPd< TC~7~ OF SOUTHOLD IN THE YL~TTER OF THE PETITION OF I,~RII~ ASSOCIATe. INC. FOR A CH~[GE, MODIFICkTION 0R A~NDt,~NT 0F THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE T0~ 0F ZOUTHOLD, S~POLK C0~TY, 7EW YOgi TO THE TO~ BOARD OF T~ TO~[ CF SO~HCLb: I (we). the o~er (s) of property qualifying under Section 265 of the applicable I~ew Yo~ stere Town Law, hereby PROTEST a~ainst a cha~e of zone with respect to the property of M~I~ ASSOCIATES, iNC. located at the foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N.Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Board of t%~ 'lo~m cf SoutLold. New .,u._olk, I;.Yc September ~5 , 1987 StaTe cf New York ) ~ounty of Suffolk .... _/[__,2 ?_ __/_ .................................... BEING DULY SWOP~, deposes and says that (s) be has read the ~oregoing [rotest and knows the eonten~s thereof to be 2~e. ~,.~-~.~/ ~ ~,~-~.:' Sworn to before me this 7%~ day of September, 198~ · Notary Public JOSEPH FENTON NOTARY PUBLIC. Slale ol New Y~ NO. 52-1195150 ~mmiss~n Expires March ~0. 1~ J.) ' ~-- ~o~) ~ N. .~ jow,~- - ~ ~ ..... i -- ~'~ ~ l--, }~ ~ .,. , ~ o JL ~ ~ ~ / m B-4 N 4:3~'~'E 50,0 6-7 0.85'21'10'E. ._.A~ NO: 257 PROTEST STATE OF NE%'; YORE TCWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 0F ~.~RI~ ASS0CIAT~, INC. FOR A CH~;G~, MODIFICATION 0~ A~ND~NT OF T~ BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE .OF THE TO~] O~ ~0UTHCLD, S%~FO~[ COL~TY, TO T-E TO~'; BOARD CF T~ TC't~; OF SO'HOLD: I [we~, the o~er (s) of property qualifying under Section 265 of the applfcable l~ew Yo~ Stgte Town Law, hereby PROTEST agains~ a cha~e of zone with respec~ to ~he propert~ of I~I~I}~ ASSOCIATES, INC. located a~ the foot of Main Street, New Suffolk~ N.Y., which applicat~on for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Board of the 5o~ of Southold. New Suffolk, September '~b , 1987 StaTe of New York ,. Uo'anty of Suffolk SS:- EEiN~ DULY SWOPd~, deposes and says that ~'~ he has read the ~oregoing protest and knows the contents thereof to be true. Sworn to before me this ~ day of September, 1983 Notary Public ~L,~,~,,.~-~ ~ ~ .,~Z-T~ ,. -~--\ / ~ ~ .~ _~_ .4 / / / j ~ ..... >-J ---' .-.- . - ..... ~_~. ~ , ~U~_E~- 2 (6~ ~' ; ~-,- ~,~- . _ ............. 6:7 (~.ss_'z~ O~E. ...... ~5'~- ................................... ,~. CASE N0:257 PROTEST STATE OF NE~; YORK TCWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE ~.L~TTER OF THE PETITION OF }[ARI}~ ASSOCIATe, INC. FOR A CH~GE, MCDIFICATIOL 0R A~ND~NT 0F T~ BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TO~: OF SOUTHC, LD, S~FCLK CO~TY, T0 THE TC%~ BOARD CF T~ TO~ OF S0%~HOLD: I. (we), the o~er (s) of proper~y ~ual~fying under Section 265 of the appldcahle l~ew Yo~ State Town Law, hereby PROTEST against a cha~e of zone with respect to the property of I~I~ ASSOCIATES, INC. located at the foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N~Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Board of the 5o~ of Southold. ~ ~[ew Suffolk, September 2-~, 1983 State of New York ) ! SS: - Co'~ulty of Suffolk ~ BEING DULY SWOR2~, deposes and says that ~ he has read the "oregoing protest and knows the contents thereof %o be true. Sworn to before me this -~ d%y of September, 1983 Notary Public D [ / Pu~C ~, ~ LEVESCUE q ; ~' ~"- ~' .d~C~.fi~ ~T./ / 1, ~ , ~ I :'.: ~ I ~-~ /":' _ :.¢i .. ~'~ ~ ~'.'~-~ / ~ / / / _. ~_ - -- ,-z ~.5"o8~'E-2~Lo2 ~0 - [" 4 ¢- ~ E 50,9 5-4 H :~= CASE NO: 257 PROTEST STATE OF NEW YORK TC'~ 0F SOUTHOLD IN THE ~,%ATTER OF THE ~TI.I,,N OF ~,~RI~ A~SOCI~T~, II~C. FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATIOI~ OR A~ND~NT OF THE BUILDING ~CI,~ ORDINANCE C'F THE TOWE 0F ZOUTHOLD, S~FCLK C,}~TY, YE~ YC~ TC THE TO~ BOARD CF T~ 1%~), ~he o~er (s) of property qualifying under Section 265 of the appI~cable New Yo~ State Town Law, hereby PROTEST agains~ a cha~e of zone with respect to the property of ~,~I~ ASSOCIATES, I~C. located at the foot of Main Street, New Snffolk, N.Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently befor~ the ?own Board of the To~ of Sou~Lold. New Suffolk, I(.7~ 3eptember '?'~ , 1983 State of New York ) County of Suffolk SS:- £Eii;,3 DULY SWORi,~, deposes and says that ~ he has read the ~oregoing protest' and knows the contents thereof to be tru~. Sworn to before me this ~ day of September, 1983 Notary Public JOSEPH FENTOI~ CASE N0:257 PROTEST STATE OF NEW YORK TCWN OF SOUTHOLD IN ThqE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ~LtRINE ASSOCIATE~, INC. FOR A CHA/~GE, MODIFICATIO1; OR AMENDmeNT OF THE BUILDING ~0~'~ ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ~OU~HOLD, SUFFOLX Cutq~_Y, I[EW YO~ · n~ T0~; BOARD CF T~ T0~ 0F S0~HOLD: I (we), the o~.er (s) of property qualifying under Section 265 of the applicable I~ew Yo~ State Town Law, hereby P~TE~. against a cha~e of zone with respect to the property of ~I~ ASSOCIATES, INC. located at the foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N~Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Board of the 'Io~ of Sou~Lold. New Suffolk, I;.Y~ September ~, State of New York ) County of Suffolk ~'- BEING D~Y SWO~, depose~ and~says that ~ha~ead the foregoing protest and know~ the contenS, thereof to be ~e. $~orn ~o be~o~e ~e lhis ~ day of Septer~ber, 1983 Notary ~blic UOSEPH FEPlTON CASE NC: 257 PROTEST STATE 0F NEW YORK, TC'~[ OF SOUTHOLD IN THE ~,'L~TTER OF THE PETITIOE OF ~,L~RINE ASSOCIATe, INC. FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATI01; OR A~ND~NT 0F T~ RUILDINC ZONE ORDINANCE CF THE T0'~[ 0F SOUTHOLD, Sb~FCLE C0~TY, ~:EW YC'~[ TO THE TO~ BtAR~, OF T~ TO~,q~ OF ~_HO~D. I (we), the owner (s) of property qualifying under Section 265 of the applicable I~ew Yo~ Stste Town Law, hereby F~.E~. against a change of zone with respect to the property of M~I~ ASSOCIATES, INC. located at the foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N~Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Bcard of the 'Ic,~m of Southold. ~. ~ , New Suffolk, September ~, 1983 State of New York goun~y of Suffolk ~'- BEIi;: DULY SWO~, depose~ and says that ~e/ha~ead the ~oregoing protest and know9 the contents thereof to be t~e. Swo~n ~o before me this 0.~ day of September, JOSLPH FENTON ~hoE Nu: 257 PROTEST STATE 0F N~' YOPd( TCWN OF SOUTHOLD II,' THE r,IATTER OF THE ?ETITION OF [.tARII'~ ASSOCIAT,.~q,, INC. FOR A CH~G~, MODIFICATIO]~ OR A~ND~,~NT OF T~ BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE T0~ OF ~0U~HLLD, S~FOLE C0~TY, ~W Y0~ TO THE TC~ BOARD 0F T~ TO~: 0F S0~HOLb: the applicable l~ew Yo~[ State Town Law, hereby PROTEST a~ains% a cha~e of zone w~th respect %o the property of M~I~ ASSOCIATES, INC. located at ~he foot of Main Street, New Suffolk, N~Y., which application for chan~ of zone is presently before the Town Board of the To~ of Sou~hold. September 7~, 1987 StaTe of New York ) Uounty of Suffolk ~'- ~EING DULY SWORi',, depose9 and says that (~,~ha~ead the =oregoing protest and k:~ow9 the conten%s thereof tc, be Sworn to before me this f'~ day of Sop%ember, 198~ Notary Public · [.~m~ G. Dill N=,~ S~,[[,.II~. N,:,,, Y.,,.[ 11")56 Southold Town Board 9/26/83 c/o Judith Terry, Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold N-Y 11971 Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to request a public hearing on the proposed condominiums in New Suffolk. The residents of the town as well as other concerned citizens need an opportunity to express their feelings on the building of condominiums and their concerns about the water supply, sewage control and the effect of the buildings on the life- style of the community. I, for one, have been a resident of New Suffolk for the past twelve years and would like to add my name to the list of those who are opposed to the granting of approval for the condominiums and who hope the Town hoard will consider the wishes of the community when making a decision. Michele Cusumano Orchard Street New Suffolk LUICKHRm's I:'RUIT i:'laRm Route 25. Culchogue. Long Island. New York 11935 Tel. ,5161 734~441 September 27, 1983 Town Board Town of Southold Southold, N. Y. 11971 Re: Petition of Narine Associates Inc. for zone change Gentlemen: I note your invitation to comment on this petition for change of zone on the shipyard property at New Suffolk, and having studied the plans, environmental impact study and en- gineering reports, would like to make some comments. These comments draw on my experience as a graduate civil engineer, a farmer and property owner in New Suffolk school district, nearly forty years' experience in irrigation water supply and salt water intrusion and flooding, and almost thirty years' experience in zoning and land use agencies, not only as Chair- man of the Town Planning Board for 24 years, but also as a present member of the Long Island Regional Planning Commission and a former member of the New York State Agricultural Resources Commission. In the first place, I do not believe that this property has a better or more fittiog use than that of marina and shipyard. It has served the community and larger area long and well, and such need still exists as even noted in the environmental impact study prepared for the petitioners. Second, the historic and scenic values of the existing use, are of very real value in preserving the rural nature and sea- faring character of the town which has been determined to be the key to our resort business. There can be no question but that the proposed change would result in a drastic change in the ap- pearance and even the mode of liviog in this small village. Third, a study of the drawings of the proposed saltwater converters indicates that the concentrated brine resulting from this process is returned to Peconic Bay. At no point does the environmental impact s~dy address the effect of changing the salinity of the Bay in any degree. We know that clams, oysters and scallops can only live within a narrow range of salinity. The Bay at this point is not like the Sound which has a tremen- dous flushing action, and any change in salinity would have effect. Finally, it is of note that the applica~n proposes to use the dock permit and underwater grant to augment the base in com- puting the total number of dwelling units allowable for this property. If allowed, this could set a precedent with far-reach- ing effects in a town such as ours with many forms of grants Town Board September 27, 1983 Page 2 and permits in land use. To mention a few others, oyster and clam grounds as well as Town Trustee grants and permits in bot- tom, docks, duckwalks, etc. The real issue here is that the fee of the land, or bottom, is not held and historically only fee owners or contract vendees have been granted changes in land use. If now, lessees or other holders under license are to be included, it will certainly undermine our zoning. For all of the above reasons I strongly urge that this petition be denied. Very sincerely yours, cc: Suffolk Co. t~lanni~g Comm. John Wickham Long Island Regional Plan- ning Commission t Eatsy Ro§¢~s 315 Fourth Street New Suffolk, New York 11956 L NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC. ~l.~:rJJ~ REC~ivcO September 8, 1983 SEP 2 1983 Oear New Suffolk Residents: Much has happened since our May meeting whereby strong opposition was voiced to the condominium proposal by I.~arine Associates, Inc. --The Southold Town Planning Board recommended denial for a change of zone. The Suffolk County Planning Commision has met and disapproved the application for a zone change. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has not issued a permit for construction on lands falling within its ~urisdiction and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has not issued requisite approvals for water supply and sanitary systems. The former owner of the site has retained a lawyer to enforce the covenant in the deed to the property which restricts its usage to the operation of a boat yard or marina. The New York State Office of General Services has not taken any action with respect to the State's underwater rights. The New York State Department of State has been alerted to the conflict between the proposal and the State's policy and goals within its Coastal ~]anagement Program. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been notified of our objection to utilizing material dredged from the boat ramp channel at the site if it increases the upland area for the purpose of density determination and/or should the material be used or removed to other parts of the same property for fill. Additionally, the increased tbr,-~t of storm damage as a consequence of the proposed project is being reviewed with the responsible agencies. The Southold Town Board has been designated as lead agency and has found t}~at the project may have a significant environmental impact thus requiring that a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be prepared. over -2- At this point the DEIS has been prepared by a consultant hired by Marine Associates, Inc., to convince the Town Board that nothing about the proposed project will disturb New Suffolk. The Town is now asking us all to let it know just how we feel about the impact of the project. The consultants report in no way allays our original concerns; among them, water quality, further salt water intrusion, radical changes to the character of our community, loss of historic site and open dockin~ facilities, and setting a precedent for further such development within New Suffolk and its environs. The document may oe examined at the Southold Town Hall. Within a few days I hope to have some additional copies avail- able for you. Comments are to be submitted no later than October 1, 1985 to: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk ~'own of Southold Towa Hail [~ain Road Southolm, N.Y. ~971 At this critical stage in the process it is very important that you continue to participate and make your views and comments known in writing to the Town Board and s~ress that this matter must be aired at a Public Hearing. Your Civic Association will continue to monitor the situation very carefully and will take whatever steps we feel are appropriate. We will be in contact with you in the near future to keep you informed of the next step and progress. Very truly yours, P~lile A. K rementz President SE?2~ ~3 September 23, 1983 Tc,.V~ Ms. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Ms, Terry - As a property owner in New Suffolk, I am deeply concerned over the proposed condominium project sponsored by Marine Associates, Inc. Many of us bought property in New Suffolk only as a result of the awareness that the subject property was restricted for usage only as a boat yard or marina. The environmental impact of such a prject must indeed be substantial and, as a resident of New Suffolk, I am dedicated to its protection. Please count my name among those of my neighbors who insist on a public hearing regarding the environmental issues. Thank you so much for your attention and continued concern for the Town's welfare. Sij~erely, ~ // .. JMcK:jm T~' '- ~ .'. ~-..,,.'--,h~ September 22, 198.~ Town Board u. Southold Southold, N.Y. ]1971 Re: Application of Marine Associate'], I'4r. for change of zone (T[o. 257) Gentlemen: A£ I inet,rated to you in my letter to you d~t~ ].Iay 16, 19~3, I r~presen~ Mrs. Ruth T. Jim. sion, who opposes the Application Ia connec~an with %his r,v]ttep, I attended 9 meeting on ~e~,tembe~ 20, 1~8~, in Albany, N.Y. ti the offices of tLe Co stal [<ahngement Pro~r~ of the New York State Department of ~tste, to- ~e~her with a representative of The l[cw Suffolk Civic 'ssociatioi~ ~.~ the cou~'se 3f th~s meeting we were made aware that the Town ,'~f Southold, 5s Le~d A~eDcy in conneclioh ~ith %~.~ above ref- erenaed m'~tte~ has no~ ~dvised Cc,~stal ~.!anagement Proaram cf D~f~rtment of %rate of %he recei~% Impau~% Statemon% on Lehalf of the Applicant, ~s ~e~uire~ by ar~end- meals to Part 617 of DEC's regulations pertain"nf ~o SWQRA. A~,gor~iegly, I respectfully ~equest that fhis Agency be appropriately nntJfi-~d, and that DEIS documents be ~rovided to enable Dep~rtment of Staie (CMY) to commen~. Inasmuch ~s ~he date Yor receipt of comment is set for Cctober 1, 1983, it may be appropriate either imable Lepartmen~ of State (CMP) to make co~ent, cF ~o take what- ever action is necessary fo enable you to accept such comment at a l~%er ~ate. We were advised ~hat %he Department had every in- fentic, n io make comment upon notice. In a related meetin~ with Land Utiliz:~tion ~,f l~ew York "~ o uat_ Office of General So.ices, we were <~dvised that gr~at wet{hr would be ~iven Lo any cogent made by Department of S~e (CMP), in connection with any fut,.re action their Division m~y take in the matter. Accordingly, while we are in no oosJtion to L~nticipate the nasure of Department of State's (Ct,?P] comment, ~5 is apparent thief the inte?ests of the Town of S u%hold, the State of New York, aad the residents of i,]ew Suffolk ~,d the Town will '' ~ ' ba~ '.,est sewed by cc, nformin~ to ~he r~quis~te i copy of the State's cohsJstency process ~2uidelines fs en:~losed. cc U'fS Department of Environ~tal Conserver Jori Ui'q De?rtr~r~t ~f State Suff)lk gt,ungy Fl'tn~g Commission, ~"~)~ $: ' 2,-": ig83 NEW YORK STATE COASTAL HANAG~T PROGRAM State Conslstenoy Process State agencies, including State created authorities, co,lesions and boards, operate a number of programs which are critical to and may affect the proper management of New York's coastal resources. The State's property disposition, acquisition and leasing, capital project construction, financial assistance, regulatory and planning programs cover many land and water activities that beneficially use and adversely affect these resources. Most of these programs serve singular porposes, hut collectively they form an impressive block of State programs which are aimed at the wise use and protection of coastal resources. Thus, agencies of New York State are equipped and are expected to perform a vital role in the implementation of the Coastal Management Program. The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act brings together all of the appropriate State agencies' programs for the purpose of implementing New York State's Coastal Management Program. Section 912 of the Act contains general policies applicable to .the Coastal Area of the State. These policies are elaborated upon in the Department of State's DOS Part 600 regulations. The intent of these policies is to provide direction to State agencies when operating their programs in the Coastal Area. These policies cover a range of concerns pertaining to the use and protection of natural and man-made coastal resources, but the overall objective ia "... to achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing the loss of marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public access tn the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological " systems . Section 919(1) of the Act requires that "... ectlons directly undertaken by State agencies within the coastal area ... shall be consistent with the coastal area policies of this Article". This provision of law effectively ties together the programs of State agencies by binding their decision-making actions to the coastal policies. Actions which are not consistent with applicable coastal policies cannot be taken or, where appropriate, modified to an extent that they will be found consistent. The actions of State agencies must also be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with local waterfront revitalization programs which have been approved by the Secretary of State. The Department of State and the Department of Environmental Conservation have adopted regulations to assist State agencies in carrying out their responsfbi~ies under Section 915(8) and 919(1) of the Waterfront Revitaliza~on and Coastal Resources Act. These regulations take two forms: (1) amenders to Part 617 of DEC's regulations pertaining to the State Environmental Quality Review Act; and (2) new Part 600 rules promulgated by the Department of State. ~tare Consistency Process ?age Two The amendments to the SEQRA regulations are directed at "Type 1" and "Unlisted" actions of State agencies in the Coastal Area which will require the preparation }of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Since such actions have the p6tential to s~gnificantly affect the coastal environment, the Part 617 regulations require State agencies to identify and to discuss the effects upon the c~stal policies applicable to the proposed actions in the EIS. The "findings"-:aection (§617.9) of these regulations also requires that the agencies' actions be consistent with the coastal policies before decisions are made on the actions. As the State's Coastal Management Agency, the Department of State must be aware of the activities occurring in or affecting the Coastal Area. The amendments of SEORA, as described above, will enable the Department to track major activities, for it will receive copies of the ElS documents an~ have the opportunity to comment on such proposed actions. To avoid burdening the SEQRA regulations with additional procedures, requirements and criteria, the Department of State promulgated regulations which are applicable to "Type I" and "Unlisted" actions occurring in the Coastal Area that do not require the preparation of an EIS. These proposed regulations dovetail with the SEQRA procedures. Essentially, the Department's regulations include the following requirements and/or items: 1. The completion of a Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) is required for all State agency actions in the Coastal Area. This CAF is to be used to supplement other information in order to assist that agency in determining the significance of the action, pursuant to SEQRA. 2. Certificates of consistency must be filed with the Secretary of State for actions that do not have a significant effect upon the environment (as determined under the SEQ~A process) and which occur in or affect the Coastal Area. 3. Coastal policies are described and made a part of these regulations. The attached chart shows how the State consistency process fits in with the existing SEQ,{ procedure. State agencies will be responsible for determining the consistency of their actions with coastal policies. In instances where two or more agencies have jurisdiction over a proposed action, each agency must make a consistency determination. The Department of State will work with the agencies and assist them in fulfilling this requirement under Article 62 of the Executive Law. The Department is not authorized to override the decisions of its sister agencies on matters relating to this Law. A third party may, however, seek judicial review of an agency's determination of consistency pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil $grvice Law. NEW YORK STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM State Consistency Process (DOS Part 600 and DEC Part 617 Regulations) Coastal Area: Proposed Action by State Agency Agency Prepares Consults with DOS on Coastal Assessment ..... )~. Action's Consistency Form (CAF) with Coastal Policies Copy of CAF Sent to DOS (except for some permit actions) Agency Determines Action's Potential Effect Upon the Environment I No Significant Effect Significant Effect (agency (agency follows DOS follows DEC Part 617 regu- Part 600 regulations) lations) Agency F~les Certificate DEIS and FEIS Prepared of Consistency with DOS Disclosing Impacts on Coastal Policies Findings Prepared Including Consistency with Coastal Policies Agency Approves/Disapproves Proposed Action September 16, 1983 SEP23 Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main ~oad Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: A Public Hearing should be held at once in regards to the pro- posed Marine Associates development in New Suffolk. The condo- miniums would devastate this local co,:nunity and should be denied at once. Respectfully yours//, New Suffolk, New York 11956 : .~. i,' :- ~ l'own Hall. s3095 Main Road : / P.O. Box 728 ' Southo[d, New York 11971 JUDITH T TERRY rELE?HONE To~ CLI RK ($16) 765-1801 RFGIS'rR ~.R Ol VI r.~,c SI x I1~ I1( S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 21, 1983 Robert Jewell, P.E. Public Health Engineer Suffolk County Department of Health Services Environmental Engineering Section County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mr. Jewell: In response to your letter of September 16, 198B to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board, please be advised that the Southold Town Board is lead agency in the matter of Marine Associates (North Fork Shipyard) petition for a change of zone to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District in New Suffolk. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Draft Environ- men~a~ Impact Statement filed with me for your files. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure u V -'~'~ ~"/ ',F COUNTY Of SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER September 16, 1983 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Please be advised that this office is in receipt of plans for the conversion of the North Fork Shipyard into 24 condominium units situate New Suffolk. Since this is not a Type 1 SEQRA action, mandatory coordi- nated review is not required. However, this office does wish to coordi- nate its review since there are many permits required for this development. The proposed plan indicates denitrification of the sewage and the creation of a public water supply. The current sanitary design would require that the grade be raised at least 6 feet. It appears all of the matters before the department can be satisfied. In accord, it would be appreciated if one of your two agencies would assume the lead agency. We are awaiting your reply, Very truly yours, ~-~ Robert Jewell, P.E. Public Health Engineer Environmental Engineering Section RJ/ctk cc. Chuck Hamilton, NYSDEC John Mahoney COUNTy CENTEf~ 548-3313 ~,:~ und~rstenq tb~t this produced rezon~ng will bo on ~k.e Town c~lend:r %n the not too distant future. We qre still 'mqltersb]y .ou"=wr~so~ roll or a-ril 27, 1993, cony att~c~ed, sti]~ a: ,~ly. They ara strengthened Oy the actions of the Soutmold Town ~]aanin~ 2o~rd ~nd Suffolk County Flannln~ Commission In diq'~rov~n=' ~ho nnp2Icotion for e rezonlng. :.~e ~qve ro=:,d t~e ~v~mhoney water ret, errs of A--rll 19~3 ~nd ~e[ tember 1. _; and tho Or.aft Env!rtnmentsl Imoaot st~te~ent o~ i',~rlne Associates oreoqrod by Roy L. Heje qnd reoe!ved by toe Southold tewn clerk Au~fust ..?P, 1~83 and whlor, incorporates the w~,ter ret)efts. Theso reoorts in no w2y change our views. In f~et, t-:ay bsve some f];qws on tbelr fa. ce. The biahoney Peoorts wltb no baals stated, assume only summertime ooouomnts of the oondomlniups, 1.e. , l~,emori.vl Day to September q0. In fact many New Suffolk residences, even summer eot- tqgeg, ere uped ~11 or oartlslly year round. We don't know if the sssumotJon of qh00 ¢~12ons '~er day oonm2mntton hqs any b~sis in fs~t. '.{~ have po idea of the reRabtllty of t~ ~].i~an Reverse Osm~sls system. But even so the reoort ~ives no lipht on what hapoens m~jOP brogkdown of the system. llkewlse we Pinq defects in the Draft gnvtronwentsl St'qtewent. ~.og~ g we cqnnot ~ree ~itb t~e statement t~st "Diffloultles in secur- ing ~p~rovsls to rehqbllit~te these buildings and the v~eerles of onerotlng q successful boatysrd led tho o~ners to abandon tMe ooera- t~on and see~ m,)arovgl for the current cruiser, l~:ost of these build- ~r,~s qre not uea~ss~r~lly for the $tor~ of boats - outside stor6ge is ~ norm today. Moreover the Pal]ute to operate a su,scessfu] boat- y.~r~ ~eems more the result of tricot m~ns:~ement. Th*~re ere ~any succe~fu] bostyards and marlnas Sn the North Fork which ~,rovlde stor~me qn.2 reomir work at '~ profit. Tmey do not 9epe=d on at r... = l~ w~ find tha unfounded1 assumotlon that no ch~ltren could b~ exoected In the condom~nt,ms, me di~apree with the assn~tiem qr n.,~e ]3 that existing- struct0res sod bo~t cradles on tPe Drooerty block most views of the w~ter. The .,ronosed con.Jomtntums c~rtq~nly wl]]. The l~act statement seems to us like a d~n~erous so,,sr-cogted olll. We hone mod trust th:al- you will deny the Dro~,osed rezontn,, in it~ ~mt!r~ty. Cerleton H. Carleton H. Endemamu 2348 N.E. 28th Court Lighthouse Point, Fla. 33064 April 27, 1983 Hon. William R. Pell EII Supervisor, Town of Southold re: Proposed rezoning of To~n Hall, Southold, N.Y. 11971 North Fork Shipyard, New Suffolkj N.Y. Dear Sir: We do not return to our cottage at Kimogenor Point in New Suffolk until mid May, but we feel it urgent to let yo~ and the other persons getting copies of this letter, know of our concer~ about ~. the proposal to change the zoning of the North Fork Shipyard in New Suffolk to allow the erection of condominiums in its place. Mrs. Endemann's family and now bur family has occupied Cottage #10 since 1920, when Mrs. Endemann~s father and ten other families purchased the stock of the Kimogenor Point Company from the Moores sixty_three years ago. We will always feel we are a part of New Suffolk, we enjoy its people and its way of life. From almost any point of view, to allow the North Fork Shipyard to be rezoned to have condominiums in its place would be a mistake and completely chano~a the character and way oflife of the small hamlet of New Suffolk. From what we hear, suc~ a change could in- volve land fill with resultant flooding of adjacent business and residential properties, tall buildings, incom~atfible with the small village atmosphere of New Suffolk, shutting off the view of 6he water, and possible sewage and fresh water problems. The fact that the shipyard has allowed many of its buildings to become unsafe and disreputable looking should not be used as an excuse for seeking the change of zoning. In addition, we question whether the change could be spot zoning and unconstitutional. As we recall it, the original zoning made the shipyard and certain of the adjacent prope~tiemcommercial or indus- trial. This would have to be changed to residential, yet Capt. Marty's fishing station next door to the north and the gift shop and Capt. Ahab's across First St. would remain ~ form of commercial or industrial zoning. Regardless of the legal technicalities, we third< the proposal is ill-advised and we urg~ you and others getting a copy of this letter to turn it down in any form. cc~ Daniel J. Larkin ~iy your~ Dept. of Environmental Conservation SUNY, Region l, Bldg.40 Carleton R. Endemann Roo~ 219 Henry Raynor ~rbara B. Endemann Planning Board of Appeals Southold, N.Y. ll9?l cc: I~e E. Koppelman Suffolk Cty. Planning Comm. Veterans Hwy. Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 September 16, 1983 SEP 9 983 To'''~ C!~r:c Soufhold Judith Terry, Town Clerk T~{n of Southold Town Hall ~in Road Southold, f~ew York 11971 Dear ~s. Terry: A Public Hearing should be held at once Jn regards to the pro- posed ~rine Associates development in New Suffolk. The condo- miniums would devastate this local cor~nunity and should be denied at once. Two-acre zoning means two-acre zoning, pericd!! /Res~ec t ful ly<'your s, Box 5 New Suffolk, New York 11956 NEW SUFFOLK CiViC ASSOCIATION INC. POST OFFICE 8OK 642 = N E ~/ S U F F O L K, N. Y. September 6, 1983 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10278 Attn: Ms. Carol Rath Regulatory Branch Re: M~INTENANCE DREDGING WITH BEACH NOURISHb~ENT DISPOSAL NEW SUFFOLK, N.Y. PUBLIC NOTICE No. 11538-83-118-L2 Gentlemen: In connection with the referenced proposal by the Suffolk County Department of Public Uorks to modify an existing permit, Department of the Army Permit No. 9865, to provide for place- ment of dredged material to areas north of the New Suffolk Boat Ramp Facility in addition to areas to the south as previously authorized,we have the following comment~ We support the continued maintenance dredging of the New Suffolk Boat Ramp Facility in order to assure safe and adequate depths for navigation and beneficial use of the dredged material. With respect to the placement for beach nourishment to the north of the ramp, in light of objection by the people of New Suffolk against a proposal by Marine Associates, Inc., to develop the site of the Horth Fork Shipyard as a condominium (see attachment) and since that site falls within the new area proposed for beach nourishment, we respectfully request that approval be conditioned in a manner which would provide; (~) that the placement of fill for beach nourishment does not increase the upland area for the purpose of density determination and, (2) that the material shall not be used or removed to other parts of the same property for fill We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter which is of great interest to our community. Very truly yours, Pauline A. Krementz, P~es. cc: Att. ment i_-, i-aw : roll: c'>_~es ,_lot 3_ -a e keels ,~? ; e 'a .covsl h..~ tke Town P,2 j.?Dt - '. .... ,_~ ts' :%h x"%.:, >l, ':; ~ Lue el~ lnstio:. )" the -.. ..... ~,._: .'"~ aite cr .,.~er !~12Lt C2 t _oDe ./'.,; ie i ti'egss ~16 :.3' l.'ell _ ' ..... ,L_l_ use 8 ..... -,.eo~ zgt~ Y.. _1~ h hi Cot%vePt brackish wmteP to fresh, and ~:;t t :e !3c~le will ecru;'? !~' end_~' ','. th .-mv'r,r. more wuter b .a:% before, ,~ ~4.. th:h ':ll's with *' a w}rld. '~-"' , ' ' .... ts will '~ ;.SOl ON]_i ,t 'Plo, :-'-¢ s~:': ;OP ,,u,i]~['s ..... h ,,t t _el; ...... -~ .; ¢:,,. '.¢ :,;~q._]_ less .~ 1~ e~,~.e,,o~_. :.s rap '~s the ',fstoulc ~ite COSF. e~, ,e &'.fill' Sa ...... ; ~ ~ lSll f ~ = [_._S ~0~ -u.,~ _ u~ d~ ¢ .... '~,~c ..... i ~ ~sn C, ll ~:i ~O:.i: ~S ~S= of ['istoP%3 SIZES. ~l~ .Oe~/f~C.~lesol~ :iS,.Oi',, ......... , ,.P .... ]., tk:,~ ,1 ....... ~'-* entire 7'o~'bh '- ' o ..... ,~t'~,-: ~',~ ~ t .... ~ ' F! '-' 'u 53 ace, shd ali 5f l~ew 3urfolk --~ " . :;%st tko !3v0!3., ent) -k''ls t' qt ho elbow -_'fne .,ss-:~qtes' RiI}iiq~D'S hO be LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF KECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT~TATEMENT STATE OF NEW YORK ) August 2~. APPLICANT: ) SS: ADDRF_~: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) New ,~o~ New yerk PERMIT APPLIED FOR Jo~n AND APPLICATION NUM. of Greenport, in BER: Change of Zone from said County, being duly sworn, says thnt:KE/she is "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" Geeerol Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Mu]liple Residesce District, Newspaper, published at Greanpor~, in the Town Petit]on No. ~57. - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: of Southold, County of Suffolk end State of New Applicant desires to re- develop the Im~perty to con- York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is structcnedmub]iumnolls, a printed copy, has been regularly published in PROJECT LOCATION: New 8uliolk. Towu of Sonthold. said Newspaper once each week for one County o[ 8ufi~oik, New weeks successively, commencing on the 1 81; York, bounded north by Loria and Cutchngne liar- day of bor. east by Cutchngue liarbor, south by MacKay ,,/~ and Cutc. lmgne P, arbor, and H[tEU ~ O~ VOl: /f) ~ ,./ west byFirst Strest. m0v~v {'biLIC, $1ale SEQR DETER~NATION: A No 4107878, ~ulfoik County draft environmental is- 1~,~ ~d~,~ ~!{~c~ 30, 19g~ ~Princ{pa{ C{erk pact statement has_been prepared on this project and m on file. Sworn to before me this 1 SE(~R L~AD AGENCY: Town of Sonthold dayof AVAILABILITY FOR PUB- ,.,c COMME,T'. Tbs dr,,, environmontal bapact merit may be reviewed at {:he address listed betow. Comments ou theproject must be submittedto the Contact Person indicated below no later than October 1, 1983 CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Soudmld, Town Hall New York 11~71 (516) 765-1801 1TS1-43~7 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEY,' YORK NOTICE OF EECEIFT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAir STATEMENT Potricio Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the August22, 1983 Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, APPLICANT: Msrine ~tsso- dams, Inc. o public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; ADDRESS: N~" Suffolk, Now York~ and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, PERMIT APPLIED POi( has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- AND APPLICATION NUM- BER: Change af Zone from man once each week for ....................... ./.. ............. weeks "C" Light lndu~t~ml District to "M-I" Gener~ Multiple successively, commencing on the / Residence District, Petition . No. 257.. aa/~f _.~...,~...-..~.. ............................ 19 ........ PROJECT .XiESCRIFTION: .~.... Applicant d~'ites to redevelop ~ ................... ~ ....... : ....... ..G_......~..~- the im~etty to co~smtct eon- domtnium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk, Town of ~uthold, County of Suffolk, New Yo~k, bonmi~l north by Lotta and Cutchogue Harlem'. east by Swo,)'n to before me this ............. ./ ................ day of Cutchogue Harbor, son~ by ~.~..~ MacKay and'.Cllteha~ne Hat; ... '~ .......... , 1 9..-..... bor, ~d west by' First SEOR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental im- pact statement has been pre- pared on I~Js project and is ....................... on file. SF-.QR LEAD AGENCY~ Town. of Sou.thold. , AVAILABI~ffY .FO~' PUB, CI.~- ~t ~. '".r. ..... LIC COMML~NT: ~TI~ draft '' environmental ' tmp~t s/~te. ' ' ':' '?~ u .... nmnt may be myi~-w~d at the address listei~" below. C6m- ments on the pmjnet mst be submitted m the Contact Per. son.indicated below no later than October.l, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Town Hall,' Main Ro~d, Soutbeld, Now York 11971. (516) 765-1~01. IT-9/1/B3(2) Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 JUDITH T TI RRY TEl EPHONF RIGISTR \Fl OI VII \1 ~ I \ I1~ Ill $ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 22, 1983 APPLICANT: Marine Associates~ Inc. ADDRESS: New Suffolk, New York PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 257. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York~ bounded north by Loria and Cutchogue Harbor, east by Cutchogue Harbor~ south by MacKay and Cutchogue Harbor~ and west by First Street. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than October 1, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road~ Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 ...... ~ ii Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ' P.O. Box 728 '" Soutthold. New York [ 1971 JUDITtt I ILRRY TELEPHONE Rl~;[s[a~u.[ Xl[x[ h~x~,[I,s OFFICE OF THE IOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUIItOLD PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suf£olk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Daniel J. Larkin, DEC, Stony Brook Dennis W. Cole, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Marine Associates, Inc. ; c.'~ [ ({'~:J~ zz' q' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road -,. :?. :' "Sg~. ~ ' P.O. Box728 ,~_ ~.. ' a~ - Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR Ol ~ [FXY SI xl IM I~ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 22~ 1983 APPLICANT: Marine Associates, Inc. ADDRESS: New Suffolk~ New York PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change o£ Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-i" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 257. PROJECT DESCRIPTION; Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk, Town of Southold, County of Su£folk~ New York~ bounded north by Loria and Cutchogue Harbor, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by MacKay and Cutchogue Harbor~ and west by First Street. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on £ile. SEQR LEAD AGENCY; Town of Southold AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than October 1, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 , ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUI)ITIIT TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN {'LI. RK i5161 765-1801 RI t;ISrg XR OI \ I I..XL t l '~11, Ill 5 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY~ TOWN CLERK~ TOWN HALL~ MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder, DEC~ Stony Brook Daniel J. Larkin, DEC, Stony Brook Dennis W. Cole, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Marine Associates, Inc. : Town ttall, 53095 Main Road P O Box 728 Sou~hold, New York 11971 JUDITIt T rFRRY TFLFPttONF TO~N ('LI Rk ~516) 765-1801 R~t;tsrR.~ o~ VH.x~ S~ x~,Hc's OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 22~ 1983 APPLICANT: Marine Associates~ Inc. ADDRESS: New Suffolk~ New York PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District~ Petition No. 257. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant desires to redevelop the property to construct condominium units. PROJECT LOCATION: New Suffolk~ Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, bounded north by Loria and Cutchogue Harbor, east by Cutchogue Harbor, south by MacKay and Cutchogue HarBor, and west by First Street. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Town o£ Southold AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than October 1, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold~ New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JL'I)IT[IT TERRY TELEPHONE IO;~,N ('LI Ilk 1516) 765-1801 RI (;I%TR \g (11 \ I] Xl ~, ~ \1 I,I I( 5 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder~ DEC, Stony Brook Daniel J. Larkin, DEC, Stony Brook Dennis W. Cole, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Marine Associates, Inc. iJ'~ ' Town Hall. 53095 Main Road ~'r~ :.,':~, &',.':' Sottthokl. New York 1197l REC;15IR ~a OI VIT.X[ S I x I1~ I1( 5 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUIHOLD July 21, 1983 Marine Associates, Inc. New Sufffolk, New York 11956 Attention: James A. Kenniff Dear Mr. Kennif£: Enclosed herewith is a certified copy of the resolution adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on July 19, 1983, requesting Marine Associates, Inc. to prepare a Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure ;} :~¢ ':~' ":r:7.:'J ? ~ c~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 7:8 ' 'e, '- Southold, New York 11971 JI'D[~[[ T. rPRRY '-?iTE ~_ '- --"' REGIS[RX. el VITXl 5[ xl I,[[t'S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TBI8 18 TO C~RTIFY THA~ TH~ ~OLLOWZNG RESOLUTION WAS ADOPT~D BY TH~ 8OUT~OLD TO~ BOARD AT A REGULAR ~ETZNG ~LD ON aUgY 19, 1983: WHEREAS, Marine Associates, Inc. has hereto£ore filed a petition with the Town Clerk, pursuant to Article XV of Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code, for a Change of Zone on certain property at New Suffolk, in the Town of Southold, from "C" Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the appli- cant, Marine Associates, Inc., of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Office of the Clerk of the ss: This is to certify that l, Judith T. Terry, Clerk of the Town of Southold, in TOWN OF SOUTHObD the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of resolution with the original resolution now on file in this office, and which was passed by the Town Board of the town of Southold in said County of Suffolk, on ., the .....l.~.t...h.... day of ............. .dT.p:.l.~( ............. 19.~.3...., and that the same is ~ a correct and true transcript of such original resolution and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this ..... .2...l_.g,~.. day of ............ d-.~..K. ................. 19.~}... , _-~ ~'~ ::~:~'~'.,~ Y2 ' Town Hall, 53095 Mare Road :' .~ . ~.t~, ~ P.O. Box 728 '-'t :2¥.- - Southotd, New York 11971 JUD[TIIT. TERRY V : , .t-- TELEPHONE TOWN ('L[ RK 15161 765-180l Rtclsra,,a O~ VIf\t S[ \11,II('S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUIHOLD July 20, 1983 Pauline Krementz~ President New Suffolk Civic Association~ Inc. Post Office Box 642 New Suffolk~ New York 11956 Dear Ms. Krementz: In response to your letter of July 6, 1983 concerning the petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a change of zone, I sought the advice of Town Attorney Tasker in regard to your request for the identiy of the contracting party, and if this entity is o~her than an individual, the names of its officers, directors and stockholders (or partners). Mr. Tasker states: "The only s~atute that I am aware of which requires disclosure is Section 809 of ghe General Municipal Law. This statute requires that every application for a zoning change shall state the name, residence and the nature and extent of the interest of any state officer or any officer or employee of the municipality. It does not require that the applicant disclose the names of all of its stockholders, directors and officers. The application is required go only disclose those persons who are state and/or municipal officers or employees. Therefore~ it would seem to me that ~he information which the civic association is asking the town to require of the applicant is not required by the statu~e." Furthermore, the original request for a disclosure statement was initiated by the Planning Board, not the Town Board, and the applicant supplied same. It is the decision of the Town Board that further disclosure will not be requested. Very truly yours, Jud±th T. Terry Southold Town Clerk OFFIC ~RNEY FELEPHONE ROBERT W. TASKER ~%tb%~4!,~ "" t516) 477-1400 R~EiVED GREE~ORT, L.I., NEW YO~ 11944 Town Cle~ ~ut~ Hon. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of $outhold Main Road $outhold, New York 11971 Re: Petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for Change of Zone Dear Judy: By letter dated July 8, 1983, you asked my advice concerning a letter sent to you from the New Suffolk Civic Association, Inc. dated July 6, 1983. It would appear from the civic association letter that they urge that all of the stockholders of the petition be disclosed. The only statute that I am aware of which requires disclosure is Section 809 of the General Municipal Law. This statute requires that every application for a zoning change shall state the name, residence and the nature and extent of the interest of any state officer or any officer or employee of the municipality. It does not require that the applicant disclose the names of all of its stockholders, directors and officers. The application is required to only disclose those persons who are state and/or municipal officers or employees. Therefore, it would seem to me that the information which the civic association is asking the town to require of the applicant is not required by the statute. Yours very truly, ROBERT W. TABKER RWT :aa Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDIT[I T. Tk RIU~' TELEPIIONE Ri.t;l~rRXaOI \qrxl S~ xll~IIt S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 8~ 1983 Dear Bob: I am under the impression the Town Board has no right to elicit from the petitioner, Marine Associates, Inc., the information requested in the attached letter. As it is~ the Planning Board asked for the disclosure statement, not the Town Board. Please advise. NEW SUFFOLK CiViC ASSOCIATION INC. POST OFFICE BOX 642 ~. NEW SUFFOLK, N.Y. ,JUL, OSIg July 6, 1983 Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Board Town of SouthoJd Southold, NY 11971 Re: Petition of Marine Associates, Inc. tO change zone from 'C" to "M-1H Dear Mrs. Terry: The file in this matter indicates that on March 31, 1983, the petJtloner, by its counsel, transmitted an affidavit setting forth the shareholders of Marine Associates, Inc. We call your attention to the fact that Certificate No. 38 Is In the name of Bear, Stearns & Co., 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. Since this is a brokerage firm, It is possible that they hold the stock for their own account, or for the account of a customer. In the latter event, the disclosure requirement will have been frustrated. Accordingly, we respectfully request that if this listed stockholder Is a nominee, that the real party in interest be disclosed. Several residents of New Suffolk, whom we speak for In this matter, have been advised by James A. Kenniff, President of Marine Associates, Inc. that the company has entered into a contract to sell the property, subject to its rezoning. Based on this information, it is clear that the disclosure requirement has also been frustrated, since the real party Jn interest is the buyer under contract. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the identity of the contracting party be disclosed, and if this entity is other than an individual, the names of its officers, directors and stockholders (or partners), be supplied to you. When you have ellclted the requisite information, would you kindly supply it to us? Thank you. Very truly yours, ~a u~ fnTK r ~e~e n t z~=s~e n t 'lown ttatl. 53095 Mare Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 [~.IId~'IR~,R III VII \t SI \IF, Ih n OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: July 20, 1983 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a change of zone from "C" Industrial District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the easterly side of First Street~ New Suffolk, New York. Further information can be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Southoid Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Marine Associates, Inc. [.'ir. Charles H. Jen~in~s, DirecVor Division of Lan~ Utilization TOWN OFSOUTHOLD New York State Office of General Services Empire State Plaza Corning To~'~er, 36th Floor Albany~ ~ew York 122~2 Subject: MARI~E ASSOCIATE~, I~C. PP~OPO~AL TO CO[~ST~UCT C0[~DO~,IIHIU[.~S HSW SUFFOLK, ~UFFOLK COU~TY Dear Mr. Jennings: h~ith respect to the subject proposal by [.larine Associates, Inc., and attendaat peVition for a cna~ge of zone I'rom "C" LighS trial ~o "M-i" General [~[ultiple-Residence, I am transmiVtins for your use a copy of the resolution of the S~ffolk ~ounty Plan- n~n~ Commission at its meetin~ on July 6, 196J, dis~pprovin6 the zone change. The action by the County in conjuction v,'[Sh the recommendation yreviously ma~e by the SouShold Tovn~ Play,nih6 Board at its meetin~ on June 1, 1983 recommending denial of She zone change petition by Marine Associates, Inc, is responsive Ye the expressed position of the people of Hew S~ffolk. Accordi~gly the State is urged to consider these determinations as clear lr~dicators of the neem in the public znterest to ir. reserve 1~38 patents providing for certain of the la~ds ',?ithln tke proposed develc.~ne~t area for which the State of [~e.'.~ Yc.r~.~ re~ains title to he used "to the purposes of commerce." As a means of facilitating the requisite involvement of the community in the process, it is respectfully requested that the New Suffolk Civic Assooiation (address ~elow) be placed on a mailins list for public notices and other related notifi- cations concer~ing this matter. The State's responsiveness to this major issue in our communit}' is deeply appreciated. ~[~. Sincerely, Patrick E. Calia~tan, P.~. File Third Street betv~ee~ Orchard e King S~reets ~0-~ 212th Stree~ I~ew S~ffolk, Lo~6 Island ba}sl~e Hills, Queeas [:e~.', York 11956 Hew Yo~'~ Eric. (2~2) ~66-2316 (212) 631-ia62 cc: HYSDOS, [[~SDEC, S,2PE, Town of SouL}~old [~ew Suffolk Civic Association - Att: [.Irs. P. Kreme}~z, Pres. P.~i.. ~ox 642 [:ew Suffolk, ![.Y. 11~6 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTT E%ECUTIVE 5uiy 7, i983 ~, 2udith T. Terry, To~ Clerk To~ of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of "Marine Associates Inc." (#257) for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial to "M-l" General Multiple-Residence, Town of Southold (SD-83-7). Dear >~. Terry: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1~32 of the S~ffolk County Cha~-ter, the Suffolk Count? Planning Commission on July 6, 1983 revie~ed the above captioned application and ~fter due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following: 1. It appears injurious to the integrity of the limited underground 2. It is inconsistent with the Long Island 208 Water Quality Management Plan and subsequent related studies of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services which indicate severe water supply limitations in the locale; 3. It is inconsistent with the Long Island regional element of the N.Y.S. Coas[ai Zone Management Plan which designates this area for co~ercial- 4. It is inconsistent with ~he To~ of Southold Development Plan which designates this area for commercial (marine) development~ 5. There is a demonstrable shortage of marine/recreatioual facilities within the Totem oF Southold; 6. Pre~ses is subjected to sto~ tide impacts; nnd 7. Premises possesses unique historical and maritime significance. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman ~ ..... DirectoF/of Planning~ NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION ,- , Mmrch 3, 1983 Apphc.mt: Mzirine Associates, Inc. ~'/ ~- /~ /~/~>',~' ~' ~/ - __ Address: }~in ......... Street ~- '/,.r~ ~'f: / ' "/~A New ~uf folk, N~ 11956 Permits applwd h~r drill ,H)J)Jlk3hon ntlrT~ht,rl~) Tidal. Wetlands, 10-83-0085 _ ~ _ Project ({escr, ph,,[3 ,,nd Io~dl,,m. To~n/C,~ ol ' ~o~thold .... ( (mul~ j,m S~ffo~ Cona~ct a 24-unit condomin~ complex consie~inB of a condominl~ off{ce/~lnten- a~ce bulidin~, central se~a[e dieposal system, pa~kins aYeaa and aanl~a~ nine(9) of vhich are viChin DEC jur{~dic[io~ (Tidal ~eCiands), Cous~ructlon take place following demolition and removal of the e:;istimg ~rina facilitiea and plac~ent of 7,000 cubic yards of clean upland fill needed to raima the grade eatlefy flood plain requiremente of 8~ above mean eea level~ ~e project is located at the mite fo~erly o~ed by the North Fork Shipyard, Inc~, which ~ on the we~t elda of Cutchogue Harbor, New Suffolk~ 5EQR DETERndI'~ xrl(~ ,~ hi,, k ,Ipl,rollrhdt' j?.;..s. E~ SEQR ] Pr,)l~'~ r ~. m*r nLIh){,~ I Io 5E(~R [r't dusl, I[ In dr1 t'k('r~ljl] ,'xt judcd ,,r d r~l,,, IJ .. lu,r~ · )~'' SEQR 4 & (Jr,dl .,n,,,rourl~enhlJ Imf),lt I q,lh,ml.nl h.ls [n,~.rl llrt,p,lrt'tJ ~,1/ IJu, I~ll,O', I ,U~ll ,' SE~RLEADACEN(~ New York State DE~ ...... AVAILABILITY [()R PUB[K~C(),MMENT ..Xpi~hcal.m. m,h hc r,,x,~,sxl.,I,d Ihv.,ddri'.n h~h'd b,.h,s~. proJeCl musl [)u .ulmUllud Il) Ih[' t~i,nld~l I'crsol~ md~tdh'd I~'l(~ h~ I.~ I,di'i Il,dh April 1. 1983 CONTACT PFK5( ~ Daniel J. Larkin NYSDEC, Bldg. 40, SU~--Room 219 (516) 751-7900 Stony Brook, ~ 11794 1. TH~ IS NOT A PERMIT APPLICANT . _ / ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EN-CONSUL TANTS, INC. 64 NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 516-283-6360 Mm-ch 7, 198] LOng Island Traveler-Wa[ctm~n Traveler S tr6~t Southold, New York 11971 MARINE ASSCCLATF~, INC. - Application No. 10-83-0085 P1 a:,c ,,,blibh .the ,'nclost',l leg.il notice in ch, March 14, 1983 A: /[da"2t ~1 hr,bi{cation 'md bi Il should h~, ~(',~t to thc. SCn,?re ly yours , New York Stat(, Depalt~ne, ni: nt l!flv[ronmoc~tal Con~,,~rvatlon _~mea,,~ _~~ ~l~g. -50, SbM¥--Roeh, 2!~ ~ Ytony Eroct, k",' 31794 (51,5) 75l.-7900 Commlas;oa~r HaL'ch 2], 1983 Mr. Roy L. l{aje, Prt~i, ident 6[, North b~i~ :~treec Southampton, NY' 11968 I<E: Uarine Associates, Inc. !3-g~-6085 In r~,.,_ewJnll the .~forementioned file, we find that a p~rmit a)plitatJon porsnamt to Article 15, Title 15 o~ the LnvironmenLa] Con~er_.I.~cp Law requt.t ~,i, that yoe agree to t;u~pead~ug the UPA time ~chedult- i~r:d~nL suhn. lg-sir~, of a complete Water ~uppJy application, a dete~m~lm, t~cn o~~ ~lgn[ficah,:c and p.blJcation In thq Env~z-onmental Notice BulJet~n and a Very truly youra, Dennis W. Cole Eavirm~en t al A~.. J. Mahon~y DWC: c z P.S. [ gent the ~ d.r Supply permit applicat~on to Jack b~h~mcv NEW YORK STATE DEP~.RT'~MT OF E~VIRON~iITAL CONSERVATION Rl~gulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, S~Y--Room 219 Stony Brook, MY 11794 (516-751-7900) NOTICE OF IMCOI~LETE APPLICATION TO: En-Consultants Inc. May 2, 64 North Main St. Soutbamot~n, N.Y. 119~8 Re: Marine Associates Permit Applied. for: W~.r~ SupDly Location: New S~rrolk Application N,,m~er: 10-83-0515. (Please refer to this nmnber in all your YOUR APPLICA~Io~ FOR ~IIS PE~,~T IS INCO}~LETE I~TIL~ ~Q~S~D~FO~'~T~ ~D BE~W IS S~D TO ~IIS OFFI~. Yo~ ~id not include with your application thm full ~unt of the required f~e. Please sub~ a check or ~nmy order In ~he a~unc of $ 60.90 payable to the ~pa~n~ of Enviro~n~ Con~a~ton. , X ~Ze~ ,ub~ the folZ~ing data: ~,-' In the ~ater suoply appl~catio~ submitted bv Jonn P. Manone7 ~ere are several test wells referred to please find out who out In these test wells and under what name they were flied. Comolete th~ enclosed Envlrnnmental Assessment Form It has been determined that your project is subject to Article B of the Environmental Conservation La~, the State Environmental ~ualtty R~view Act (SEQR). Your application will be considered complete when: a deter'nlnatlon of significance is made and a Lead Agencv established. For further information, contact this office, If you wish to withdraw your application rather than complete it, please notify the Permit Agent for refund of application fee. YOUR APPLICATION WILL LAPSE (BR DE~D WITHDRAWN) IF YOU DO~OT REPLY WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. New York StaI~, Oepd~traent [,I Efiv!;o~t[P,r~'llQI Oonoervatlon Comm~esaloner COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED JUL 8 Town Cle~ Soufho~d PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Lee E. KOPPEIMAn DIRECTOR OF PLANNING July 7, 1983 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of "~rine Associates Inc." (#257) for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial to "M-i" General Multiple-Residence, Town of Southold (SD-83-7). Dear Ms. Terry: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on July 6, 1983 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following: 1. It appears injurious to the integrity of the limited underground water resources in the locale; 2. It is inconsistent with the Long Island 208 Water Quality Management Plan and subsequent related studies of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services which indicate severe water supply limitations in the locale; 3. It is inconsistent with the Long Island regional element of the N.Y.S. Coastal Zone Management Plan which designates this area for commercial--. recreation use; 4. It is inconsistent with the Town of Southold Development Plan which designates this area for commercial (marine) development; 5. There is a demonstrable shortage of marine/recreational facilities within the Town of Southold; 6. Premises is subjected to storm tide impacts; and 7. Premises possesses unique historical and maritime significance. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman GGN:jk Di~of Planning~ H^UPPAUG~, L.I . ~W TORK 1 I ,.~ {51~'360-519Z Gerald- G. Newman Chief Planner June 21, 1983 [,~r. Charles H. Jennings, Director Division of Land Utilization New York State Office of General Services Empire State Plaza Corning Tower, 36th Floor Albany, New York 12242 Subject: MARIIIE ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL TO COI~STRUCT CONDOMINIUMS - ~IEW SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUIITY Dear Mr. Jennings: In connection with the subject proposal to construct a condo- minium project on lands for which the State of [lew York retains title to a portion thereof, (see my letter to you dated May 12, 1983) I am pleased to transmit for your use a copy of a resolution of the Planning Board of the Tov,,n of Southolm dated June 8, 1983 recommending aenial for the petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a change of zone. The aforementioned action by the Plannin~ Board demonstrates its prudent awareness of the need to proSec~ and enhance areas w~thin the Town of Southold for marine use. I trust that you will regarO this action as a further indzcation tha~ ti~e conversion grant is clearly not in the public interest; the State must not contravene the express condition oi' the 1838 patent which provides for the lands Vo be used "to the purposes of commerce." Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, C,ll' Patrick E. Callghan, P.E. A:Jj ~ '.~ ........ File Third Street between Orchard a ?(in~ Streets 50-11 212th Street [Iew Suffolk, Long Island baysi,~le Hills, ~.ueens New York 11956 New York Eric. (212) a66-7316 bay ~212) 631-1~62 Evenings cc: [~.Y.S Department of State N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Su£fo!k County Planning Department ~l~wn of Southol.t New- Suffolk Civic Association Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall $outhold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted to l0 against the proposed condominiu~ to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protoxt against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 5~0 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Tow~ Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, TOW o .,so 0r JUD[IH T. TE~Y gUFF~LK~O~ ~LEPHONE '~ '~/ ~$ ~ "~' (516J 765-1801 ~GIST~R O1' VIIAL SIATISTICS Southold, L. 1., N. Y. 11971 Pursuan~ to SecLkons 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter ~he Town Board of the Town o~ Soukhokd hereby refers the fokkowknq proposed zoninq actkon to khe SuEfokk County Plannknq Co~ksskon: New zon2~ Ordknance ~mendment og zonknq ordknance X ~endment of zoning map (change of zone) Location of affected land: e~sterly side of Firs[ S~reet, New Suffolk, Town of Sou~hold, New York. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: 1000-117-8-18 within 500 feet of: The boundary of any village or to~ The boundary of any existing or proposed county, state or federal park. The right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway. The existing or proposed right-of-way or any stream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines. The existing or proposed boundary of any other county, state or federally owned land. X The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. or within one mile of : Nuclear power plant. Airport CO~NTS: Attached hereto is the recommendation of the Southold Town Plannin~ Board, by letter dated June 8, 1983. Petition of Marine Associates, Inc. - "C" Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk JUN 9 1983 Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. I~L&¥NOR, JL. Ct~irrr~r~ TELEPHONE JAl~,l E S WALL 765-193[~ BENNETT ORLOWS~. J~. GEORGE ~TCH[E LATH~[, W[LL[.~I F. MULLEN. Jr. ~une 8~ ~983 Mrs. Judith Terry Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Marine Associates, Inc. Change of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Wednesday, June 1, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend denial for the petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a chanqe of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-i" General Multiple Residence District on certain property at New Suffolk for the following reasons: 1) It is not comparable with the Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Area disignated as commercial for marine use. Presently there exists a shortage of dockage space throughout Southold Town. The marine recreation use should be encouraged and expanded throughout the Township; not converted to a multiple use. This site, as well as other sites within the Town, may be viable for expansion for marine use. 2) Overintensification of resources. 3) There appears to be serious concerns over the fol- lowing resources as presented in the Environmental Assessment Form. A-8 -Depth to fresh water table, quanity of sustain- able withdrawal. A-9 -Opportunities for fishing exists in project area; listed "no" by applicant. -Mrs. Judith Terry pg. (2) 6/8/83 (13) Scenic view listed "no" by applicant. (15) Project is contiguous to Peconic Bay. 4) The Southold Town Planning Board would recommend SEQRA to be fully reviewed for this project. 5) Not compatable with use characteristics within the neighborhood and could set a pattern for further re- zoning. 6) Possible elimination of an historic site (New Suffolk Post Office). 7) There is considerable public controversy concerning this project (EAF Part II, #18). Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan' E. Long, Secretary Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board ~Y ~ ~ Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Ray, or Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in pretext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in th~s area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and weuld deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Ra~rnor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would ondenger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area slready. Second, all that sewage would have to go so~newhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in pretext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large develepment would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of Mew Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain I~arty'a or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Mr, Charles H, Je?~nings, Director , New Yo~k St~e Office ,?~ Empire State Plaza Co~ning Tower, 36th Floor Albany, New York 122~2 Subject: MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL ~O CO~STRUCT CONDOMIN!U~S NEW SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COU~TY Demr 5lt. Jennings: Based upon discussion with the ~ew York Stmte Department Environmel~tal Conservation (DEC) at Stony Brook, Long Island, it was learned that the Office of General Services is involved in the subject matter with regard to certain porticns of the title for 5he lands on which the pro~ect is proposed tha~ re- main in the name of the State of New York and that the Bureau of Land Management recommended that a conversion grant be ob- tained by the upland owner. Subsequently it was found that the lands to which the State retains title were, in fact, granted ty Governor William L. M~rcy on April 3, 18[~8 with the express condition that the lands be used "to the purposes You are probably not aware of the strong o?position to the project which would remove virtually all traces oI~ a scenic and historic marine facility in ?~ew Suffolk and replace with a wall of condominium structures nearly five hundred feet long. On Friday, ~ay 6, 1983, at a meeting of the New Suffolk Civic Association, we the citizens of th~ hamlet oI~ f~ew Suffolk voiced our opposition to the proposed subject chan~ed usage and development voting 167 to 10 against the project. As a property owner in the hamlet, I share all the concerns of those against the projec~ which is clearly not in the public interest and respectfully request that further processing by your office of any request to grant the conversion be halted until the Town of Southold had had the opportunity to exercise its authority in the matter. For your reference i am enclosing material related to the pro- posal. Additionally I gall your a~tention to the evident conflict ~etween the S~ate's goals and policies within its Coastal Management Program which provides for protection and enhancement of small harbor ar~as with unique maritime identity and ~ny action which would remove the commerce provisions - 2 - ~Iay 12, 1983 the State's grant which has been in effect for one hundred forty five years. Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information concerning this request. Sincerely, Patrick E. Callahan, P.E. Third Street between Orchard & King Streets 50-11 212th Street New Suffold, Long Island Bayside Hills, Queens New York 11956 New York 11364 Att. (212) 466-7316 Day (212) 631-1462 Evenings cc: N.Y.S. Department of State N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Planning Department Town of Southold New Suffolk Civic Association ?HUP,,~DAY, MAY 12, '1983 LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHt,. · The historic Post O~ce, which N. Suffolk Condos Cause A StircomerisSlatedt°hem°vedar°undthe m Main Strect to F st Street, would be saved as long as NEW SUFFOLK --- I~ a room ~ town officials permit the rest of its usually filled will) elementary ~ wooden building to be used to school children, nearly 200 adults ~ contain the proposed water attended ~n emotioD-filled meet- sewer system equipment. ~ Keniff said he has been forced th lng Friday night and voted over- . ~ to move his shipyard operation to m whelmingly to oppose a oondo- ~ Freeport afrer 23 yeaxs because in min.ium complex proposed for the ~ ~ he does not have the space to tr, site of the North Fork Shipyard. '~-'~i expand his preseut outdated ce 'me developer, J. Arthur Ken- ~ facilities. He says he has offered er iff. who owns the shipyard, said to sell the property to those who in his o~ee Monday that the oppose his plans, for a figure "a p~ m~ting had included "very little f~[if~t ~11." s, nd that "nobody little higher" than 5900,000, but St there have been no takers, m wanted to hear anything" con- "l have investigated all ways of fr, ceming the potential benefits of selling but none are feasible" his project. Keniff has applied to the town board for it change of other than the condo pian, he m zone from light-industrial to says, adding that a market anaiy- cl multiple-dwelling to allow the sis of his property had determin- construction of 24 luxury condo- ed a condo complex to be the best b~ m~uinm units_ use. w Friday's meeting had been '~ Friday's meeting showed fc c~lled by the New Suffolk Civic ~ stronger opposition than had ft. Association, whose members rot- ~ ~ ~ been previously voiced when b Keniff first filed his plans with ed 167 to 10 to oppose Keniff's ~ the town two months ago. James project. Tom McGow~n, an association fiowden has said then that the o member, pointed out that the condos might he an improvement meeting itself proved at les. st one ~ by providing jobs and a more aesthetic alternative to the ship- item ~'r~ng on one of Keniff's ~~ yard's existing weathered build- ri applications. In a standard state .: ings. But as he stood on the n envlronmeatal a. ssessment form, /l school steps Friday evening as the developer had stated that the application for the condos was not other filed noisily to register for ~ the meeting, he said that any c~ the subject of public contro- benefits of the comple~ simply te versy. "This meeting," McGow- weren't worth a major change in o an said before receiving a lively his quiet, rural community, h round of applause, "shows a g~eat deal of opposition." Jane Martin helps to colloc:! ballots at a New Suffolk --PaulDemery _ "The only argument l've heard (JiVi¢ A~80clation meeting Friday in New Suffolk Schook CONCERT TO~GHT in favor [of this] is that it would incre~e tax revenues," said availability of potable water and five-acre parcel: M~chelie Cusamano. "I don't the potential pollution from sew- ',There aremore existing build- The Suuthold Junior and Senior know of any community that has age. But there was also the ings, including some of greater High School Bands, under the lower t~tes than here. I don't general contention that the com- height, on his property now than direction of Mr. Ken Hollowell, know how anyone can say they'll plex would severely alter the in his proposed complex, extend an invitation to everyone lower our taxes." community's ruralatmosphere, to 'He is "prepared to give to hear their Spring Concert, ABuding to potential flood which Karen Uhlinger, who sup [health officials] what they want" whichwill be held tonight, Thurs- dangers threatening the condos, ports the condos, said. "We can't as far as providing a sai'e and day, May 12, beginning at 8:00 John Wickham, whose family has all close the door and be the last ' sufficient water supply, including P.Ivl. in the Southold High School owned local farmland for three ones out here." the possible installation of a Auditorium. centuries, noted that much of the On the other hand, North Fork reverse osmosis system to remove The Junior Band will perform a new Suffolk area is protected Environmental Council President nitrates and metals and. if traditional march entitled, f~x~m seawater by farm dikes, and Ruth Oliva suggested that the necessary, to clear brackish wa- "Maestro."byEricOsterlingand that without them, "New Suffolk plan be withheld at least until the ter. a composition made popular by would be an island many times town's master plan update is -The proposed sewage system Asia entitled, "Only Time Will , over." ffahumicane were to hit. completed. (The town planning would treat wastewater to the Tell," The Senor Band will per- he said, it could wipe the dikes board has made the same return- point of returning 98 percent of it from a Spanish march entitled, out within a week. mendation for all pending zone back to groundwater. He says the "Amparito Roca," by Auhrey Other arguments against the changes for condos), system would handle a summer- Winter. a medley of broadway oondos centered on the change in Keniff has made the following time peak of about 5,700 gallons show tunes and contemporary the Hew Suffolk bay view, the statements about the plan [or his per da)'. pop tunes. THUI~DAY, MAY 12, 1983 LON~ ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHh,, · The historic Post Office, which N. Suffolk Condos Cause A Stir is siated to he moved und the corner from Main Street to F'trst · Street, would be saved as long ~ town o fi~cisis permit the rest of its NEW SUFFOLK --. In a room usu-Ily filled witl~, elementary ~ wooden building to be used to schaol children, nearly 200 adults · contain the proposed water and attended an erection-filled meet- sewer system equipment. 1 ,. .~ Keniff said he has been forced thc ~g Friday night and voted over- ~ ~.~ · ~ ~ to move his shipyard operation to ma whelmIngly to oppose a condo- minium complex proposed for the -e ~:~![i} Freeport after 23 years because ins ~.¥~.~ he does not have the space to tra site of the North Fork Shlpy~.rd. ~ . 'i~., expand his present outdated ccc The developer, J. Arthur Ken- ~ '"~ facilities. He says he has offered err iff, who owns the shipyard, said to sell the property to those who in his office Monday that the meeting had included "very little oppose his plans, for a figure "a pu r~.-if ~t ~ll," ~ad that "nobody little higher" than $900,000, but there have been no takers, mc wanted to he~.r anything" con- "l have lnvestigated all ways of ftc cerl~ng the potenti~.l benefits of selling but none ere feasible" his project. Keniff has applied to the town board for u change of other than the condo pian, he mt zone f~m light.industrial to says, adding that a market analy, ch multiple-dwelling to allow the sis Of his property had determin- rons~zuetinn of 24 luxury condo- ed a condo complex to be the best bil miaium units, use. Friday's meeting showed fo: Fridey's meeting had been ~, stronger opposition than had fu c~tled by the New Suffolk Civic been previously voiced when Association, whose members vot- ed 167 to 10 to oppose Keniff's ~ Keniff first filed his plans with pmjoct, ~ the town two months ago..~ames c~ Tom McGowan, an a.~soclatinn Bowden has said then that the condos might be an improvement member, pointed out that the by providing jobs and a more gr meeting itself proved at lea~t one aesthetic alternative to the ship- fa item wrong on one of Keniff's yard's existing weathered build- re applications. In a stands, rd state ings. But as he stood on the m environmental assessment form, school steps Friday evening ~s the developer had stated that the other filed noisily to register for applie&tion for the condos was not ~ ~ the meeting, he said that any cc, the subject of public contro- versy. "This meeting," McGow- benefits of the complex simply an suld before receiving a lively weren't worth a major change in rotmd of applause, "shows a his quiet, rural community, h: great deal of opposition." Juno K4actir~ helps to collect ballots at a New Suffolk --PanlDemery _ "The only argument I've heard C~lvi¢ Association meeting Friday Jn New Suffolk ~chool. CONCERT TON~Gi~ in fevor [of this] is that it would increase ta.~ revenues," said availability of potable water and five-acre parcel: Michelle Cusamano. "I ilon't the potential pollution from sew- ·,There are more existing build- The Southold Junior and Senior know of ~ty community that has age. But there was also the logs. including some of greater High School Bands, under the lower taxes than here. I don't general contention that the com- height, on his property now than direction of Mr. Ken Hoilowell, know how anyone can s~y they'll plex would severely alter the in his proposed complex, extend an invitation to everyone lower otu taxes." community's rural atmosphere, to erie is "prepared to give to hear their Spring Concert, A~uding to potential flood which Karen Uhlinger, who sup- [health officialsl what they want" which willbe held tonight, Thurs- dangers threutening Lhe condos, ports the condos, said, "We can't as far as providing a safe and day, May 12, beginning at g:00 John Wickham, whose rumply has all close the door and be the last sufficient water supply, including P.M. in the Southold High School owned local farmland for three ones out here." the posslble installation of a Auditorium. The Junior Band will perform a centuries, noted that much of the On the other hand, North Fork reverse osmosis system to remove new St~ffolk area is protected Environmental Council President nitrates and metals and, if traditional march entitled, from seawater by fm-m dikes, and Ruth Olive suggested that the necessary, to clear brackish wa- "Maestro," by EricOsreriing and that without them, "New Suffolk plan be withheld at least until the ter. a composition made popular hy would be an island many times town's master plan update is ,The proposed sewage system Asia entitled, "On}y Time Will over." ff & htu-dcane were to hit, completed. (The town planning would treat wastewater to the Tell." The Senor Band will per- he said, it could wipe the dikes board has made the same recom- point of returning 98 percent of it ~rom a Spanish march entitled, out within a week. mendatinn for all pending zone back to groundwater. He says the "AmparJto Rote," by Aubrey Other arguments agalltst the changes for condos), system would handle a summer- Winter, a medley of broadway c~ndos centered on the change in Kenifi has made the following time peak of about S,?00 gallons show tunes and c~ntemporar~ the New Suffolk bay view, th~ statements about the plan for his per da)'. pop tunes. NEW SUFFOLK CIV C ASSOCIATION INC. Hay 1(), 19,q3 William R. Pall,III ~ Sugervisor, Town Board Southold, ~aw York 13.971 Dear Supervisor Poll, On Friday,'r,~y 6tb.19;~3, ~he residents ar'.'l pro!)crcy re,mars of Uaw Suffolk held a ~eetJ. n~ to express their opinfons ral]ardin~ the condominium project proposed by the North Fork Shipyard in b:ew Suffolk. A vote was held by the co~r.~unity as to whether they favored the project. ~e Results were a resounding na:~ntive vote 16~ against to 10 in favor. This was the larl~est meeting held in the history of the New Suffolk Civic Association. fha membership expressed to the association that an attorney should be hired to represent thc interest of the con,unity and ~ake whatever legal steps tha~ are necessary to stop the approval of this project. Words cannot ex~ress the tree,endows cohesiveness in this co]~a.~unity in opposition to ghis project. 'i]~is opposition encompasses a total c~oss 5cc~io[1 of the co~m,unigy. Very truly yours, Pauline A. Krement z President c.c..Daniel 3 Larkin c.c. Henry Rnynor c.c. Lee £. Koppolman Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDI'[I[ I FfI~.RY TELEPHONF Rt~as rt~ x~ i:. VH xl S~ x Ih ~ll S OFFICE OF THE TOt,¥N CLERK TOWN OF SOUIHOLD May 23, 1983 Mr. Daniel Larkin Regional Permit Administrator N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook~ New York 11794 Dear Mr. Larkin: In response to your letter of May 16, 1983 concerning Lead Agency - Marine Associates~ the Town Board of the Town of Southold declared themselves Lead Agency on March 8, 1983 since this is an application for a Change of Zone on certain property of Marine Associates, Inc. at New Suffolk. I am enclosing a copy of the letter to David DeRidder informing him of this, at which time I also enclosed a copy of the change of zone application. I am enclosing a copy of same for you. I am also enclosing a copy of the Long Environmental Assessment form filed by Marine Associates in conjunction with their Change of Zone application. The Town Board has not made a determination as yet as to whether or not this is a Type I action. We usually notify Mr. DeRidder when this occurs, but will notify you also. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry // Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Town of Southold Planning Board Page Two DEC Permits Tidal Wetlands, Water Supply, SPDES SEQR Classification Unlisted DEC Contact Person Dennis W. Cole Environmental Analyst Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 DEC Position DEC has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action; additionally Suffolk County Department of Health, Bob Jewel, agrees with this determination. Comments There is a lot of public concern to this project. We suggest that the Town Board assume lead agency and make a determination of significance. Should you feel that the action is Type I and an EIS is required, I suggest a scoping meeting to identify all pertinent issues. The lead agency will determiue the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, then please contact this office within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. If no response is received, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. Very ~truly M~ur~a, Regi~' Permit Administrator Enclosures cc: B. Jewel, SCDH- SPDES Paul Ponturo, SC~D - Drinking Water Section DJL: cz MAY g 0 REC'O New York Slate Deparlmenl o! Envlronmenlal Oonaervatlon Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 tIenry G. Williams ~ Commissioner May 16, 1983 Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Judith Terry, Town Clerk RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Marine Associates, Southold Dear Ms. Terry: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR, Part 617: 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. I hmve enclosed a copy of the permit application and a completed Environ- mental Assessment Form to assist you in responding. DEC Project Number 10-83-0085 Project Description Construction of 24 condominium units, office, maintenance building, sanitary system and water supply bringing in approximately 7,000 cubic yards of clean fill to raise grade. Location Address: New Suffolk at the foot of Main Street Town: Southold County: Suffolk · ' "' ' "'~ '"" "' ~ '" ~HPLIC/~ [~'[)N r'o~-~ P' ~"~IT ' ' [ ,' ;I., ~:. Ei~-CO);SIq,'£.\~TS, .. ,~ ,. :;m ROY L. HAJE PRESIDENT =16-283-6360 - m 64 NOL-Eh Mai:~ Street m..,.m,,~Fm, m So~tt~ampton l,,i: New Y,.,rk ',',,,Lint 11968 · .., : .... ~U~RI~qE ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,,.~,~ 516-714-633fl ., Mg, in '.~treet m.,,' ~m. New Suffolk . ,rxh ~.ew Yorl~,:m,, tJm~ 11956 I .. , SUFFOLK CUTCHOGUE HARBOR Community Water Supply Provide a octable, water supply f3r 2 un: ~ development ...... A new water s'.-~oply system consLsting of three wells (~ne existing), 2000 gal. ~- t~ '~ .on ucc. tal'~., 1000 guL. cnl~>rin~tlon, and distribution .... I .... , no si~[nlficant effect. ~ , , .... /. .~ April 7, 19~35 P }['H I'.J] T ADB[LNISTRA'£OR APP£~DI x A FaF ENVI~OIHEiETAL A'.s-rr.~M~NT - PAR1 i _P.~ J e¢ t_ :n formation 'i_,A_~[_ _~F___rR_O,!£C~T !~[ AND ADOi([SS OF ~ ......................... ......................... L~,~ C AND N~E OF APPLICANT: E,~ NOR~MA/NSTRE~ ~u~Nzs[ P~Or~E. 5i6 '~8.36,~,, ....... ~'~ .... 7~-T .... ~,~,rd .............. ~ : .... ~ ...... ~'~ .......... [ j ..... ........... ..................... -' t~ ~r'er, l~5~vc prc. s'.:~:: ~fficu buflding and post office to northw$~ '-c~ocner of pr~q,. ~-,~.., restaurant off p~ri~_ ...... · CIt/, To~n, 'qllage Board _~_~ zot~e ~Jta[t~ pe~d~nL; Cit~, Town, ',illage ~lanning Boara State Aq~,nc~ e S INFOR~T IONAL DETAILS 7lTL[. Pres , En~onst,l t a~ts, Inc. o~'[: 5/11/83 enry MAY 1_ 9 REC'D Town Planning Board Town Hall Scuthold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in pretext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in th~s area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain ~arty's or the lauanching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board HA'( 1 ~ REt'0 Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board ~Y 1% ~[~'~ Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the watsr consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive mmny of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain ~arty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us3 I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board To~ Hall ~A¥ Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consu~ption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, suoh a large ~evelopment would not fit in with the s~all-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. An~ what would happen to Captain ~arty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I a~ not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traf~ic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficult~es. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, '7 /~, ~'~ · ~--' -' ' /---- Mr. Henry Ray, or Tow~ ~lannin~ ~oar~ MAY ~ w REC'B To~ Hall Southold, N.Y. ]1971 Dear Mr. Ra~rnor: Co~'~¢erned citizens in }~ew Suffolk ~av~ just vote~ 167 to l0 against the proposed condomln~um to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. i wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First: I am ¢c~cerued that the water cons,zmption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusior~s in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~0 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, s~ch a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Capt~i~ MarCy~s or ~he launching ramp, sources of pleasure to ~any of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Tow~ Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, ". Mr. Henry Raynor Town Flannlng Boar8 Town Hall Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protest against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerued that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endauEer our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, .forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ray, or: Concerned citizens In New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext ~gainst this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhePe, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 5~0 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, fl'ooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Tov~ Hall Southold, N,Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be-built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext agsinst this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Tow~ Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, enry 1 ? REO'O Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be. built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water cousumotion of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, .. XI, .? ~Ir. Henry Ruynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, ~J.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have Just voted 167 to 10 against Ihe proposed condominium to be built at ths North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voics in protect ~atnst this developmant. There are several considerations. First, I am ~oncerned that the water ¢onsu~,~ptlon of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There :~re many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a l~rge development would not fit in with the small-v~llage atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise proble~ns, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such dlfficult~es. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve thl~ d,:velopment. Sincerely yours, Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There ~re many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the To~n Board not approve this development. Sin~ely yours, Mr. Henry Rayuor Town Planning Board ~AY 1 7 REC'D Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 1197l Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add ~y voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water cons~nption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the s~all-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. An~ what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problexs, tr~fflc problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, ~r. Henry Raynor ~Y 1'~ ~'~ To~n Planning Board T o,~rn Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have Just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the s~all-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. An~ what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, tra£fie problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. -~, ~ Sincerely yours, ... ~., -.. W. E. GLASSER =r. =enry MAY 1 G REC'B Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against bhe proposed condomlni~ to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protect against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consu~ptlon of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, IA'! 1 G REC'6 Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext mgainst this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry R~ynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have Just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condomini%un to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protect against this development. There ara several considerations. First, I am ~pncerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosDhera of New Suffolk. And what would happsn to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board ~d¥ ~_ 6 Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us2 I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Radnor ~Y 1 G REC'~ Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. llg?l Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerued that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive meuy of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincere~,y~s,~? / . ~,[r. Her~ry P~ynor O i=an, of ip e s i' A¥ 1 6 REC'O Southold To~ H~I Southold, ~I.Y. 11971 Dear [{r. Razor: As a long-time~esident~f ~ Suffolk, I ~s distressed to learn of the plans of ~,~a~ne Associates to ~d condo~ni~ on the prope~y presently occupied by The North Fork Shipyard, cowry tax n~ber 100~117-8-18. ~ere are so ma~ s~t-water encursions into local New S~folk w~lls (you must remember that we are ~most co~letely s~rounded by water ~ tPis little ~et of o~s), that I was q~te su~rised to l~rn of Ke~iff's plans. The twenty-four units that he hopes to ~d wo~d p~l about 10,OO0 gallons per day out of our sk~py little aGu~er, and the development would have to go quite far west ~ order to even th~ ofgettLug enough ~eet water to supply the th~sty big city folks, to say not~ng of non-domestic consumption (la~s, car-was~ngs, etc. ) or of just where those 10,OO0 plus gallons of sewage wo~d end up -- leaching Lnto the bay and Lnto the wells of those of us v~o ~rea~ live in the co~nity. k~d just what ~m I to lock at when I go out onto ~ porch -- almost feet of barrac~<s almost forty feet high, conside-ing the ~ount cf fill which the developers want to ~ onto the site. hud t~ds doesn't co,font at all the other ~tters such as noise, treffic, ~rking, an.~ ~l~:e. Ke~iff and his fellow investors are think~g of add~g some forty percent to the ~.~ew Suffolk population, ~1 at once and all ~ one concentrated area. We jus% can't digest such a ch~ge, and I hope that you and the other members of yo~ board ~1 quietly and fir~M shut do~:.m the ~tions of these people who want to turn N~, S~folk into something that it was never meant %o be -- ~ kind of North Fork ~i Beach. I look fo~'~rd to hear~g yo~ thoughts on this matter. }.D. Henry Pzynor Chai_~ an, Board of Appeals Southold To~ H~l Southold, ~.Y. 11971 Dear -~r. Ra~or.: As a long-t~e~e_ident of N~ Suffolk, I ~s distressed to learn of the plans of ]~a~ne Associates to ~d condo~ on the prope~y presently occupied by The North Fork Shipyard, co~ty tax n~ber 1~117-8-18. ~ere are so ma~ s~t-water encursions into local New S~folk wells (you must remember that we are ~most completely s~rounded by water ~ t~s little ~et of o~s), that I was q~te su~rised to l~rn of Ke~ff's plans. The twenty-four units that he hopes to ~d wo~d p~l about lO,OO0 gallons per day out of our sk~py little aqu~er, and the development would have to go quite far west ~ order to even th~k ofgettLng enough ~eet water to sup~.ly the th~sty big city folks, to say nothing of non-domestic cons'~ption (la~s, car~as~ngs, etc. ) or of just where those 10,O00 olus gallons of sev;age %void end up -- leaching into the bay and ~nto the wells of those of us v~o ~rea~ live in the co~nity. ku~ just v~nat au I to look at when I go out onto ~ porch -- a~ost 5C0 feet of barracks aimos% forty feet high, considering the ~ount of fill which the developers want to br~ onto the site. kud t~s doesn't cor~ron% at all the ether ~tters such as noise, traffmc, ~rking, an~ ~chl~e. K~iff and his fellow investors are think~c of add~g sor~e forty percent to the Hew S~folk population, ~l at once an~ all ~ one concentrated area. We just can't digest such a ch~ge, and I hope that you and the other members of yo~ board quietly and firm2y shut dou~ the ~tions of these people who want to turn N~ S~folk into something that it was never meant to be -- a kind of North Fork ~i Beach. I look lo,yard to hear~g yo~ thoughts on this matter. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH FENTON ~lV~_ ATTORN~ AT LAW JACKSON STREET ,MA 1 6 1983 .Ew Su oL , .. ¥. To',~n ~o~rd, Planning Board, Town A~torney, Town of Southold, Southol~, ~.Y. 11971 May 16, 198~ Re: Application of M~,rinekssoc- lares, Inc. for zoning change Gentlemen: I represent Ruth T. Houston of New Suffolk, Town of SouthoId, Suffolk County, New York.. On May 29, 1960, the Grantor, Mrs. Houston, by deed recorded in Liber 4915 page 376 conveyed to Applicant's pre- decessors in interest, James Arthur K*nniff and Philip Fo Lindner, the subject property. That conveyance was subject to the following covenant and restriction: "Subject to the use of the conveyed premises as and for the operation of a Boat Yard or a Marina, or any other business associated with the operation of a Boat Yard business." (see page ~77) I enclose a copy .of this deed together with copies of ali other subsequent conveyances of this proper~y which con- s~ituta the chain of title to the kpplJcanto In the above referred to deed, Grantor created certain tenancies and uses for her life and/or the life of her husband and another, which were released by subsequent deed dated February 13, 1978 recorded in Liber 8393, page 60. This document contains the following language: "This deed is limited solely to the release of life estates in the above .lescribed Lremises." lunderlinin~ added for emphasis) Clearly, the covenant and restriction fin the original conveyance (on page 377) dealing with the property's use as a boat y~rd, as more particularly set forth in the deed and quoted above, was not released and constitutes ~ continuing restriction with respect to the propPrty's use. Accordingly, multiple dwelling use was not contemplated or permitted by Grantor's conveyance: This restriction prevents Applicant fro~ utilizing the property in the manner proposed by and set forth in its Applicaticn, and constitutes, by itself, z preclusive basis for continuing existing zoning° Respectfully submitted, cc: R and F Houston 1 Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in thls area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referrlng to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, 12 REC'D Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board To~n Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against bhe proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor - Town Planning Board Hall IAY ! $ REC'O Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to Co into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Tow~ Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board ~Y 1 3 REt'0 Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Tow~ Board not approve this development. Mr. Henry Raymor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ray, or: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have Just voted 167 to 10 against Ihe proposed condominix~m to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protect against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am doncerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. Tt~ere are many salt water intrusions in th%s area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us ? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traf~'lc problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve thl~ d,~velopment. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Rasnuor Town Planning Board To~n Hell Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consurnption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sinoerely yours, Mr. Henry Raymor ~ ~ ~[~%% Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protsxt &gainer this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would e~dsnger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain ~arty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other suoh difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Ray, or Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against bhe proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would cndanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the s~all-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. An~ what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water cons,~rcption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in pretext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would hsppen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Chairman, Board of Appeals Sou2hold To~ Southold~ ~.Y. 1197I Dear Hr. Razor: As a long-time resident of N~ Suffolk, I ~s distressed to learn of the plans of ;,~arine Associates to ~d condo~ni~ on the prope~y presently occu~ied by The North Fork Shipyard, co~ty tax n~ber 100~117-8-18. ~ere are so ma~ s~t-water encursions into local New S~folk wells (you must remember that we are ~most co~letely s~rounded by water ~ tPis little ~et of o~), that I was q~te su~rised to l~rn of Ke~iff's plans. The twenty-four units that he hopes to ~d wo~d o~l about 10~000 gallons per,ay out of our sk~py little aquifer, and the development'would have to go quite far w~t ~ order to even th~k ofgett~g enough ~eet water to supply the th~sty big city folks, to say not~ng of non-domestic cons~ption (la~z, car-was~ngs, etc. ) or of just where those 10,OOO plus gallons of se~'~age wo~d end up -- leaching ~to the bay and ~to the wells of those of us v~o ~rea.~,' live in the co~uity. kud just. what am I to lock at when I go out onto my porch -- a~ost 500 feet of barracks almost forty feet high, considering the ~ount of fill which the developers want to ~ onto the site. kud t~s doesn't co~ront at all the other mmtters such as noise~ traffic, ~rking, an~ ~chl~ke. Ko,iff and his fellow investors are think~E of add~g some forty percent to the I~ew S~folk population, ~l at once and all ~ one concentrated area. V~e just can't digest such a change, and I hope that you and the other members of yo~ board ~l quietly and fir~y shut dow the ~tions of these people who want to turn N~ S~folk into something that it was never meant to be -- a kind of North Fork ~i Beach. I look fomvard to hear~g yo~ thoughts on this ~tter. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry P~ynor Chairman, Board of Appaals Southold Tov~ H~ll .., ~ _,~ Southold, Y.Y. 11971 Dear -:r. RaFr~or: ~%~1 As a long-time resident of N~ Suffolk, I ~s distressed to learn of the plans of ~arine Associates to ~d condo~ni~ on the property presently occuDied by The North Fork Shipyard, co~ty tax n~ber 100~117-8-18. There are so many s~t-wmter encursions into local New S~folk wells (you must remember that we are ~most completely s~rounded by water ~ t~s little ~et of o~s), that I was q~te su~rised to l~rn of Ke~iff's plans. The twenty-fo~ units that he hopes to ~d wo~d ~1 about 10,000 gallons per day out of our sk~y little aqu~er, a~d th~ development would have to go quite far west ~ order to even th~k ofgettLng enpugh'~eet water to supply the th~mty big city folks, to say not~ng of non-domestic cons~mption (la, m, car-was~ngs~ etc. ) or of just wh~re those 10~000 olus gallons of se~'~age wo~d end up -- leaching ~to the bay and %utc the wells of those o~ us v~o ~rea~ live in the co~nity. ~nd jugt want ~ I to look at when I ~o out onto ~ porch -- a~ost 500 feet of barracks almost forty feet hi~h, considering the ~ount o~ fill which the develcpers want to ~g onto the ~ite. And t~s doesn't co,rout at all the other ~tters suoh as noise, traffic, ~rking, and ~cchlike. Ke~iff and his fellow investors are think~ of add~g some forty percent to the New Suffolk population, ~1 at once and all ~ one concentrated area. We just can't di~est such a ch~ge, and I hope taat you and the other members of yo~ board ~ quietly and firmly saut dov.m ths ~tions of these peopls who want to turn N~ S~folk into something that it was never meant to be -- a kind of North Fork l~i Beach. % look lo,yard to hear~g yo~ thoughts on this matter. Sincerely yours, ! ! - . Chairman, Boar~ of Appeals Southold Tov~_ Ha3-1 Southold, ~,~.Y. 11971 Dear Hr. Raw-nor: As a long-time resident of New Suffolk, I w~s distressed to learn of the plans of k'arine Associates to build condominiums on the property presently occupied by The North Fork Shipyard, county tax number 10OO-117-8-18. There are so many sslt-water encursions into local New Suffolk wells (you must remember that we are ~3~most completely surrounded by water in this little hamlet of ours), that I was quite surprised to learn of Kenniff's plans. The twenty-four units that he hopes to bund would pull about 10,O00 gallons Der day out of our skimpy little aqui£er~ and the development would have to go quite far west in order to even thir~k ofgettirg enough sweet water to supply the thLrsty big city folks, to say notb/ng of non-domestic cons-o~ption (lav~s, car-washings, etc. ) or of just where those 10,OOO plus gallons of sewa=~e would end up -- leaching into the bay and ~_nto the wells o*~ those of us v,T,o already; live in the co_~uu_nity. hud just -.';nat am I to look at when I go out onto ~ porch -- almost 500 feet of barracks almost forty feet high, considering the amount of fill which the developers want to brirjj onto the site. k~_d this doesn't confront at all the other matters such as noise, tra£fic~ parking, and sackl~ke. Kenniff a~d his fellow investors are thinkin~ of add~_ng some forty percent to the rfew Suffolk population, ~1 at once and all in one concentrated area. We just can't digest such a change, and I hope that you and the other members of your board w~ll quietly and firmly shut dovau the ambitions of these people who want to turn .New Suffolk into something that it was never meant to be -- a kind of North Fork ~ia~i Beach. I look fo~'.mr~ to hearing your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely yours, ~. Henry Pzynor Chai.~man, Board of Appeals Sout ,old :1 REC'C Southold, ~.Y. 11971 Dear Hr. Ra[~or: As a long-time resident of N~ Suffolk, I ~s distressed to learn of the plans of ~.~a~ne Associates to ~d condo~ni~ on the prope~y presently occupied by The North Fork Shipyard, co~ty tax n~ber 100~117-8-18. ~ere are so ma~ salt-water encursions into local New S~folk wells (you must ret. ember that we are ~most completely s~rounded by water ~ t~s little ha~et of o~s), that I was q~te su~rised to l~rn of Ke~ff's plans. The twenty-four units that he hopes to ~d wo~d p~l about 10,O00 gallons per ~y out of cur sk~oy little aquifer, and the development woul~ have to go quite far wes~ ~ order to even th~k ofgett~uE enough ~eet water to supply ~e th~sty big city ff~lks, to say nothing of non-domestic cons'~ption (la;~s, car~as~n~s, etc. ) or of just ~ere those lO,COO olus gallons of sev.-age wo~d end up -- leaching ~to the bay and Luto the wells of those of us ~'~o ~rea~ live in the co~nity. ~ And just v;hat am I to lock at when I go out onto ~ porch -- almost ~OO feet of barracks almost forty feet high, considering the ~ount of ~ill which the developers want to ~ onto the site. ~ iud t~s doesn't co~ront at all the other ~tters such as noise, traffic, ~rking~ an~ ~l~e. Ke~.iff and his fellow investors are think~g of add~g some forty percent to the New Suffolk population, ~l at once an~ all ~ one concentrated area. We just can't digest such a c~ge, and I hope that you and the other members of yo~ board ~1 quietly and fir~y shut dov.m the ~tions of these people who want to turn ~ S~folk into somethi~ that it was never meant to be -- a kind of North Fork ~i Beach. I look ferrari to hear~g yo~ thoughts on this matter. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor ~~C~ Town Planning Board To~rn Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many pf us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such dlfficult]es. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Henry Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk hays just voted 167 to 10 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protest against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many s~lt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our' water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built st the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. Anf what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, 1 2 REC'B Chairman, Board of Appeals ' Southold Tovm Hall Southold, ~,'.Y. 11971 Dear ~r. Ra:rnor: As a long-time resident of ~ew Suffolk, I was distressed to learn of the plans of ],'.arine Associates to buJ_ld condominiums ou the property presently occupied by The North Fork Shipyard, county tax number 1000-117-8-18. There are so many salt-water encursions into local New Suffolk wells (you must remember that we are almost completely surrounded by water in this little hamlet of ours), that I was quite surprised to learn of Kenniff's plans. The twenty-four units ±hat he hopes to build would pull about 1%000 gallons per day out of our skLmoy little aquifer, arid the development would have to go qu5te far west iu order to even think ofgettLng enough sweet water to supply the thirsty big cit.~- folks, to say nothing of non-domestic consumption (lawns, car-waskings, etc. ) o~ of just where those lO,O00 plus gallons of se;'~age would end up -- leaching into the bay and J_nto the wells of those of us v. to already live in the co~m'mnity. knd just '.';hat am I to look at when I go out onto my porch -- almost 500 feet of barracks almost forty feet high, considering the amount of fill which the developers want to brir~Z onto the site. And trois doesn't cor£ront at all the other matters such as noise, traffic, parking, anJ suchlike. Kenriff and his fellow investors are thinking of adding some forty percent to the New Suffolk population, all at once and all in one concentrated area. We just can't digest such a change, and I hope that you and the other members of your board wi3.1 quietly and firm2y st, ut do~'.~ the ambitions of these people who want to turn New Suffolk into something that it was never meant to be -- a kind of North Fork ~liami Beach. I look fo~vard to hearing your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely yours, NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC. POST OFFICE BOX 642 l~y !~, 19~3 Supervisor, Town Board JUL Southold, New York 11971 _ TOWN ~;: ~ ~OiHOLD Dear Supervisor Pell, On Friday, ~y 6th. I983, the residents and property o[~mers of New Suffolk held a meeting to express their opinions regardiug the condominium project proposed by the North Ferk Shipyard in New Suffolk. A vote was held by the community as to whether they favored the project. ~e Pesults were a resounding negative vote 168 against to 10 in favor. This was the largest meeting held in the history of the New Suffolk Civic Association. ~e membership expressed to the association that an attorney should be hired to represent the interest of the comunity and take whatever legal steps that are necessary to stop the aoproval of this project. co~unity in opposition to this project. This opposition Very truly yours, Pauline A. KrementZ President c.c.. Daniel J Larkin c.c. Henry Raynor c.c. Lee E. :ioppelman (]qO:qi~O~ HO N~AOA NEW SUFFOLK CiViC ASSOCIATION lNG. ~,~;.1/~.8, __-.----~ ~y 10, 1933 William R. Pall,III Supervisor, Town Board Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor Pall, On Friday/~k]y 6th.I983, the residents and property owners of [.lew Suffolk held a maeting to express their opinions regardinE the condominium project proposed by the ~qorth Fork Shipyard in New Suffolk. A vote was held by the conm~anity as to whether they favored the project. %I'm Results were a r=souading o~%ative vote 168 against to 10 in favor. This was the largast meeting held in the history of the New Suffolk Civic Associatzon. The membership expressed to the association that an attorney should be hired to represent the interest of the commnity and take whatever legal steps that are necessary to stop the approval of this project. Words cannot express the tremendous cohesiveness in this cm~unity in opposition to this project. 11~£s opposition encompasses a total cross section of the conmmnity. Very truly yours, Pauline A. Krementz President c.c._ Daniel J Larkin c.c. Henry Raynor c.c. Lee E. Koppalman Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board M~¥ ~ ~ ~E~'~ Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ray~or: , Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against ~he proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to odd my voice in pretext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, l'i& i 9 ~ay, 1983 =ox 22h .Ue~'~ Suffolk, Y.Y. 11956 Plannin~ 2oard Sou thold, X.Y. 119~ Dear 'ir. Raynor: I would Orm'~ your attention to the Mllot tauten last F~i~ay night at tim Yew Suffffolk Schoolhouse concer~ng K~iff's proposed coaJ,~niums at the foot of ~.iain Street: 167 local property o~mers against the project, and 10 for it. Cervainly a one-sided vote on the sifle of geed sense. ~e final note: of the half dozen local lav~zers in i;ew Suffolk~ both full,nd part-time ~sidents, one is for it and five a~ainst. So even the legal profession is on our side flor a cha~e. I look froward to seein~ you plmnp for justice on next Ilonday night. Since_rely yours, Thomas Lo~ Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board ~ ~¥ ~ ~ REC'~ Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC. _~..,_.,tl~,-~,'~,~ ·'".~', ,~.;'~ :~':~'~ William R. Pell,III Supervisor, Town Board Southold. New York 11971 Dear Supervmsor Pell, On Friday/~y 6th.I983, the residents and property m~ners of New Suffolk held a meeting, to express their opinions regarding the condominium project proposed by the North Fork Shipyard in New Suffolk. A votm was held by the co~aunicy as to whether they favored the project. ~e Results were a resounding negative vote 168 against to 10 in favor. I~is was the largest meeting held in the history of the Mew Suffolk Civic Association. The membership expressed to the association that an attorney should he hired to represent the interest of the community and take whatever legal sceps than are necessary to stop the approval of this project. Words cannot express the ~remendous cohesiveness in this co~nunity in opposition to this project. This opposition encompasses a total cross section of the community. Very truly yours: Pauline A. Krementz President c.c..Daniel J Larkin c.c. Henry Raynor c.c. Lee E. lioppelman Town Planning Board ! l RHE'g Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: ~ Concerned citizens in New Suffolk h~ve just voted 167 to I0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in pretext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of o~r only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, floodLug problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to reco~mend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, '~' "~2~ / I .' .,./,1 _ . .' ~,i ,~.~ ? Hay, 1983 ~am~ing Board Tovm hall ~outnold, U.Y. . Dear .~. Raynor: I wo~d crm,~ your atZ~ntion to tlm Mllot taken last F~day mont at the ITew Suffolk Schoolhouse concsr~ng Ke~ff~s propoeed cendo~niz~ at the foot of ~.[a~n Sor:et. 167 local property o~ers against the pro2ec~ and lO for it. Certainly a one-sided vo~ on the sids off good s~nse. ~e final note: of the half dozen locg la~Mzers in U~v S~folk~ both f~l~nd part-tine ~sidents~ one is for it and five against. So even the legal pFofsssion is on our side for a cha~e. ~ look fo~vard to seeing you plump for ~uso~ce on next ]ffonday night. Sincerely yours, Thomas Lo~a~y Mr. Kenry Raynor Town Planning Board {.MAY ! 1 REC' Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in pretext against this development. ~ There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would'have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us2 I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problem~, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Bo~rd not approve this development. Sincerely yours, 11 REC'D Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 againsb Lhe proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice tn pretext against this development. ~ There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger ou~ aquifer. There are mmny salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to ge.eomewhere, and we don't want ~t to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the To~rn Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board To~n Hall Southold, N.Y. ll9?l Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk hove just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusious in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not Fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parkiug problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Towu Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours j ' · .... ~au~ Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.~. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protest against this development. =~ There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There ~re many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view cf the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Sulffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp,I sources of pleasure to many of us ~ -I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding p~oblems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the To~n Board not approve this development. Mr. Henry Ra2-nor Town Planning Board ~Y i ~ Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayaor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water ~onsumptlon of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet-high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, ,JOSEPH F'ENTON ATTO NE"( A'r LAW NEW SMFFOLK~ N.Y. 11956 !516) 734-5099 May 10, !983 Planning Boam~ Southeid, New York llgT~ Re: Proposed condommnslums Marine Associates,Inc. ~ortk Fork Shipyard, New Suffolk Gentlemen: I am a r~oident of New Suffolk, and have been a resident of the Town of Southold for fifty eight years~ ail of ny lifeo I respectfully recommend that th~ Pla~ing Board dis- approve the Site Development. Plan which I understand has be~n fzled in this matte~ and which you have under advisement at this time~ As I understahd the law, the Board is to take into consideration the pubtic heaZth, safety a~d welfare, the comfort and conveniense of the ~ubli~ in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular. I am cure tha~ others, more expert ~ud competent than I, have or will e×pressithemselves with respect to the ~evsre fresh water problem that exists, and that of sewerage, as well as the fact that the:proposed development is out of character with its surroundings and ~he very soul of New Suffolk. The recent expression of contempt for the project by the residents of i;ew Suffolk in the 167 to, IO vote on the propose!, and the vehemence of feeling express~ at the meeting which preceded the vote, suggest that this project is perceives by the villa~ra to be ~ desecration of the n~ighborhoed and a rmvsging of the rights the ~llage~s have acquires to long sbanding and continued visual and physical access tS Pecn~4c Bay from ~ud through the the unimpaired right to traverse th~ property to fish off the southeas~*rn bul~ea~ for blowfish in earlier days, end for snappers and other fish. Can this use and enjc~en~ by the pub- lic bs cut off after se Ion~ and uninterrupted a peri,.i? ! urge the Board, based on ~he facts and its wisdom, to consider carefully the "Dune Road S~ndmomS"o You know of your ownk~_~owiei~, as well we all do, that northeastern storms in Sept- ember and at. o:her times, or hurricanes, can put iIew Suffolk water uo to Second Street, and harm on many occesions~ la there not a duty to wa~ or protecd an unsus~ectinE purchaser that his mens ~insd? Will not the Totem Ce aubjsc= to suits for ds~ages For permztting st~ctures which propose to violat~ nature in tms for profit, because the Tov~ ~ew, or should h~me knc~m cf this inherent dmnger? Are not peop!e~ flooded in Louisiana this year by an "Act cf god'~ eeualIy as indi~aut at ~he new hi~r~ay which blocked the ~n off and contributed to the ~ooding? R~sinE the site may mereIy transfer the problem to the adjoining propsr~ies~ as jetties may hays dons recently on our own soush side. Will there ~ot be a qu=stion of liability on the Town's pa~t in s~oh event? '*O~n the proposed auxiliary frea~n ~ater system fails to adequately supply each ~esident's needs, ~hem bra~ish water cazn~t be to!orated, will not the To~ be pu~ ~o vke expense be required bI law to instal! piping mhd a ~uu~icipal water system? Should kmerica~s firs~ sub~arine base be to con~omini~s? ~rs not all present adjoining uses inconsistent9 Should not the "comfort an~ convenience of tko public" to use exisring launching ramp ~d the e~isting fishing station proved! over the rights of prospective Durchesers of these ur_it~ ~{ho would also be or, titled to quizS ~njo~nnsut at early morning hours, if the property ia rezoned in a p~tchwcrk mariner? ! understand that the U.S. Postal Service lease on the pest ofs~ice spree which the epp!ic~nt includes ~u the project has 2 y~ars before expiration. !gr, ori~ pose~bte renewal ri~uta, would not this projec~ eneourmge tko Posts.1 Service to eliminate the poet office in ~ew Su£folk entirely, in keeping wi~h its policy of cutting do~ma on locations? Pie are loath to provide an excuse. The pest efficm rmmm~ns an impord'~-ut social collier i~ ~isw Suffolk. We do not haveh~e mmi! d~Iivery here, and this institution mod m~ this toc~ticn, seizes ~suseI~l 5 social sea-zee 8:s do the school and nhurche~s, as a plmce to meet, excmange !oc51 The e~sting ,Galley Ho restaurant on rna site parhmps a dozen people, as does the boat yard. The proposed condo- m~ufumm will probably emplo~ one person~ if that, in place of the t~o ~ozeu or so presently employed: i cursory review of two deeds from the State of Yaw Yo~k and from the To~n Of Soumhol~ Zo toe mpplicmnt's grmntcrs or their predecessors in interest, aisciose that pmrtions of the North Fork S~pymrg propert~ ~,~ere granted on condi~ou that smch lands be applied to the "purposes of co.eros". Has The 5pplicant provided you with copies of'~such deeds as required by Legal requirements, including butcher limited to a complete outline existing deed restrictions ~r covenants appI~ing to the property? If not, I WiLl ~ pleased te s~pp!y t+~m. Has your attorney a~vised ~ith respect to s~ch Iimitg~ions? Can p~tchwork zoning be resorted to in view of these restric~ions~ or ~ust ox!erin6 zoning~ consist- sot w~tk the State's and the Towa's o~ grants be continued? Is the dens%~~ requested conditioned on the acreage or m per,ion it so conveyed 5nd so limited? Lastly, sr~ we Leizz~ hoodwinked ~y a ~2adison Avenue 3PPOS!TiCZ TO T'~ PLL!. TPS=T 24 P~OPOSED CC~DCLiINIL!45 if iLL USE LESS ~ACER T~&N T-~E~ _RESIA%~2~ DOES tlO~. Ninety-five. p~rcent of the res- ilsnt~ voted against this proposed abomm~ticn. Have d~a of thio project considered the vast quantities of fresh water quirad ~o irrigate landscaping mn !fy we~ther~ landsc~Dir_g that is mandatory in all Site Deveiosmeni? Such irrigation has already ronRcred a number of waterfront and near water sites untenable because of the inroads of salt from adjoining baye and inlets= i delicate balance cf nature that theme people propose to upset keeps the salt water out. Grc~ud~ter cauuot be Famped cub in- definitely becaus~ the remave! of this pressure will let in the salt. The cos~ of the energy needed to desalinate salt ~ater, not just brackish w~ter, will render the proJeCt ur_ecen~,~eat and~ ultimately, a burden on the co,unity. I ~ sure th~ Board is wise enough to see through th~ sort of campaign, and zo prevent the plumd*rinE cf finest natural resource, ~econic Bay, so that the will cf expressed so emphatically by the villagers in their vote, ~d ~_e intent expressed by both the Stere of ~sw Iork ant the ~o~_ Scuthold as set forth ~n their grants~ ~itl not bs R~ectfully submitted, i I' '3,'t' Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ra~or: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I ~ish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the.launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us? I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the To~ Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, q._.... Mr. Henry Raynor, . ~. Town Plannlng Board Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against bhe proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish bo add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, Forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of o~r only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not Y'it in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to ~uany of us~ I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and o~her such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. enry MAY 10 REC'B Tuwn Planning Board To'~n Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Rayuor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted 167 to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in protext against this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of lO,O00 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrnsions in th~s area already. Second, all thab sewage would have to go somewhene, and we don't want it to go into aur water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us oF our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the To~m Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, '::1 To~ Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 De~ Mr. Ra~o~: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have jus$ votad 167 to 10 against the p~oposed condomini~ to be built at the ~!orth Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t against this development. There are several consideraticns. Fi~st, I am concerned that the w~ter cons~ption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger o~ aquifer. There are many salt wa~er intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want It to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch al:~ost ~00 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Pourth, such a large development would not fit tn with the s~ll-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's o~ the latching ~amp, sources of pleasure to ~ny of us Y I am not even referring to parking problems, noise p~oblems, t~affic p~oblems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the To~ Board not approve this develop~ent. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear I.~. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted to I0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t against this development. There are several considerations. Firsb~ I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions In this area already. Second, all that sewage woulH have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or i~to our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of Mew Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the~launching ramp, sources of pleasure to many of us Y I am not even referring to parking probledus~ noise problems, traffic problems, flooding problems, and other such difficulties. I urge you to recow~end that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, Mr. Henry Raynor Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear ~.~. Raynor: Concerned citizens in New Suffolk have just voted to l0 against the proposed condominium to be built at the North Fork Shipyard. I wish to add my voice in prote~t ~gainst this development. There are several considerations. First, I am concerned that the water consumption of 10,000 gallons a day would endanger our aquifer. There are many salt water intrusions in this area already. Second, all that sewage would have to go somewhere, and we don't want it to go into our water table or into our bay. Third, the development would stretch almost 500 feet north to south, forty feet high, and would deprive many of us of our only view of the bay. Fourth, such a large development would not fit in with the small-village atmosphere of New Suffolk. And what would happen to Captain Marty's or the.launching ramp, sources o£ pleasure to many of usY I am not even referring to parking problems, noise problems, traffic problems, flooding p~oblems, snd other such difficulties. I urge you to recommend that the Town Board not approve this development. Sincerely yours, ~ / Henry Raynor Town Hall Southold NY 11971 Dear Mr. ~aymor, My wife and I and three children live fnll time on ~ew Suffol~ Rd in New S~folk. We cerbainly hope you will not permit the outrageous plans for the ship yard. It will destroy overything good about New Suffolk. There are plenty of other places for condominium~ There are ~lmost no places left like New guffolk. I t~ most of our neighbors feel the same way. ~ Ly°n~~ly~ ~o~ 295 ~W Suf[o!k, New York ~195~ New Suffolk, ~,,v~. !1~56 1983. Eew S'~fo~, New Yo~k 11956 to ~ild. the cond~in~m i= ~ew ~fo~. such ~il~n~ ~uld ch~e the chs~racte~~ of the lit'~ie Village ~.vl~ b~en resident of !~ew S~fo~ for cv~ ye~ w~ are ~or$ then h~.ppy to keep the the w~ i~ ~ ~Ir~ &~NST ~ such ch~'ln ~he Carleton H~ Er~iemanr~ 23 - -8 H. o Court L!ghbhous~ Point, ~1 33064 April 27, 1983 Hon. William R. Pell Supervisor, To;~n of Southo!~ re; Proposed rczoning cf To~n Hall, Southold, N.Y. 11971 North Fork Shipyard, New Suffolk~ N.Y. Dear Sir: We do not return to omr cottag~ at Kimcgenor point i~ New Suffolk until mid May~ but we feel it urgent ~o let yo~ a~d the other persons getting copies of this !e~ter, know of our c cncer~ about the proposal to change the zoning of the North Fork Shipyard in New SuFfolk to allow the erection of condominiums in its place. Mrs. Endemann~s ~amily and now bt,~ family has occupied Cottag~ #10 since 1920, when Mrs. Endema~_a's father sad t~n other families purchased the stock of the Kimogonor Point Company from the Scores sixty-three years ago. We will always feel we are a part of New Suffolk, we enjoy i~s people a~_d its. ~ay of lifo. From almost any poir_t of view, tc allow the North Fork Shipyard to .be rezoned to have condominiums in its plac~ would be a mistake saud con~p!etety change the character and way oflife of the small hamlet of New Suffolk. From what.~e hear, such a change could in~ woiYs land fill with resultant flood:ins of adjacent business and residential properties, tall bmildi~gs~ inccm~atlble with the smaI1 village atmosphere of Mow Suffo!k~ shutting off tho view of 6he water~ and possible sewage and ffes~ water prob!ems~ The fact that the shipyard has allowed many of its bu)ldinss to ~come unsafe amd disreputable looking should not bo u[sed as an excuse for seeking the change of zonmng. In addltion~ we question :~hether the change could he spot zoning and unconst~tutionalo As we recall .i~ the~original zoning made the shipyard and certain of the adjacent' prope~t~.~commercial or indus- trial~ This would have to be changed to residential, yet Gapt. Martyrs fishing station next door to' the north and the gift shop and Capt. Ahab's across First St. would ~emain g form of commercial or industrial zoning~ Regardless of the legal technicalities, we think the proposal is ill-advised and we urge.you and others g~tting a copy of this letter to t~rn it down in any form~ Daniel Jo Larkin %~,)y truly yours Dept. of E~,~ironmental t ~- ~---~ Conservation ~~ /~',~-~ SUNY~ Region l~. Bldg.40 ~vleton H. Endemann Room 219 · ,.~. 11794 ~ ~,~. Stony ~rook: ~' ~' P!~ing Board of Appeals Southold~. N.Y. 11971 cc: Lee E~ Kop~lman guC~ol~ cry. Pla~uSng . . V~tera~s H~y. Hauppau~, N.Y. 11787 ...... - ~ . z_ ~7, 2989 Hon. Willi~-~ R. Poll ~I ~u.pervisor, To~ of Southold re: Proposed rmzoning of To~ Hall, Southold, N.Y. l1971 North Fork Shipyard~ ~ew S~foik~ Dear Sir: We do not return to our cotbage at Kimogenor Point in New Suffolk until mid May, but we feel it ur=~ent to let you, and the other persons getting copies of this letter, know of our concer~ about the proposal-to change the zoning of the North Fork Shipyard in Ne,n Suffolk to allow the erection of condominiums in its place. Mrs. Endema~ra's family and now bur family has occupied Cottag~ #10 since 1920, when Mrs. Endemann's father and ten othe~ families purchased the stock of the Kimogenor Point Company from the Eoores - sixty-three years ago. 'ds will always feel we are a part of New Suffolk, Ne enjoy i~s people and its way of life. From almost any point of view, to allow the North Fork Shipyard to' be rezoned to have condominiums in its place would be a mistake and completely change the character and ~ay of life o~ the s~all hamlet of New Suffolk. From what ~e hear, such a change could in. volv~ land fill with resultant flooming of adjacent ~siness and residential properties, tall buildings, incompatiOle with thc small village atmosphere of New Suffolk, shutting off the view of the water, and possible sewage and fresh ,~ater problems. The fact that the shipyard nas allowed many of its buildings to become unsafe and disreputable looking should not Do uqed as an excuse for seeking the change of zoning. !n addition, we question whether the ,change could be spot zoning and unconstitutional. As we recall ~t, the.~original zoning made the shipyard and certain of the adjacent iprope~ti~Scommercial or indus. trial. This: would have to be changs~ to residential, yet Capt. Martyrs fishing station next door to [the north and the gift shop and Capt. Ahab'sl across First St. would r~main ~ form of commercial or industrial zoning. Regardless of the legal tecnnicalities, we think the proposal is ill-advised and we urge you and others getving a copy of this letter to turn it dow~ in any form. cc: Daniel J. Larkin V~y truly yours Dept~ of Environn~ntal ~' // SUN~, Region l, Bldg. 40 Carleton H. Endema~u Room;219 Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794 ~ He~y Raynor .Bar~ra B. Endema~ PlaPmi~ Board cf Ap~als SouShold, N.~. l1971 cc: ~e E. Kop~lman Suffolk Cty. Plam%ing Co~. Veterans Hauppau~, N.Y. 11787 April 25~ 1983 Box ~49 New Suffolk, ~.Y. ]]956 Henry Raynor, Chairman Planning Board of Appeals Southold, N.Y. 11971 I would iike to compliment you on the fine job you have done over the last few years. We have been faced wiLh some difficult choices, and you have met them with reasonable alternatives. Over rhe last 36 years, we have seen New Suffolk grow slowly with dignity an~ grace, and I hope we will continue in this manner. Cluster housing is an idea whose time has come, and appropriate usage of the concep~ will benefit us all. The proposed New Suffolk Shipyard Condominiums will add 33% mo~e residents (albeit, probably seasonal residents at the outset), to the population of New Suffolk on some[hlng less ~han 5% of our total land mass. Please veto the proposed New Suffolk Shipyard Condominiums on the basis of incompatible density. If we could compute a standard of residential density in New Suffolk by adding all the Acreage c~rrentiy assessed as improved residential acreage and dividing by,the number of parcels, {I would guess this standard to De 1/2 acre), and then equitably compute the real acreage of the shipyard property against the standard we could in good conscience approve.a condominium plan of perhaps ~ units on'the site. I know you will give this your careful consideration and trust the matter to your good judgment. Please do not hesitaZe to call if I may assist you in some way~ Very Truly Yours~ Andrea Rive cc: Bill Peil, Supervisor. i,.or~heas~ corner ~rd & '~a~ 8 Aoril I~. H~nry R~>~or, Chair~ ?outhold, 2[~ York ll ~l~e woulm like to register with tho Fl~ng Board o~ total o~posit~ on ~ property a~ occupied by The No~h. Fork Shit~ard (co,~_ty tax n~oer _%ar~ ~A~s~im~s fropos~s tc build 24 condemnings o~% l~d that nag ~d~r sa!<0 ~te~ in major sterna, ~s ~yone could see ~ t~e high water on the Post ~fioe bui!d~g ~.dn't b~n pa~e8 ~er. Fol!y~ Thos~ 5ousshold~ wo=ld mot bo abl~ to get their fresh wmter from their ovm property - ~he~ suop!y could only com~ From t~ r~st ~" urn, endangering o~ l~ited supply by depletion ~d salt w~tcr ~trumicn, 7~mll-to-wal]. 'bo i~d!e the ssw~e of ~4 hoosehc!ds in so iLmit~d a space would b.r~g lemch~ Lute ~econic Bmy, ~ net into cur Do ws need to hasten %he pollution cf cur awaking, %asa~g~ ci~w~L-~., boat~g waters in thio way? Talk about snvirc~meutal _~d ~e we really compelled to witness ti~e despoil~g of our ~horei~e ~d o~ v~mter view? The charm of New S~Olk is epitomized by the view at o~ cur ]f~in Errs, ct -- the .... .~L= ,.~ Cfficc~ the w~t~r~ ~h~ boats, if you le-c ~.rf~e Ass~tes cover up all ~.mt (Luolud~ bbs street~) with b~r~cks~ you will k~e deprived us ~l! of literally ha~ th~ ~ate~iew of X~· 8~Pe'tk i~r%et. it ~sems %o us th~ the propcsal wou!8 ~o e~ge the character of ~e~.~ i: fact destroy it~ ~},~.t future r~z~. e~vase values for ~ hm~et as a whole m~y s~'f~r~ mud f~at will ~a~ us ~!~ TL~ ~ie:ce we P~v~ here i~ fragile ~k~ges ~hou!d be kept %o scale ~ L~ S-~'fclk D~s its probler~. Our ne~hbo~ tlcs Firg~ 3tre*t area %bird Street we are not fur aRay) ~ve ;:o~=laints. Bu~ 3ur,~ly t~rc ~ ways ~ %,hich our c~.~ity ~d bh~ T~ c~ ~ork tcgsther t~.~mrd solutlcns~ wi~hcut.~ S~,ll we say~ ~vit~g the f~ ~to the h~nhcuse b~c~u~e chickens ~re ~oisy~ _~d there are c~k~r wels tc pretty up th~ w~,terfrcn~ ccnstitut~ a bszut~ication p].~. ~iil ~*~ we h~ve for ~enty-e~ht ~ars been h~,ppi!y grateful ~kat f~tes brough~ us to ~'.'~ S~felk and we c~r. not iragine ~y o'~hsr place we wo'~id like ~o live. Please dcn'% spoil~ i~ost s~cerely~ /~'~~'c-'~~'~~ ~' ~ ~ ~{arch~ 198~ · · N'ew Suffolk~ N.Y, 11~6 ].h'o Henry ~or~ Chai~an ~oarC of Appeals Southold Tnvm Hail S outhold~ ]'I.Y. 11~?1 Daar H~nry ~mor: Certa~!y you have ~iven by ~ place ~ ?ew S~folk and exchanged waves with me often enouEh to ~-nov~ that I ~zot~d be against any euch develop~,ent pl~ as ge~niff's. I spend too ~ch t~e on my front porch to take any interference with ~ siEht-line lying do~. Please find enclosed ~ letters to DEC~ the Suffolk Cowry Pl~E Co~ssion, your Board, the editor of The S~folk ~mes~ for yo~ filing against th~ t~e you people t~:e up the matter. There are enough of us vocal t~es so that the developers w~l t~v~ a re~ fight on their hands. I look for. yard to hearin~ from you in Sincerely yours ~ e~c: scads of stuff 28 L'arch.~ ~ 1983 Box 22~ New Sm~ffoik~ N.Y. 11956 S outhold~ N.L As a loog-t~m resident cf N~* Snffolk~ i wr~s distressed to learn of the plans of ~Za~ne ~sociates to ~d condo~ini~ on the property presently occupied by The North Fork Shipyard, county tax n~ber 100~117-8-18. ~ere are so ma~ ~alt-water encursions into local New S~folk wells (you ~st reme~oer that we are ~most co~letely s~rounded by water Ln t~s little ~l~t of o~S)~ that~'~was quite ~ ~ ' ~ to _~earn ~f Me~iff"s p!aes. The twenty-fo~ units that he hopes to ~d wo~d p~l about lO,O00 gallons per day out of our little aqu~er~ and ~he development w~ld have to go quite far west ~ order to even think ofgetti~g enough s~et ~ter to s~ply the thirsty big city folks, to s~y no'~ng of non-domestic co~s~otion (la~s, car-w~s~ngs, etc. ) or of ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~us~ where those lOgO00 plu~ us ~qo a.~ea~ live in the co~u~ity. ;=j.~ ~= just ~nat ~u _T to look at when _T go out onto my porch -- aLaost 500 feet of barraCk~ almost forty feet, high~ =m:siderir~ the s~ount of fill which the developers want to ;br~ onto thc site. ~=t at all the other m~tters such as noize~ ~_d tl~ms doesn:t co~ braiTic~ ~rking~ and ~chltJ.:e. ~e=niff a;~c. his fellow investors are thinkLn~ of ''~-~ to the !'~e* S~folk :ocouiation~ gl at cnc~ and all in one concentrated area. We just a.,~ . hope tn~o~ "~ you and the other me~ers_ of yo~ board ~2l can't digest such ~ cb~]ge, ~ ~ quiszly and f~y ~shut do~ the ~tions of these p~ple who want to turn N~ S~folk into something that; it was n~ver meant to be -- a ka,.~ of North Fork !~Ilm:~i Eeach, I look i'o~.?ard to hearing your ~,ougnt= on this mattir. Sincere!y yours~ 29 Mar¢~h~ 1983 Box 22L~ New St~mfolk, N.Y. 11956 Mr. Troy Gustavson, Editor The S~ffo!k Times L~ain Street Jresnport, U.Y. 11944 Dear b~r~ Gustavson: You have received a n~_mber of letters from your readere relating to the proposed condcmir~ium development in N~w S,~f£olk~ This is another such~ from another resident of N~? S-~foik who does not want the area to becor_e despoiled by high concentrations of housing~ %7~s one proposes to add about 40% to the pop'~ation of our little harold% a ~a,~ et where the s~lt water is ~ready troubiin~ our we~s and %he sewage ig alrea~- pro~ to be a prcblem. VJe ~e s~rounded by water on ~l sides~ o~ aqu~sr is ~re~ strained to ~e ii~t~ ~d we just ca~uot withstand more people added to our pop, etlon. ~the~or% the proposed t~ee-sto~ apartments ~ould t~er fo~y feet above gro~-d lav~l~ q~tc ~oc~n~ many of us from o~ accustomed vi~s the B~y. ~d t d0 not even mention other pr~clems such as traffic~ noise, ~utomnb~e p~r~ng~ and suc~lik% v~ich ~I themselves wo~d completely alter the c~racter of CO~ity. ~ preciouc quality of life by its vs~~ n~ture c~unot be e~ended to large n~oers ~of people. To pretend othe~ise is l~ezlistic~ Sincerely your$~ Thomas Lo~ry Anne Lov~_ ~ 28 Narch~ 1983 Box 224 New St~folk, N.Y~ 11956 Chairm~n Suffolk Cour. ty Flanning Com.~ssion Veterans Memorial NiEhway Hauppaug~ N.Y. 11787 Dear Sir: As a long-t~e ~sident of ~ev~ Suffo~ I was distr~s~ed to learn in recent newsoaper stories ~ The S~folk Tines and The }~attltuck Watchman tk~t James A. Kenniff acti~ as ~arine Associates is planning to ~wenty-fo~ larEe condcmJuT~ nr~ts on the barton% prope~y presently occuoie~ by ~.e North Fork S~pysrd and sever~ other local esta~isP~ents (the co~ty taX n~ber of the parcel ~n question is 1~117-8-!8). Ken~iff's appli~tion is presently pend~E before the Re~u!zto~ ~fa~s Di~,~sion df the N~ York State Depz~meqt of Env~o~mcnt~ Conservation wher~ ' it ~ms (:~stakep~y, in ~ view) been classified'as a class three affa~ as bein% of negligible en~og~.entg ~oact. There ~e several considerations I should like to bring to yo~ attcntmon. First~ thmt the p~oposed develcpnent would us~ at least lOgO00 gglons of water just for domestic p~-p6ses each ~d every day -- and~thi~ in a location in which there have been many s~t water incisions into the local water ta~e -- most cf which wo~d · ~t~ately leach into the adjacent bay as sewage. (I kn~ of no well ooint on laud sit~te~ to the East of First Street wn~cn produces ~hmn5 better th~n brackish water.~deed~ some points to the west of First Street do so as well.) ~ously~ those of us ~fno are ~lrea~ :resider~s of the hauler would s~fer from a~ such developm~nt~ either from hav~g our ~ells pod:ted ~ the new sauces of sewage or from b~ving th8 ~ready sl~ aq'~fer on whicJ we ~aw depleted. ~r present ~ion ~s ~bcu% 2~ ~year-ro~d residents~ and t~ue ~sudcen i~l~ of about a h~udred high-. rolling ~g-city second-homers would increase o~r sw.a~l pop~ation by s~_et?~ng lize Om ~ each u~t of the proposed develoomsnt w6~d s~l for several hun.~reds ~ thousands of dollars. The sketches of the development v~icH I have seen cz~ for the urits to stretch from North to South ~host ~O0 feet and ~most 40 feet high~ ~o~bing to scnet.~nE like a ~eat w~l of China ~onE much~ the eastern border of the depri~ng us of tlne ~ter ~_~.~s we hsve come to love ~gd to regard as part of i ~ ~-~ addressing ~sel~ to o%n~ pro,ems such as Dmr~n~ of cars~ noise~ trgffic, ~nd the like, ~ich wo~d substantiailg~ alter the zmbi~ce of o~ xmtbl~ cc~upity even if 'there were no other ~oble~= ~ I ~ge you to disapprove this development ~en it comes before Sincerely Thomas Lo~ry Ii March, 1983 Box 224 New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Regulatory Affmirs Departmen~ of Environmental Coneervation Stony ~ro~k C~pus, Re.ion 1, Bldg. 40 Stony Brook, New ~ork 11794 A~ ~ lon.s-ti~e resident of ~Iew Suffolk in Eastern LonE Iaiand I was 6istrossed ~o lc~n in the cur~snt issue of The ~.lattituck th~ thc owner of the ~orth Pork Shipyard, James A. Kenniff, president of ~ine Associ:~tes, has applied fop permission to ~rect twenty-four condominiums on his proper~y in New Suffolk (the county tax n~aber the property in question is 1000-117-8-18, and i enclose a copy of the ~ap in question), ~ am aGdresslng myself to ~ou and to your department not be- cause of tae obvious fact that such ~ enterprise will despoil the c~lmracter of thc nmralet which my family and I have come to love, but because of the fact t~at the proposftion involves ecological matters which are a p~per conceFn of you and 2~o~ ~epartment. i beliave't:~at not a single dwolling o~ business eas~ of First Street in ?~ew Suffolk dra~-Js its drinkin.-~ water from a well point on its own !an~ but instead has to draw its supply from points on other land to the west. T~%e shipyard i~self, fO~ ex$ie, and the GalleyHo restaurant on the shipyard ~perty employs points on land to the west, specii~icaily on land th~ t~ number of which is 10u0-I17-8-13. Arid I ~ow that. the owner of at least one lot on ~be we~t side of First Strset~ specific~y 1000-117-9-26~ draws his water from:property on the west side of Second Stro~u: sp~cificul!y 1000-117-9-23. Tk~e point th[~t I ~a~e is thmt there is no wattr to b8 hag east of First Street which would bc sufficient to sa. piy twenty-four condo- mini~s, an~ that n%ovin~ the points to the wast would only deprive aireamy exiatin~ proDert~ owners of;their share of the already end.gered supply of sweet water. S~ah a proj69t would also greatly increase the possibility of salt water lntr~$.slon~into the wells of current riaidents of ~hs neighborhood~ Furthermore, the specter of condominiums d~mplng their sewage into Peconic Bay (which ia what would happen, no matter where the new cass pools~'migh~ be placed on Ke~iff's property) o~ into the already- exisging wells of their n~igkbors~ Is ~nough to soup thoughtful residents 6omple~ely on the idea of~ a larga Incrsas$ In tho n~b~r of l~ew Su~!k~ dwoiling units -- there kre only 2~0 of us full-time in this tiny comm~ity. I, hope that you will take my oxceptions as seriously as they ape intended, and that you will quickly put She kibosh on Ke~lff,s idea. Sincerely Town Hall, 53095 Main Road *~ P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDIIH 1.1ERRY 'II-LliPHONE [O~gN CLE~,K (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR O[' VITAL ST,XTISTlCS OFFICE OF TP~ TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUl"BOLD April il, 1983 To Whom It May Concern: Attached hereto is revised Long Environmental Assessment Form filed by Marine Associates in connection with their applica- tion for a change of zone from "C" Industrial Districv to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, on certain property located on the easterly side of Fi%~st Street, New Suffolk, New York. ~du~th T. Te~ry Southold Town Cl~r~ Posted on Town Clerk's Bulletin Board on April 11~ 1983. R~I~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1983 E~F ~NVIRD;I~ENTAL ASS~SSHEN? i ~ART Z (St~etj (P.O.) iS:ate) A. SITE DESCRIPTION , Forested ~ acres ~cres Unvegetated (rock, Ocher (indicate Lyne) greater ~[. g. DO huntingOr fishing opportunities pKesent]y exist irk Che project II. Are there any unique or unusual l~nd for~s on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geolo~?c~l formations - , Yes _~ NO. (~escribe -- ) 12. Is the project site presently used by the con~nunity or neighborhood as ~n ooen space or recreation 13_ Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the con~'unlty? a. Na.~e_ of stream and nam~ of river to which it is tributary ~ ~ takes, Ponds, ~etland areas within or contiguous to p-gject ar~: a. rta~ C"u.l-J,~,~,/~A-,tb~ ?~,,~:b~ siz~ (in a~e~) c. P~ject acreage to remain unUeveloped f. Nu~er of off-strut p~rk~ng spaces existin~ ~'~ , proposed_ Initial project? Y~S ~ Ne 10. Nu~Jer of job~ eliminated Dy this project 12, a- is surface or subsurfice liquid wastm disyos~l involved? ~ Yes I b. If yes, indicate type of waste (~ewagm. industrial, etc.) ~--~.~-~ 16, '~ill prnject use herbicides or pesticides? Yes ~ 17. Nill project routinely produce odors (~re than one hour per day)? Yes 19. ~ill p~ject result in an increase in energy use? Yes ~ No If yes, indicate Z1. Total anticinmted water usage per day,~gals/day. City, To~n, Village Board ~ ~'~y_~:~ City, Town, Village ~l~nning Board ~4~ ~i'~'"~-'T~ EAF ENVIRONMENTAL AS§E~HEN~ - PART II I. .~.. ~. SMALL TO ) POTENTIAL ' CAN IMPACT BE J MODERATE~ LARGE REDUCED BY ( _ F~.. A. A RE5ULT A PHYSICAL ~HAi,~. TO QO ~ YES -- ~ODYOF~TER~ .......................................... ~0 Examples that Woule Apply to Column 2 ~'tqLL Tt? ~TENTIAL I £.qN IIIPACT B.r 9. L¢ILL PROJbCT Sd~ST~NTIALLY AFFECT !dON-THREATENED OB NO YES ['~AN~ECI~$~ ...................................... ~0 £aamule that ~euld Apply to Column 2 -7- ~LL Tq °e~'E?!T _~AL I CA;I [?IPACT BE ~C, DERATE LARGE REDUCED Ry I C~,~RACTER _"F THE ;IFIG:~gnRun,OD QB COU-nqITY? .............. ~ ~ IMP~C~ ON HIRTORIC ~ESOURCE5 Ii. RILL DRGJECT II!PACT ~NY SiTE OR STEUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES FRE-RIFT,,~IC nR ~ALE'~NTg'S~CAL I?DOnTANCE? ................. ~) 0 FUTURE 'JPEr: SPACES OR ~ECPEATIONAL OPPORTU~IT!ES? ...... ~ ~ SHALL TO i POTENTIAL i CAll IMPACT DEII P~DE~TE( LARGE ENERGY SdPPLY? ................... : ....................... IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECT[nNABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBP~T!ON NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A R~SULT OF THIS PROJECT? ~dor~ will occur routinely (mor~ t~n one hour per da¥).i P~oj~ct will remove n~tural barriers that ~ould act as a IMPACT OH HEALTH & HAZARDS NO YFS 16. !~IL~ P~DJECTA~F~CT PU,LIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ............. ~,~,~ Exammles that ~¢ould Apply to Celumn 2 Projecc will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous Substances [i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the ewnc of accident or uoset condition~, or there will ne a chronic low level discharge or emissimn. Project that will result in the burial of "h~zardous w~stes" (1.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, r~dio~¢tive, irritating, infecCious, etc., inc!ddinq wastes th~t arm solid, semi-so)id, liquio or contain ~ses.) £toraoe facilities for one millinn mr more dallmns of liouified ~OO~R~TE LARGE REOUCE~ ~ I,'!PACT IMPACT PROJECT £HANGEJ COHb'U~ITY? ................................................ ~0 NO YES Examoles that Woul~ Apply to Cmiumn 2 INSTRUCTIONS Co,,~iete the following for each Impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: Briefly describe :he impact. 2_ Describe (if apD]icatie) bow the impact might be mitigmted or reduced to a less than large immact by a pro- jec~ change. 3. Based on the infcmacien available, decide i f it i~ ressmnakle t~ conclude that this impact is imoortant to the minicipality (city, eown or village) in which the project is located. To answer ~he question of importance, consider: The probability of the impact or effect occurring The duration of the impact or effect its irr~versibility, ina]odin§ permanmntly lost rmsources or valuea ~nether the impact or effect can be controlled lhe regional co~sequence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence from local needs and 9eels - ~hether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect. DETEF~INATION OF SIG~iI?ICANCE An action is considered to be cignlficant ?: Ane (or more) imoact is d~termined to both l__aar~e and its Itheir) conseouence, based on the review above, is imeortant. PAPT III STATEMENTS I£ontinue on Attachments, as needed) -II- 9ates-Freeport New York City Office: 516-378-1355 THE (212) 593-0345 NORTH FORK SHIPYARD ~ INC. APR i 1 ~3 ~,~, ~,~-~o April, 9 1983 Town Board Southold Town Main Road, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attn: Ms. Judith Terry Re: Marine Associates Inc. Gentleman: Enclosed herewith please find an Environmental Assessment long form to replace the long form submitted with our application for chsnge of zone dated 7 March 1983. Very Truly Yours, Marine Associates Inc. March 31, 1983 Planning Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn.: Mr. Henry Raynorr Chairman Re.: Marine Associates Inc. Gentlemen: This is to advise you that the. undersignedw with regard to a proposed zoning change for property at New Suffolk in the Town of Sout~old, represents Marine Associates Inc. Enclosed herewith please find affidavit of James A. Kenniff, submitted for the purpose of establishing the officers, directors and shareholders of harine Associates Inc., the petitioner in the anticipated zone change. I request fhe opportunity, on behalf of the petitioners, together with the corporation's engineer, John Mahoney, and its environmental consultant, Roy Haje, to meet with the oard!or is representatives toldlscus~ ~he proposed amendment. Very truly yours, p ~' ~..% William W~ Esseks WWE/F ENCL. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS.: JAMES A. KENNIFF, being dL~y sworn, deposes and says: 1. That he resides at Youngs Avenue, Southo'ld, New York, and that he is the President of and a Director of Marine Associates Inc., a New York business corporation with its principal place of business at New Suffolk, New York. 2. Marine Associates is the petitioner for a proposed change of zone from Light IndustL-y to Multiple Dwellln~g I for property consisting of approximately 3.67 acres at New Suffolk, Southold, New York. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section A106-40 B of the Code of the Town of Southold, I advise and represent to the Town of Southold that the: officers of Marine Associates Inc. are as follows: James A. Kenniff - President Southold, New York Jonathan Rosen - Vice President New York City, New York Caleb Lanning - Secretary Falls Church, Virginia; and that the directors of the corporation are: James A. Kenniff, Southold, New York; Fred C. Smith, Glen Head, New York; Jonathan Rosen, New !York, New.York; Caleb Lanning, Fall:s Church, Va.; Thomas Uhlinger, Cutclhogue,-New York. 4. The shareholders off'said corp6ration are.as set ~forth upon Schedule "A" annexed :hereto. I affirm the foregoing under penalties of perjury ~c~.. to the best of my knowledge and belief, and my knowledge and information are based on the stockbooks of the corporation and its other records. DATED: March 31, 1983 ,.u~ ~ /~ames A. Kenn SC/-IEDU~,~. "A" One of Two Pages SPIAP~EHOLDERS, MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. Cert. Cert. No. Name -' No. Name 1 J.A. Kenniff 10 Fred C. Smith III North Fork Shipyard 197 Brookville Lane · New Suffolk, NY 11956 Old Brookville Glen Head, NY 11545 2 Okerson, Ann P. · . 815 Pebble Drive 11 C.B. Laning Greensboro, N.C. 6404 Lakeview Drive , 27410 Falls Church, Va. 22041 3 Joseph Pasternak 12 Virgil S. Thurlow · ~ 11 Knoll Lane 3722 King Arthur Rd. Levittown, NY Annandale, Va. '. · 4 Chemistry Hall Labs 13 John J. Desiderie. '.'-' · P.O. Box 255 22 Greenbriar Rd.- Bradentown, Fla. Turnersville, NJ 5 Richard P. Hoffman · 14 Robert E. Adamson '.. 3256 Detroit Ave. 931 Eve Street Toledo, Ohio Delray Beach, Fla.33444 6 Marcell or Jean Mooney 15 -Emily A. Brock 6439 Ens:le¥ Lane c/o Mr. R. Earl Warren ~ Kansas City, Kansas P.A. '.. . ~; 359 West Deerborn St. 7 T. Jackson Laughlin ' Englewood, Fla. 33533 10338 Wo0dbridge North Hollywood, Ca. 16 M_rs. E. J. Zimmerman 6123 Stoneham Lane 8 Dorot~ S. Goldman McLean, Va. 215 East. 68th Street Apt. 22F 17 Hubert and Lorraine New York, New York St. ~nge 10021 3655 Red Bud ct. · · · Downers, Grove, Ill. ' '{.~ ' 9 Fred C. Smith 60515 ' 197 Brookville Lane Old Brookville -- 18 Frank virden .-' _ Glen Head, NY 11545 c/o C.B. Laning 6404 Lakeview Drive Falles Church, Va.22041 ~ert~ Cert. · ~ I'q'o. Name No. Name 19 Francis W. Smith 30 Mrs. charles Weakle¥ 197 Brookville Lane 3541 Hamlet Place Old Brookville Chevy Chase, Md 20015 Glen Head, NY 11545 31 Herbert Buschman 20 George Walczyk 157 Park Blvd. 197 Brookville Lane Malvern, NY Old Brookville Glen Head, NY 11545 32 Stephen R. Button 21 Lawrence C. Oakley Nyack, NY 13647 Calais Dr. Del Mar, Ca. 92014 33 Edna Wisan 1001 Woodycrest Ave. 22 Alan A. Smith Bronx, ArY 10452 139 Merryman Ct. Annapolis, Md. 21403 34 Nonsanna H. Wakeman 485 Toyopa Drive 23 Annette G~ Button Pacific Palisades, Ca. 4243 E. Sierra Madre 90272 Apt. E Fresno, Ca. 35 William E. Spicer 985 May~ield Avenue 24 Richard L. Wakeman Stanford, Ca. 94305 945 Nineth St. Apt 10 Santa Monica, Ca. _ 36 James M. Kenniff 72 Southside Avenu~ 25 Jonathan P. Rosen Freeport, New York 40 East 69th Street New York, New York 37 Cornelia J. Davies 10021 4005 Hermitage Rd. Richmond, Va. 23219 26 Susan M.' Kenniff Youngs Avenue 38 Bear,. Stearns & Co. Southold, New York 11~ 55 Water Street New York, NY 10041 27_ J. Darby Kenniff Youngs Avenue Southold, New York 28 Thomas J. Uhlinger P.O. Box 82A New Suffolk, New York 29 Lloyd C. And Therasa Thornsbury Pine Neck Road Southold, New York 060782 epw .~ _ - :~ '~'-', ':~ ,: :' ~ :t r~: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road "; "°' : ~'~ -: ;": ' P.O. Box ?25 -~ ~.,~ , ~ , Southold. New York 11971 1o~ CLERK t516'~ 765 1801 REGISTRAR O[: VITAL Sr.XI~ST~CS OFFICE OF T~ TOI~ CLE~ TO~ OF SO~ttOLD April 6, 1983 Mr, Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall SouZhold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: The Town Board' discussed your letzers o£ March 29th in which you requested disclosure statements from the applicants of Dalchet Corp. and Marine Associates, Inc. It was the decision of the Town Board that such a request should come from the Planning Board. With relation to the "Town Bioard's reassessment of the Environmental AssessmenZ Form for accurate compliance", on Marine Associates, Inc., the Town Board, as lead agency~ will study this further. Ver~ truly yours, Judith T. Terry Sou~hold Town Clerk Post Office Box 76 i~ew Suffolk, New York 11956 March 29, 1983 Southold To~n Board To%m Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Sirs: My husband and I are ~ppalled to learn the fate proposed for the property of the New Suffolk Ship}'ard and the character of the village of New Suffolk. It is certainly the Captain's right to sell his property. It is just as certainly the To~n Board's duty to protect our community from overdevelopment tn o]lgh zoning re~]lations. How can a plot of land under four acres support a 124-~nit development? If the land must be developed, let it not destroy our village. We worry about our tenuous watsr suppl~. When our ~ell was drilled some 25 years ago, it took !several drilling attempts to find potable w~ter. Salt contaminated the f~rst strikes. ~ow many more people must that delicate layer of fresh wmter now support; and how many more can it support. Please control this plan. Keep 'it within what the land and resources can support. Any development that could coexist with the existing village, with our wonderful little post office, ~ould be far more valuable to the ,new o~rners than some slick condo complex. We hope that the people of New Suffolk have 5~our support. Sincerely yours, Susan and John Reed Southold, N.Y. 1 HENRY E. P~%Y~OR, Jr., Otairman TELEPHONE JAMES WALL 765-1938 BENNETT ORLOWSK[, Jr. GEORGE RITCH~E LATHAM, J~. WlLLI ~1 F. MULLEN, Jr. March 29, 1983 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Mar£ne Associates, Inc. Change of Zone Dear Mrs, Terry: The following action was takenI by the Southold Town Plan- ning Board, Monday, March 28, 1983I. RESOLVED that prior to the Plannmng Board preparing an official report defining the conditions on the petition of Marine Associates, Inc. for a change of zone from "C" Lighf Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence Dis- trict on certain property at New shffolk, that a disclosure statement listing all principles of the Association be submit- ted to the Planning Board and Townl Board's reassessment of the Environmental Assessment Form for accurate compliance. Comments with regard to the En¥ironmental Assessment Form are available if requested. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By susan ~. Long, Se~ret~ry cc: Town Supervisor Town Councilmen Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 JUDITH T. TE RR't '[ELEPHONE To~ CLERK 1516) 765 180i REGI£TRAR OF V[L~,L $] \1 ISTIC£ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK tOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 9, 1983 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: Transmitted herewith is petition of Marine Associates, Inc. requesting a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial DisLricL Lo "M-i". General Multiple Residence Dis~ric~ on certain property at New Suffolk:, New York. Your Board is hereby instructed 2o prepare an o££icial re~ort defining the conditions ~escribed in said petition and determine the area so a£fected with your recommendatione. V~ry truly yours, Judith T. Terry Sbuthold Town Clerk Attachment Town H~ll, 53095 Main Road. P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1197l JUDITH T. T£ RRY . . FELEPHON]~ TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTR.%R O[ VITAt ST \T[$TICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 9, 1983 Mr. David DeRidder Environmental Analysis Unit N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. DeRldder; Enclosed is application of Marine Associates~ Iac. requesting a change of zone from "C" Industrial District to "M-i" General ~lultiple Residence District on certain property located on the east side of First Street, New Suffblk, New York. This project is unlisted and ~ur inisial determination of non significance has been made ~nd we wish to coordinate this action 5o conform our initial :determination in our role as lead agency_ !,lay we have your views on thisi matter. Written comments on this projec~ will be received atI this office until March 28, 1983 We shall interpret yourI lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency. Ve!rv truly yours, Judith T. Terry ~own Clerk cc: Conani~sioner Elacke Souzhold Town Building D~pac[mDnt P.O. Box 728 c. <: , , -.. ,._ Southold, New York 11971 rOaN CLERK (516) 765-180l RECISrR.~R Ct \qT~t SX ~lsr~cs OFFICE oF THE IO$¥N CLERK TO~¥N CE $OUTHOLD March 7~ 1983 To Whom I~ May Concern: Attached hereto ts Long Envtronrnen~al Assessment Form filed By Mar±ne AssocJ_atos, Inc. tn connee~±onl w±th their app3_~eat±on for a change of zone £rom "C" L±ght Industr!±al D±str±et to "M-l" General Multiple Res±donee D±str±ct ca cerTa±'n property located on tho east s±de ct F±rst Street, New Su££olk, New York. ith T. Terry So~thold Town Clerk Posted on Town Clerk's Bulletin Beard on March 7, 1983. TO~¥N OF SOUTHOLD - EAF · ? !983 ,.. ~j~:~ · - " . -~,~ ~s~r,)a ~ ~ ~'~. .... ' '~ :-' ~ ....'' ' ~ . ~ ~rlam~) ' ' ' ' ~, .[Na~)~ - - ' . : · (St~et) - , , ; DESCRIPTION OF PqOJECT: (Briefly descrtbe ~pe of :mJect~or action) ' {PLEASE COMPLETE EACN QUESTIDR - Indicate N.'A,:if n~ ~ppl~cable) ~ A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Pm)s~Fal s.e~ting of overall ~ject, both :eveloned ano undevelooed areas) i. } 1. ~neral character of Ihe ]an~: r~nerally unifa~ slope ~ G~erally uneven ~nd ~llinq or irreoular ' ~_~ ' , Aqriculture , Othe~ --- : ,~ .3. Total ac'reage of ~roject a~a: ~t~acres.~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~eadow or arushland .~cres ~cres ~.lacer Surface Area ~, ~ acres ' ', earth or fill) ~cres · ~ow~ac~s " ( Aqr~cui rural ~cr~ ifa ~cres T~d~l as nor Articles surfaces ~ ~cres ' °4 -~ ~ ~cres ~acres ..... or ~,C.L,) .' . ) 4. '~P~ ~s ~-~U~mi~nt soil ~,~(~) on nro!~c~ site? ..... ~_ ..... ', 6. ~praxir~e percen~e of proga~ed ~rojec~ ~ite wicn ~looes: ~10% ~ %; ~9-15% J %'; hunting or fis~in§ opportunitie~ presently exist in the proj~.ct area? Yes g. J]~ JD~es pruJect site cQntain ~ species o+ plant or animul llfe that is identified as threatened ur :~dangered ~ ' Y~. ~:to, according to - Identi(~ e~ch species ' · . ll, Are there a~y unique or unusual land forms o~ the project site? (i-'e. ~liffs, dunes,'oth~ geolog~cal ~f:masions ~ . Yes '~ No. (Describe ~ 13.Does the' present site offer or include, scenic views or vistas known to_be important ~,the~co~ity? ,. a.' N~ of ~tream an~ name of river to which it is tributary a- [(a~ /~ ,~ ; b, Size (in acre's) single family residential, R-2) and the scale of devel~nt (e.g. 2 s~ory). ~ ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION · T~al contiguous acreage awned b~ oraject s~nsor ~,~ a:res. b. Pmje~ acreage developed: h ~res initially }~ ~=r,, ulti~tely, m~ P~j~ct acreage ~o r~ain um4evmloped ~, &~ , d. L~ngtm, of prmjemt, in miles: _/~ {if ap~rmpriate) ~ge ~ ; deve)mped acreage 9. ~xim~ vep)cular trips .~anerated pek hour ~ ~ (upmn ~pleti~n mf j. To~al height of t~)les: nfo'POSed strpcture __~ feet, ' ~ ' '~" 2. HOW m~ch natural material (i'e rock. earth. ~tc.) will be re~ved f~om. the. ~ite - /~Y~ tons cubic 3. H~w many ~e~ of veqet~ic~ (tree~,' s,rub~. ~ro~nd c~vers) will be ~en~ve~r~, si~e ma~ure forest (','er lOO years o~d)or other locally-important veaatati~'~be remn~n'~ ': ' : 6- ]fs?ngle rase project:: Anticipated ~eriod of cons~ruccion~ mo~ths~ (~Jc~u~ing demolition). · > ? : I~ mul~i-~eJ ~roject: a. Total n~ber'o~ phases ~anticipa:ed: Nm.~ ~. An~i~i~ate~ Ua~e of co~encement phase I __month ~ : ~ : c., ApprOximate ~ompledon,date, final ~hase ~r i ,~nth. yea~. .~ . B. Will.blasting occur during c~nstruction? Yes ~ NO . 9. N~ber of ~obs generated: during 6onstr~ction ~ ~m after projmtt is =~=le~ O~F lO. Nu:er]ofjoDs ~limin~ted by this project ' m ll. Will p~ect ~equire relocation Of any projects or facilities? ~ lyes N:. If yes, ex=lam~ b, if yes, indicate type of was~e'(sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which ~f luent will be dis~a~ed -- m 19. qill projec~ result in an increase in energy use! i Yes ~Na. If ye~, ~ndicate typ~(s) __ m. ~0 mals/minute. m 21. T:tdl anticipated water usage per day I i · 26. App~vals: a. Is any Federal pe~it requi~ed? Yes ~ NO i ~c. Lncal and Regional approvals: 'i ~ ! (Yes, N~) (Type) (Date) (Oa~e) -. ~.i. · ; ' C.~ IN~O~TIONAL DE~AILS ".. PREPARER'S S~GNATURE: .~~/[ ~ " : · ~ DATE: _¸4_ ENVIRONMENTAL A$SESSH£NT.- PART II: . i '. - . Project Impacts'and Their Genera! i~m~a~l,]~ "~ · ' - Each p~jectl, o6>mach site, iin each 16:ality, Will v~'ry. Therefore, the exampies ha~e been ~[feredlas guidance:] '~]~ ~ ' -.The number of m~mples per d~mstion dses ~o~jnBi~teI~h~ impor:ance'of each q~s~ion. , ~ ~. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will ,. r, ., . ~ ~ impac~ will occur Out :~?shold is lower than.example, check~ol HODE~.TE LAP.~E EEDUCED BV IMPACT ON L~tiD ' ' ~ F ~ RESULT g~PH¥SI~AL CHANGE To area exceed lG~. · / OR F~TU~[ OPE!;' SFACES OR RECREATIQN~ O~OETU~IITIES? ..... ~ ~ S~LL T~ J PPTENTIAL J CAJt ]NPAC~ ~ -' t~D£R~TE LA~GE REDUCED 8¥ - I~PAETI, [qPACT f PROdECT CHANGE .: [~PACT ON EYE~G¥ 14, $1]LL PAOJE£T AFFECT T~[ COMMUN~T]E£ SOURCES OF FUEL OR hO YES ' !' lt. WILL T~E~E )[ OtJ~CTIBNABLE OP~O~S, NOISE, GLARE, VIBP, ATIQ~ ND YES ~ ' IHPACT OH HEALTH & HAZARDS ' Examples t~at U~uld ~pply substances (f.e,'o~l,-pasticides c~mi.cals, ?~diation,.~tc.) THERE PUBLIC CO~IT~OVERSY CONCERNING THE ~OJECI? ...... ./~ ~ '! U EUVIROI~HENTAL ASSESS~tE!IT - PART Ill · 2, 2escrlbe (if ap;licable) how the impBct might be mitigalted or reduced to a less than large imnamt by a i! ject cq~nge. ,! [o ~ne min~cipality (city, Town or village) in which thle project is located, - The p~bamility of th~ impact or effect occurrdng - The duration ot the impact or effect DETERMINATION OF SIG?!IF[CA~CE I' ~ne (or tf~re) ira;act is determined to both l~rneland its Itheir) comse~uence, based on the review CASE NO: ...... REC~. v ~- STATE OF NEW YORK ' ?, · · TOI~ OF SOUTHO~ ~ ~ MATTER OF ~ PE~ON OF ~0.~,= ~mk FOR A CI~GE. ~OD~IlCA~ON OR i~M~'T OF T~ BU~.D~,G ZO~ O~- ~CE OF T~ TOWN OF SOU~OLD, S~O~ CO~, ~W YO~ TO ~ TOWN BO~ OF ~ TO~ OF SOD~r~O~: '~.' (~se~ n~e of peri. ones) S~o~ County~ New York, the und~igned, ~ th~ o'~er of ce~ain reml prope~y si~at~ mt ~ ' ...~., ~ ..... ~ ....... ~d more p~ic~arly bounded ~d des~bed as f~,H~s: ~']]~. ~ BEGINNING at ~ point on the easterly side of First Strect at ~he southwe.~ . of the premises herein described where the ~sion line between said pre.seabed? ~O~K ~he land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company adjo~ing on the south : intersects the said easterly side of Fir~s~ Street; ruing ~hence North ~ degrees ~ minutes 30 seconds East along ~he e~terly side o~ Firs~ Street..211.02 feet ~ 'the corner formed by the ~ersec~on d~ ~he easterly si~ ol Fira~ S~reet ~th the southerly side of Main street; ~nce Ssu~h 83 degrees AS minutes East al~ng.t~ ~O~ southerly side of ~ Street 193.50 ~e'e~ to ~he sou~eas~ cornet of said Street; thence Nor~ 6 degree~ 1~ ~n~tes Eas~ along the easterly end ~of ~: Street. ~S. 50 feet to the nor~heas~ corner o~ ~a~ Street; ~:henc~ N~r~h 8~ ,~, ~ ~0 45 minutes West ~ong the northerly si~e of M~ Street, 1~2.94 feet to the corner formed by the ~tersecfi0n of the northerly.side of Main Street with the · . side of First Street; thence alo~ the ~asterly side of F~st Street, North S degree~: 54 minutes ~0 seconds East 272.45 feet to ~e l~d formerly of Dasd H. K~g;' , thence South 83 degrees 4~ m~ptes 30 ~ec~ds East along said l~st mentioned :~o Peconic:Bay; thence in a general soBtherly ~rection along Peconic Bay to. the[ northerly Hne ofland of Radel Oyster ~omp~y; thence along ~aid land of R~el' Oyster Company; N0r~ 83 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West to the' easterl[ side of First Street at the po~t or place of beg~n~g. T ETHER wxth ~1 the r~ght, txtle and ~nterest of the partxes of the firs$ ~n ~d to several gr~t~ of l~d under Water ~ec~y m ~ont of t~se pre.sea -mend the B~g .Zone Ord~ 0f ~e T0~ 9f S0u~old, ~olk ~Unty, New York,~ :' ' { ~cluding ~e Building ~ne Maps heretofore made p~t thereof, as follows: Such request is made for the following reasons: STATE OF NEW YORK, SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ..................... ' .......................... BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action: that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (h~r) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it Sworn to before me this.-7-- day of...~.n./q.~../~...~.'..~.. .... , 19~.-~ PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ADDRESS NAME sv,* Iol.,,,,.,.'/' r STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss.: , bei0g du!y sworn, deposes and says that on the of /274~P~GAL , 19 ~ ~ , deponent mai[ed g true copy of ghe Notice se~ forth on ~he reverse side hereof, directed to e&ch of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that ~e addresses set opposite ~he n~mes of said persons ~re ~he addresses of s~id persons as shown on the cur- rent ~sessment roll of the Town of _outhold; that sa~d Notices were maded a~ the Umzed S~ates Post O~ce ~-, ~ +~ D L~ . f~ .~] ;thatsaidNotices~weremailedtoeachof,aidpersonsby~ (registered) mail. ' Sworn to me thb ~ dayof ~'~e.~ ,19 ~ . N~~ ~ubEc ~ THOM~ J. UHLING~R No Ol - 4733066 J ' TOWN BOARD. TOWN OF $OUTHOLD ; In the Matter of the Petition of : : NOTICE : to the Town Board of the Town of $outhold. : TO: YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1_ That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Town of Southo[d to 2. T~t th~ property wk~ch i~ th~ ~ubject of the E~titioa is Ioated adjacent to ~our propert~nd is des- cribed as follows: ~0o~ ~ M~ ~ ~ ~0 ¢~0 b/C ~.-/~ ~, ~ ~ 3. That the prope~y which is the sub cot of sueh~tition is located in the following zonin~ district: 4_ That by such Petition, the und¢~igned will request that the above-described properW be placed in the following zone district cl~sification: ~ ~ ] ~ ~ L T/ ~ ] ,' -- 5. That within five days from the date hereof, a wri~en Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southoid, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular off~ce hours. 6. That before the ~ e[ief sought may be ~anted, a public hearing must be held on the. ~atter by the Town Board; that a notice of such hearing mus~ be published at le~t ten days prior to xhe date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in ~he Long Island Traveler-Mattituck W~tchman, newspapgrs published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing_ Petitioner Post Office Address: - '- . : 'I ,' ~;~:~' , -. : ~: ~.~k~. ~. ": .... '" :.' ':i ~l.ii;. ':;;if : L.,3 i . ....... . .... ..:,? .. ~ ' . - -, '.' ,~j, ,,' iii " ~: ~ i % ~-~ ,r -' ' , , ,.H ~:',':../ "'~ ~ / / "' ' . .." ":'.~'.~'I:L: ~ ~ ~"" / i .... ' . . ,': : :'. !,, ',',',,-~: ' " 'i ' ' ..... · '"::'~'li~ ." ~ ...... · ~ '" ' ! ~ ~ '~ ~ i~ . ' ... ~. ~ ~...~ ~. .,~ ~ ~ . , ~ ~ ,, ~: ......... ~ '~ ;;'~ ...., ,- · i, . ~, ~ ~ ......... -~ i'!' '"'? ' ~ i.:~;.!.: ~'~ -~: ........ "~ · ~ :':i;'~i'::'-' .... .~-' ..~ ~ E~' , '-.i~ ~ ~ ' ",. "'.~?..::~.. f:'; ~ .... ;~ : :i :'i~: ' 1 f.' ~ ~ · ., , . .:- :; .... ~. ~'..:~ ~ ~' '"':~:~""' i-;'.f'. ~ ..:~ ..~ . :; i.,: ~' ~¢ ; . ,:: .:~-: .. ~ ~ ' F ~' .': ~ i . . ,.~,.,,.. ]:~':E~ '-'" "-~' ' ~':i:-..-- · , ~. ¥ ~'/ ........................ '"" '~' ' ~i. ' ~]~'~ .... , . ii~.' ... ~ "' ~ · '.;." ';' P';i:',f,?, ~i. ' ": .~. ~ <~'- .... .,.,.,. P :-P,. ' '-*?-'-' ' i! ,,~'~' .. . '...., , · ' ,: .-~, ~ .:!'.ii . ~- ...... ;'2' :. ~ ~"~ ~ ' ' ~' ]'~ i,, ~..;;.~ t ~ ~:.:., .- :~...; :l',i . ,.~ ,~?,...: .. . -~-~ ~..,~ . ..~, ,"'~ . ;. . / ~ ~ ..... .~ . . . ". '~: : I' . :'.~.ilili ~" ..... '"'~ '~iE ." '~ ..... i, i-ii ~:"':'i" . . . · . ~l t~ ;~ , p r; . ';1',:' ":.'.~ /' -; ,'.. ~ i .i..:~ "' ~; :~ :" ~" ~i -~ :' I' ~'~:: i- ~ ~ ~ ..... ~.' ,. i'i',' ~ '.'. ' ,I · -,:.¢~' .~./'~.. ;." .:i'",~" !i ·" · . ' j ' t/ "' ~ . /~... :.;il. iii :~' " " i ' // ~ .-:.=~'e=' ,'" x '"' ' "', ~:,'ti' .~ :' -. -"j,, i: i ¢~~' ,.~-~ ...... ~ .., - ' . :,", ;"' . !'L:~: :'"':. ~'! ~i ~ L..~ . ~ ! u~ 4 ,,:m_:. -,~.,~,e i",, x ' '. *'"'~ ~ ". .... :~ il; i i:"..." I " ~,~ t .. ~ -~ ~ L.~ -, x ,'~. '"~:: ~;"": ' . .. .' ~i , :- , , -. ,,.,, . ~ . ~ .... .. , ........ , ........ ~'~ ii . ;i'~ , . ~ ~ u" ~ J-: .... ' ...... ' ..... i": ~ , ~ii ' ~i ~ .... ;" ........ :. ' '" ' ~" ', x ' '"'F~ii~. "" "::",.. ~,i i~li ". .,". ' ' ' i - ~¥ , ~-~ '. ' 'i · ' ' . ~, ~ ..... ' ........ ' ............... ' ~'~ ii '".~', ,=: i ""' '-=~' ' :, ...... .';'.~,:'~ t"~"'."~ :.'i':':' ~ .... . ' c~.~ ..... ,~ .' ~ " · ~ /' '~ ..,, -~.;. ... · . . . ~ ~ ,: ~ ....... . .... , . .it'1',;' ...,.... "~ ............ ~ -.' · '" ~ ..":~ .';_;.T'. ..... ~ ...~ ...... " ..... "'i? El'l ' ' . ..... ' ' "~ ' '. I ~ ~ ~:-.~ '.~,~, .~-..-. ~ ~ ...... ': '" '-;- ~'~ ' ~ ' .... " ~ ".' ~'.. ~ ~ ~ · ~ '~F,7 _ .f -, / ,,',t ,, [ '("":.?'.',)',",.. i " ' '. ' "'" ........ -"':'" W , t ,.,; ;. ~ 'i ~ ~ ,~, .'i' '.~' ': "..; ' ..", ~x "'.. ~;~, ~ 'Nv<~F;:i'"~:f;D-'.'. '2" .] . '~;:":' i: ~"'.~;E'.:,'."~ ~'.)',~z '.' ).. :~: -.:.' ,'~'. :X ". ~ ', ~' . "~ ": .t ' ' b'i , '~ ; · ',..~ : X ~ '... '~ ', '.. :",, :~ .... "i ,.,,i~. ,'~,, ,, , .... .,~: !~ ~' ""~ · "-- '~ .. .... ;.. ~ , . . ~ ...... ""', ~'t. ~ _ 1 . i ' ,. . .;j ................. ; ; . , "' i / '. ~' ~ .k;."'i;2lF1 i.'~~ ~ ~ ~ '-:( i. . :. ~ ' i '- ' · ' " ,~ ..... "'"'~hl I I · ~!;. ;l~-'i.!::,l~, ' ti '~ '~ ~ "'~ ~' { ~ ~"" "' ~ ~ ' . :'~:'" ~ ......... ' ..... "'1 .... ' .......... ~, ..... ,~ l , ~', '":~? z ~ , I ~":~ ? ~ :"~'~'.,~': ....... ~:~'~,~. i1 , : ..... -,.-., ' -'~ ~" ~" ..... "~':1~;I=,i~,! ,F -.~,~ i: '".t."=.!E~; i , *4 ~'"4 ~ ~ ' ~.;'"~ i:'~; ; .......... 't" ~ ,, ~ ~il , , .,,~ .... ~ ................ ,., ,.~ .I,,~, ~,1. ' . "" -~-'.~ ' ..~.~, - ..... . ......... .,. ..... ~. -~,,. ,I · - '-¢ ' --t_ . ~.. ,~1,. i:--.~;~,,.~r,r-',,~ .... , ,1', i, ,,, :c. i!i ~',ii' q'~,.' ',;:,!~: ~ ill! I,~t~ ":"' '. ;,.'. ~" D;.,.,~ ,,...". a ~.?.,:i i~, , ',,.,,,:i .'~i..:-,,i;i-!' ~ I .... i..: ~-.,:~ .... ~,, ........ , ,, ,, . . ............. ~ ...... ,-.t ~ ~ ..... .i;;': i" " .... ....... "l ..... ' . .......... . ...... · ............................................ ~ ~:': '~"-'"'"~"i "" '""~ ~ ~ 'i;.,i;.~.~g' . ~:i ~'~' ~'~J~i~~~1~: ~ '''"' ........ ',~i,,~ .............................. ~ :'"'"~ .............. ~'~'" '~ .. · ENGINEERING REPORT ... .. · . . . . .... · . .. . · '. .WATER sUPpLY ... . . · . . · . ~ For".: :, .. . .. . ... ...'...... · .... ...... .. , . . . .. · · ... ." ~' MARINE ASSOCIATES INC. " ' .. ..... 24-UNIT CONDOMINIUM ' '" · , .. .I NEW. SUFFOLK,, , ,.. .. . . , . . . . APRIL 1985 Prepared By , · ~ . , JOHN P. MAHONEY, P.E. .. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ',.'.. P.'.O. .BOX 117 EAST ISLiP, N-Y-'1~?~O Engineering Report' - on Weter Supply for Marine Associates Inc. 24-UnitlCondominium New Suffolk, N.Y. ] ' Scooe .of Project l . A 24-unit condominium consisting of 2-bedroom units iR proposed for a 3.E? acre parcel 10cared between First Street ~d Peconic Bay at New Suffolk in the;To%~ of Southold. (see location map, Addendum - page 1) ; ~;ater Suoolv Demand The water supply requirementscn a daily demand basis is: 24 units x 225 gal/unit/day ~ 5~00 gal. Total arc, ual demand is: 5400 gal/daM x 30 days x 4 months = 648,000 gal. "The project is conceived as ai su~=mer operation only with the lseason extending from the Memokial Day weekend through the end of September. Site Descriotion Elevations on the site are relatively constaut va~,ing from El. 5.5 at First Avenue to 4.5 at the bulkhead. Soils are from the Pleistocene series of th~ Ouatsrnary system (see Addend~n - page 2) consisting of undi£ferentiated outwash deposits. A test hole shows 2 feet of misce!l~neous fill of sand . and shells~ six feet of consolidated bog, .and then clean sand and gravel. Ground water is at elevation There is no vegetation on tho site. The entire site has been used for industrial purposes for many years. Water Resources There is no public water supply available in the area. There is no liklihood of a public supply for m~ny years. The project must deoend on the ground water resources available at the site. Site InvestiEmtion Test wells were.constructed in four locations (see site plan Addendum, page 3). Test results are sho~m on Addendum pages 4-A through 4-E. Test wells #3 and ~4 show good wa~er strata between elevation -4.0 to -20~0. Well f4 results on page 4-A-of Addendum show results at elevation -20.0 after I hour of pumping at 30 gpm. ~u adequate:supply of high quality water is'availaWle at this depth. Two'wells separated by 50 ft. will be placed at this ~pth in this atom'(as sho~ on the site plan included in the Addendmm). - 2- Consumptive Use of Water . Since ~ll water withdra~au for domestib purposes will be retu~-~led to ground water via cesspools, consumptive use of water is estimated at zero. The possibility of watering ground covers introduced in development is minimal. .The ~antifying of a safe yield for the site is unnecessaz7 in the absence of a bignificant consumptive use o~~ water. Water Supoly Design Oonsiderations Despite the absence of a cons~motive use of water, the design of the water supply system must recognize the delicacy of the fresh water reservoir. The average depth of 27 feet of the reservoir renders it ~~alnerable to contamination from sewage introduced above and from the movement upwards of:saline waters from below. The water supply system shall consigt of two wells, each set 20 feet into the fresh water.reservoir. At this depth, chlorides are expected to be ~00~120 mg./1. Maximum capacity of each well. shal~ be 15 gpm. Bolth wells will operate simul- taneous!y. The intent of thi arrangement is to prevent]the establishment of a drawdo~m curve, about each well. The absence of a drawdown will prevent the upconinglof saline water into the well point. Sewage Disposal facilities will be placed seaward of the wells to prevent migration of:sewage constituents to the wells. Horizontal movement shall:be directly seaward from the cesspool effluents penetrating vertically to the saline interface below the sewage dispo~] area. A 2500 gal. tank shall be provided for a one half hour contact time for chlorine which will be introduced from chlorinators operating in tandem with the well pumps. From the contact tank, ~, duplex pump arrangement will pump into a .J. 1000 gal. pneumatic tank. A 2½"i dia. water line '~ill deliver water to the condominium units as shc~% on the site olan. Future Develooment of New Suffolk The zoning mao of the Town 6f Southold (Addendum, page 5) shows the potential for future d~velopment in the New Suffolk area. New Suffolk is s long estabiished area of residential properties. These properties can be characterized'as year- round housing in the south mud e~sterly portion of' the community. This housing is on small plots with little ~otential buiiding possible in the future. The remaining areas of New Suffolk are sunnier residences on !larger plots. There is little !ik!ihood of substantial additional develCpment in these areas. As a consequence, the present physical, chcmical and qu~utity characteristics of the W~ter Fesource et the subject site should remain 1unchanged into! the forseeable future. Effects of the ~rooosed New Condominiums Cohsiderable improvement to the water resources on the subject site w£11 be realized upon construction of the condo- minium project. Sewage Disposal At present, an active boatyard with~12 employees an~ m~ny business patrons combine with an existing'restauraut of 70-seat capacity to produce a sewage flow estimated at gal. daily. Sewage is presently idisposed by septic tank and cesspool systems. The condominium project is e~timated at 540U gallons daily. However, in contrast with: the restaurant ~nich is a year-round operatibn, and the shioyard which is a 9-month operation, the condominium project is a d-month' activzty. Denitri~ication of the sewag& waste is required by the Dept. of Health. The condominium will therefore return to ground water ~n improved waste stream. The result will be a greatly reduced level of insult to the water resource. '~ater Demaud At presentj a single well of 15 gpm capacity located 75 feet west of th~ shipyard supplies all water used on the site. Consumptive use of water occurs .~s a consequence of the ship- yard activity. Boats are resupplied with water, but a large cons,~mptive use occurs in the working and cleaning of boats. Evaporation from their surfaces takes a fair portion of al% water used on the site. All this loss will cease upon .construc- tion of the condominiums. The existing well will be retained for use in the con- domini~l project. It will be incorporated into the supply system represented by the proposed new wells. I% will also wells, operate in unison with these ~furt~er reducing the possibility of draw-down.~~ k \ ~ P.E. Jo~ , Consulting Eniineer - 6- .AT[ON OF MAP UNITS · i QUATERNARY DESCRIPTION OF MAP L~ITS RDNKONKOMA GROUND ~ORAINE RONKONKOMA TERMINAL MORAINE ou'rwAstl DEPOSITS, UNDIFFERENTIATED Lib No_ Date Received in Lab Field No. ')~2 ~ Public Water Time:Date: ~/- ~','~ ~ ¥'%' P~ivate WaterOther Col_ By: ~ ~ Date Completed (Name not iqizials) Examined By SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES . PUBLIC HEALTH LABORA~ORY CHEMICAL EXAM[NATION OF WATER N&me . District Location ; // ~emark~: Results Reported as Microorams.,~ar, Liter. · ~bmo. .~C- ~ ~ ~6~_.~,~d in ~ .... Col. ~y __ ~./~- D~te SUFFOLK CObp;TY D~A~T~LNT OF ME.TH SERVICES DIVISION OF F~D]CAL LEG~ IhAr~ST~GAT]O)2S ~ ~O~}~GIC SCIENCES ? ~oi~t ~t Collection . · :_. Co~pound ppb ComDouqd "' ~ Br c.~ouh/or ~r,ethane ........... ~ 251 --an~ D]ck]o:oethvlenc ....... -. ~= 252 Ch]orcfo~ .................... ~ 25~ p-Xy!ane ........................ 1,2 Dfcblcroethsne .... /~ 255 ],l,_~ Tr~ch]oroethane ......... .~ ~8~c Chlo~chanzcne- .................. -- . Et,,~ ~ ~n .... e .................... 1 Brc~c-2-Ch]o:cethane ........ ~_ Lg~ !:i E'{c~crc :c~9~_ -i~ ~'' o-Ch~oroto].ue~e ..... 1,1,2 Tr]ch]ore~thy]ene ....... ~ 2~'~ Ch 1 orodibrc~...e th ~n ~ .......... ~ ~ p-Ch/orot oluenc. ],~ D~bro=o~than~ ............. ~=~ 265 ?-P r or, D- 1-Chl or opt opa n e ........ ~. ~]5 m-O~ chi.or oben; eh9 ............... Bz~r,c fo~ ..................... /~ 412 u-Dich]crcbcnzcn~ Tetr ach]oroethy] en~ ........... ~ 4]3 p-Dich],orohcn= cne ............... ClS D~c~!croc-tky]cno ..... ~ '~ ~ 1,2 ~ eon ~13 ........ . ~_ ~{~¢-~- 2,3 PEDNEAULT ASSOCIATES TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. (~15) 5~9.150s 4040 SUNRISE HtGHWAY P.O. BOX 53g OAKDALE; NEW Y~)RK 11769 Ju~j 12, 1982 TO: M~J~oney Engineering P.O. Box East Isllp., New York 1175~ Date: Collected ....7J~./.~. ....... Analyzed ...Tj~_.l.0~[~ ...... Report .....7./.L~J.~ ...... Sampling Point 1. ~'~..s.u~4/~ .~.~ .~. ~..4. o. ~.toAJ~..z.4. ~.~, ................................................ 2. N.o.r~ .F.o~. St~ipy~. W¢.~..#. ~. ~.n.~..S~i.~~ ........................................ 3. J~',~:. ?~.-~[~R tJ~.~.~l~t ~f~ .................................................. 4. ~.~..'~.~. ~ ?.o,:~[~.s.l?~. ~.~.~'.~. ?. .4.15. .~.; .......... , ..................... . ................ Parameters I 2 - 3 4 5 Chlorid~ mg/1 I04.2 '76.4 1419.4~ 25.8 ~H 6.7 6.7 O,~ga~c Nit~ o~en rog/1 7.64 5.21 Ammon~ m~/1 I. 52 0.62 Ni~at~ m~/£ 3. ~ 5 7.71 Nit~ite mg/1 0.012 0.025 Sulfa~!e rog/1 29.5 32.0 I,~on ~g/l k. 0.30 o.0~ Man4an~se m~/1 I 0.09 0.I0 JOHN PEDNEAULT Lab Director Lab Number 23939 PEDNEAULT ASSOCIATES TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. (516) S8§-1505 4040 SUNRISE HIGHWAY P.O. BOX 539 OAKDALE, NEW YORK 11769 J~ne 7, IgC2 TO: Mahoney Enginee~in~o P.O. Box 11-7 E~3t Is~p, N~o Yo,tk 11750 · Date: C~311ected :... 5/2:~/.&~. ....... Analyzed :... 5{27~6/~/.~2. . Report ...... ~,/7/82 ..... Sampling Point I..~ortd~. ~or~ Y~d .N~ Su~o~ .~. ~. Z. l.~f~ ..................................... Parameters 1 2 3 4 5 pH FT. 2 ~ Ohlo~d~ mg/1 165.0 N~ate m~/1 O, 9b I~o~ m~./1 O. 55 Manqan~e mO/~ <~ O. 01 JOHN PEDNEAULT Lab Di~-ector Lab Number 25759 PEDNEAULT ASSOCIATES TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. (516) 589-1505 404O SUNRISE HIGHWAY - ' P.O. BOX 539 OAKDALE, NEW YORK 11769 June 7, 1982 TO' M~honey Engineering P.O. box 117 Ea~ Islip, N~w Yo,~=k 11730 Date: Collected .... .5~.~7./.~2 ....... Analyzed ... 5/f~Z~/4./.8.2.. Report ..... 4/.7/~2 ...... ' Sampling Point Parsmeters I 2 3 4 5 ' 0 ~ Chlo,~Zdc mq/1 883.4 2581. 80.4 ~.I JOHN PEDNEAULT · Lab Number ~$759 Lab Director 4-~ TO ENGI_~UEERING REPORT ON t~AT~R SIrPPLY ( 'APRIL 19~S3) REVERSE OSMOSIS SEPTemBER 1983 FOR ~w~h~! ~VE ASSOCIATES NEW SUFFOLK, N. Y Prepared by Joh_u P. Mahoney, P.E. Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 117 East Islip, N.Y. 11730 £ ~' SUPPL~CENTARY ENGINEERING REPORT ~ ON REVEP, SE OSMOSIS F0R M_~RINE ASSOCIATES INC. ~-EW SUFFOLK, N.Y. Status Of Project ~ee Dept. of Health Services has rejected the engineer- ing report on water supply dated April, 1983 (a copy of ~ v~nich accompanies this supplementary report). This rejection describes the water supply from the test well as "marginal" d~'spite the chemzcal analysis of the water showing it to be within the potable water supply standards of the U.S.P.H.S. by reasonable ~mounts in all parameters tested. The ace3~ifer from ~nich this water was taken w~s subject to ~ pumping ~sst beyond any stress it could expect in normal sera-ice. The Dept. of Health Services in its letter of rejection stat%d it wanted "deeper wells which mitigate my concern over s~itary quality, followed by mdv~nced water treatment methodologies". In order to meet this demand for an absolute answer wherein neither quantity of the raw water Source or quality~ of the treated water is in doubt, the water supply will be provided by means of a reverse osmosis treatment system. Reverse Osmosis ~e reverse osmosis system is an advanced water treatment m&thodology called for by the Dept. of Health Services. Reverse Osmosis is al widely used, well proven method of water supply. It has;demonstrated its reliability and feasibility in far larger and more diverse applications all over the world, its use at:this site represents hard- ship pnly in its relative expensive cost over the original proposal for water supply. On the accompanying p~ans, the location of the supply wells ~ud the layout of the total water supply system is shown_. Details of R. 0. Water SUDD!y System Two Culligan_ S~ 060 seawater reverse osmosis systems will be provided. Each wiil be equipt ~hth its own 2" dia. well -with the screen set at 70 f t, depth below grade. The normal feed rate is 11.9 gpm for each unit. well capacity is 20 gpm. ~ominal!y rated at 6000 gpd, each system will pro- duce approximately ~500 gallons ,daily. ~nis reduced output is a resedit of water temperature at 53° F and a stabilization point reached by the membranes of the unit after 15 months of operation~ Nonetheless, sufficient redundancy is provided due to the nature of the R~0. process° The major cause of failure is fo~ling of the membranes. Since %hree cartridges comprise the uni% each can be replaced with only a short shut down of the unit. The produc~ water ~ll me~t U S P H S standards for drinking water. ~vironmental Considerations No detrimental effects icl the environment c~nbe ~uti- cipat~d as a result of the R. 0~ process. Seawater is tmken at a depth of 70 ft. below grade. This is approximately 35 ft. below the bottom of tlne'fresh water acquifer. Since only 5400 gallons a day are to be %~thdra~.~, no distortion of the fresh water reservoir can be anticipated. Dae to ~e denitrification p~ocess required for the sewage disposal system, the ne~ effect of the R.O. system is to increase the volume of fresh water in the acquifer. The denitrification process removes nitrogen from the waste stream. Since the tre~at~d sewage is discharged to the ground water, the existing! fresh water acquifer of New g~ffolk is protected to some shall degree by the desalinized water produced by the R.O. system. The proposed condomini~m project ~ill replace ~n active boatyard ~nd year-round restaurant. The R.0. process provided for the condominium will result in the elimination of .any demand upon the fresh water resources of New Suffolk. Sewage from both present activities on th~ site will also be eliminated. On b~ance, the environmental impact of the proposed condominium ~roject will be a substantial net gain through the elimination of any dem'and on the existing fresh wa%er resource and a tremendous reduction in the level of contaminants introduced into the ground water. Other components of the ~ater Suooly System Two 3000 gal. storage t~ks ~1! be provided. B~pproximately one day's demamd will be available in the event one of the R.O. units is ldown for repairs.. Standby chlorination is provided. Calculations on which the system sizing is based is included herewith. Technical details of the R.O. system are provided in the addendum. Aug.~st ~, ~983 Page 1 Log of test well la Chemical ~nalysis~of test~well at 70 feet 2-2d Calculations on perfo~-mance and sizing of R, O. system Description of R.O. system 5 Schematic of R.0. unit 6Layout of R. 0. and water supply system 7a-c Equipment Performance Specifications and Projections 8-9 Diagrams of membrane a~d cartridge 10-1 1 Technical Specifications 12 Estimate of operational costs Insert Site plam PEDNEAULT ASSOCIATES TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. {516) 467-B477 1815 NINTH AVENUE '- 'BOHEMIA, N.Y. 11716 J~n¢ 50, 1985 TO: Ma~ne Assoc--, Inc. Nm Suffolk, N~o York 11956 Date: Collected .'...6/.~.4[~,~ ....... Analyzed ...6./.~.4.-'~/8~ .... Report .. ~/~0/.~ ....... Sampling Point' 1..~.q~.~. ?o~tb Sh,~p~d. = ..~ .(,-t .... ' ....................... 2..N. qr.~., l=.o.r~.. ~ttipg~. ~ . ~ .~, .................... : ................ : ................. ~3..N..~ .~, .Fp.r~..,~,(p~'.~;L: .~o..f.~:. ................................ : ..................... -4..~qr~, f~,~.$/~b'~(/..-.~..~.~. ...................................................... 5..~/q~ .th, ~p.r~ .~/-~pg~.: .~.~..~.~ ........................................ ~ ............. Parameters I , 2 $ 4 5 Chloride mq/1 5575! 15~34 15485 15735 1578~ To~al Dissolved Sol~ rnq/l 6268i 37250 47576 4~134 40144 Ammonia ~q/£ 6.96! 0.566 0.062 0.517 0.686 N~cr~t~ ~/1 $.2~I 0.44 0.24 0.23 fl.28 NJ_t, rlte m~/1- 0.011i 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 ~.I¢~'~n¢ B~e A¢,C_J, Ue su, bs~nce mq/£' <0.05i <'0.05 <'0.05 <0.05 <0.05 JOHN PEDNEAULT -Lab Number ~05.~ Lab Director %CATER ANALYSIS* (Sample. taken at 70 feet: after 2 hours pumping at 20 gpm) Mg/1 as CaC0 C~lci~n' 720 Magnesium 3,700 Sodiu~ Potassium N/A Chloride 20,000 Sulfate 2,580 ~itrate None Bicarbonate 120 Silica 9.6Mg/t as SiO2 pH 7.4 *Analysis performed at Cuilig'~-n Laboratories, North- brook, Ill. ' '~ - -, ..... ·-~'"~o~--r-~-~'"~ -'-~" ~'o~, ' " * · ' ~--. ~'~-:L~k._-_~' ~._-'.~i~:=,_ k ~=~ ~.~ ~= j.¥.- ~? = I?~E:-~L~I "~ ~ ~ I~ -., ' ~ · ,' ~ ~=-' =: ~ C~ · ~r,'-~.. - ~1 ...~: :_:. .::: .-: :. ' : :'::: :~ :: ; ~ ....... ~ ~--~ .... , ...... :~h .................. ,:.-~4....-.::'.".:' :~:':--:'.: .......... ' ......... "':::::::': ......... ' ....' ......... , ~ .. . ~¢% ...... ~-~::.:.: ":':';-"~'~ :.~ / ~'--:'-~:: :..~. ; ............... ' ":' ~ . : ~ [~. ~D o~ : : i ' ~. :. ~ -; :~.' : ~ ': :' :. l:.l' ;. ':.':'~.;i;.:~::[:::::: AQUA-CLEER SWL SERIES ;' R.O. SEWATER CO~DTERSION SYSTEM SYSTE~! DESCRIPITON A. INTRODUCTION The Aqua-Clear SWL Series is designed for conversion of seawater to drinking water using the Reverse Osmosis process. The unit ha~ been designed f6r use on a seawater well. The ~atural filtration of the earth surrohnding the well minimizes the need for pretrmmtment. Th~ need for polymer feed for'removal of iron from ehe feed water can be eliminated by ~sm of plastics, fiberglass or lined carbon steel pipe in the feed system. It is also recommendmd thaf non-corrosive materimls be used in the seawater, feed pumps as well. The system is designed for continuous operation or can be operat- ed from a tank level switch. Operator attention is required once daily to monitor system performance. B. SYSTEM OPERATION (Refer to Aqua-Clear SW~ Flow Diagram) 1. A-20 antiscalant is injected into the raw seawater to prevent scale formation. 2..' The seawater is filtered through a 5 micron filter. The filter housing is all plastic construction and houses replaceable fil~er elements. 3. The f$1tered seawater is pressurized to 800-1000 psi by tko high pressurelpump. The high pressure pump and R.O. modules are protected from over-~ressurization by a relief device at the pump discharge. 5. ~xe high pressure seawater passes through. R.O. Modules. The R.O. module produces fresh water from seawater. 6. The concentrated brine from the module flows through a needle valve which regulates the system pressure. 7. Produc~ water flows from the R.O. module [o th~ unit storage tank which provides product water required to flush the R.O. system a~ shutdown. The fo~,,ard flush ~yst'em allows product water to be drawn through the system by [he high pressure pump. This rinses the sclc from the system %~hich prevents : membrane dry out and corros'ioh during normal shu~do~m. SWL SER~S SYSTEM DESCRIPTION C. ELECTRICAL ~ONTROLS' The Electrical Control System consists of two circuits, a ,high voltage circuit for the high pressure pump motor and a ,low voltage circuit for the electrical controls. Ail motor starters and ~lectrical controls are housed in NE~ 12 enclosures. Other voltages are available. Pump operation will be interrupted by low pump suction pressure. The motor canno~ be restarted until corrective action has been taken and the circuit reset. The low pressure shuu-down may be locked out while the forward flush cycle is operated. i. Safety .Circuit The safety circuit is for: low pump suction pressure. This situation will result in shut-dowm of the high pressure pump, and when activated will close a set of auxiliary contacts. The a~xiliary contacts are provided for connection of a remote alarm system. The contacts will remain closed until the circuit is reset. D. SEAWATER SUPPLY SYSTbM Seawater must be supplied to the system at the. flow rates and pressures specified on the equipment Specifications Sheet. The seawater should be free from iron corrosion products. Therefore, the system' including the feed pump, must be c.onstructed from non-corros~ve materials. Culligan recommends that the feed pump be made from non-corrosive materials and that 'the supply piping and well oasing be of PVC, 'fiberglass or other non-corrosive construction. If the source of t~e seawater supply is from an ocean intake or corrosive materials are used for the seawater feed system, additional pretreatment may be required. Culligan can recommend and supply all pretreatment equipment necessary. EQUIPMENT PEKFOBMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECTIONS MODEL: SWL-060 A. DESIGN BASIS Feed Water Analysis Reference STD Seawater Total Dissolved.Solids (ppm) 35,000 Silt Density Index ($ID) 3.0 Design Temperature (°C) 25 Minimum Pressure (Gar-psi) 2.8 / 40 Required Flow Rate (M3/hr-GPM) 2.7 / 11.9 Product1 Nominal Flow Rate (M3/day-GPD)/" 22.7 / 6000 ~nimal Quality (ppm TDS) 500 Haste ~ominal Flow Rate ~/hr-GPM) 1.8 ~ 7.7 Nominal Co~centrationi(ppm TDS) 53,600 B. ELECTRIC POWER · Power Supply Required 230 V/60 Hz/1 phase Total Power Required - avg. 5.7 ~W R.O. Pump Motor 10.0 HP Enclosure TEFC Equipme~= Performauc~ Spec±fic~'tions and Projections HODEL: SWL-~60 C. PIPING Low Pressure Conforming to Piping . Type 1, Grade 1, sch 80 PVC ASTM D-1785 Fittings Type lf. Grade 1, -$ch 80 PVC (threaded) ASTM D-2464 (socket welded) ASTM D-2467 High Pressure Piping 316 Stainless Steel, sch 80 ANSI B 36.19 Fittings 316 Stainless Steel, min 2000 psi ANSI B 16.11 D. COATING AkrD PAINTING R.O. Skid Zinc Primed Entire Sys~em.(after fabrication/testing) Epoxy Painted E. SYSTEM DIliENSIONS . R.O. Skid Height (M/Ft) 1.4 / 4.58 Width (M/Ft) .84 / 2.75 Length (M/Ft) 1.47 ! 4.83 Weight, Dry (Kg/lbs) 680 ! 1500 Technieallspecifications SWL Serie~ , F. INSTRUMENTATION (cont'd) Product Quantity A water meter is included in the product water line to indicate the total production of the system. Plow Indicators A ro~ometar mounted by ~he control panel allows cohs~ant readout of reject flow rate. Sample Ports Sample ports allow the pressure and water quality of the feed, brine reject, and product water to be measured for each individual module. Elapsed Time Monitor To help schedule routine maintenance of the high pressure pump, au elapsed time meter is provided to record Pump operation hours. Safety Devices To prevent damage [o the unit, khut down will occur due ~to Iow pump suction pressure. This prevents p~mp damage due to pump starvation caused by restricted feed flow. High and low pressure relief valves assure protection of piping from pressure surges. If additional pretreatment is 'required, Additional interlocks will be included as aeeded go prevent system damage. G. ELECTRICAL SYST~.[ AIl necessary electrical components and cabling are provided with the unit. Ail control components are located within NE~iA 12 panel. Electrmcal installatioa requires only a sinkle 230 volt, 60 Hertz, single phase connection. Conduit and Cable' CCnduit 'runs shall be heavy wall~ rigid aluminum with aluminum fittings or flexible liquid-tight conduit. -7c- No. 276 Du Pont Company, Polymer Products Depl:., Permasep* Produd~s, UJilmington, DE 19898 PERB/IASEP® PERMEATOR MODEL NO. 6840-063N 8" DIAMETER B-10 PERiViEATORS PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Membrane type B-10 ~ramio Membrane con[iguratJ0n HolJow fiber Shell dimensions 10-3/8" OD × 8-1/2" ID x 59" long . f26 4 cm OD x 21.6 crrt ID x 149.9 cm long) Shell material F[lemen[-wound fiberglass epoxy End plates and segmenIed nngs Fiberglass Connections Feed. proddc'~ and brine '- 3/4" female, NPT Brine sample 2/8"fem¢le, NPT 'Permeator weight, filled v, itn ',,:aler 225 pounds (102 kg) t Operating pos;finn Honzontaf or ,,'er~¢a~ f Inibal product water capacity' 6.300 gpd (23.85 m:,'db.y) nominal · 10% . Salt passage' <~ 1.5% Rated operating pressure2.~ s0n-1,000 pslg [5,515 6.895 kPal Temperature range~ 32 ;-95 :F (0'-$5: C) M~nimum brine rate= 6.000 gpd !22 71 m;/day) Max;mum prine rate ,40.000 gpd 1'151.4 m3/dayj -8- TECHNICAL, SPEC~FICATION AQUA-CLEER SWL SERIES SEAWATER RE%tERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS REVERSE OSMOSIS A. POLISHING FILTER A 5 micron filter prov£das protection against p~rtlale fouling of the modules. Five micron-filter elements are employed in .the' plastic filter housing. : B. HIGH PRESSURE PU~S The high pressure pump increases the filtered seawater to its operational pressure of 800-1000 psi. A high ~fficiency plunger type pump Ss utilized · - in the AQUA-CLEER System. No specmal tools or skills are required. All wetted parts are aluminum-bronze, ceramic or stainless steel to assure corrosion resistance. Flow throug~ accumulators provide surge-free feed to the R.O. modules. C. REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULES , puPont B-10 aramid hollow fiber permeators ar~ used in Culligan seawater converters. Since their commerical introduction in 1973, they have been ecoemically desalting highly brackish and seawaters worldwide. Ihe long term performance of these membranes has been proven: and ongoing research; at DuPon~ is continually expanding :their applicability. - D. FLOI~ACK' TAA~ P~oduc~ water flows directly to the flowbaek tank. This tank provides a- s~pply of fresh water required to flush the R.0. system at shut down. The forward flush system allows product water to be drawn through the system by the high pressure pump. This rinses the salt from the system thus prevanning membrane dry out and corrosion due to stagnant seawater during normal shut down. If power to the unit is lost, natural osmosis will draw water from this tank back into the modules to prevent membrane dehydrmtion. Technical Specification SW-L Series E. PIPING AR~ VALVES All valves and piping are of high strength, corrosion resistant materials. High pressure components are constructed of 316 stainless sgeel. Piping is schedule 80 with 316 $$ 2.000 ih. fittings or .welded construction. Pressure relief ~alves p~otect p~p~ng from inadvertent over pressure. All valves were chosen for their reliability and simplicity of operation2 Two way ball and ~e~dle valves of PVCland 316 'SS provide flow control in the system. Pipes and fittings conform to the following%specifications: Low pressure pipe ASTMD-1785' · Low pressure fitnings (less than 1.5") ASTM 0-2464 '~ Low pressure fittings (1.5 and greater) ASTM D-2467 High pressure pipe ANSI B 36.19 · ~; High pressure pipe fitti~gs ANSi B 16.11 F. INSTR~.~NTATION All ~nstrumentation is conveniently mounted to 'facilitate system monitoring. Pressure Gauges Corrosion resistant glycerine filled gauges with Ke~ isolaters are used to prolong service life. High pressure gauges are Q-i500 psi range and are installed on the feed manifold of the 'modules. Low pressure gauges are 0-200 psi range. All ganges are mounted for reading ease. Temperature' Seawater f~ed temperature is measured ~ith a stainless steel bimetallic type thermometer. ESTI}~TED OPERATING COSTS SWL 060 SERIES Units/1000 Gal. $/i060 Gal. Unit Cost Produce~ Produced Filters1 (aa) $ 2.95 .125 .3? A-~0 Antiscalant (lb) 1.86 .12 .22 Modules2 (ed) 9,028.00 .00009 .84 Po~a~ '(KWH) .05 23.I 1.16 Maintenance Supplies/Labor 10.00 .05 .50 Module Cleanlng3 Actual 'operating costs are dependent on many variables. Energy censumption fluctuates with seawater salinity and unit operating pressure. Unit costs will vary with plant location. Above is typical of a ~ystem operating on standard seawater at 25°C. Labor costs are averaged across the series and based on part time attendance. This cost- generally decreases as The system capacity increases. NOTES: 1. Based on monthly-replacement 2. Based on five yenr life 3. Module cleaning costs depend on location of ~embrane treatment station. If optional cleaning equipment is included with system, the.cost/1000 gallon prodncsd is $.07. This is based on four cleaning per year. : SUPPL~4ENT T0 ENGI hMEERING REPORT ON WATER S~Y REVERSE OSMOSIS SEPT~.IBER 1985 FOR Fu~RINE ASSOCIATES INC. NEW SUFFOLK, N.Y. Prepared by John P. Mahoney, P.E. "' ConsultinE Engineers -~ P.O. Box 137 East Is!ip, N.Y. 11730 SUPPL~dV~TARY ENGINEERING REPORT ON REVERSE OSMOSIS FOR MARINE ASSOCIATES INC. NEW SUFFOLK, N.Y. Status of Project The Dept. of Health Services has rejected the engineer- ing report on water supply dated April, 1983 (a copy of which accompanies this supplementary report). This rejection describes the water supply from the test well as "marginal" d~spite the chemical analysis of the water showing it to be within the potable water supply 7. standards of the U.S.P.H.S. by reasonable amounts in ~11 parameters tested. The acquifer from ~nich this water was taken was subject to a pumping test beyond any stress it could expect in normal service. The Dept. of Health Services in its letter of rejection stated it wanted "deeper wells which mitigate my concern over sanitary quality, followed by advanced water treatment methodologies". In order to meet this demand for an absolmte answer wherein neither quantity of the raw water Source or quality of the treated water is in doubt, the water supply will be provided by means of a reverse osmosis treatment system. Reverse Osmosis : The reverse osmosis system is an advanced water treatment'methodology called for by the Dept. of Health Services. Reverse Osmosis is a widely used, well proven method of water supply. It has demonstrated its reliability and feasibility in far larger and more diverse.applications all over the world. Its use at this site represents hard- ship only in its relative expensive cost over the original proposal for water supply. On the accompanying plans, the location of the supply wells and the layout of the total water supply system is shown. Details of R.O. ~ater Suoply System Two Culligan $~L 060 seawater reverse osmosis systems will be provided. Each will be equipt v~th its own 2" dia. well with the screen set at ?O f t. depth below grade. The normal feed rate is 11.9 gpm for each unit. The well capacity is 20 gpm. Nominally rated at 6000 ~pd, each system will pro- duce approximately 4500 gallons daily. This reduced - 2- output is a result of water temperature at 53° M and a stabilization point reached by the membranes of the unit after 15 months of operation. Nonetheless, sufficient redundancy is provided due to the nature of the ~o0. procesa~ The major cause of failure is fo~ling of the membranes. Since three cartridges comprise the unit each can be replaced with only a short shut down of the tuuit. The product water will meet U S P H S standards for drinking water. Environmental Considerations -No detrimental effects to the environment can be anti- cipated as a result of the R.O. process. 3eawater is taken at a depth of 70 ft. below grade. This is approximately 35 ft. below the bottom of the fresh water acquifer. Since only 5400 gallons a day are to be withdra~.,~, no distortion of the fresh w~ter reservoir can be anticipated. ~e to the denitrification p~ocass required for the se~.~age disposal system, the net effect of the R.O. system is to increase the volume of fresh water in the acquifer. The denitrification process removes nitrogen fron the waste stream. Since the treated sewage is discharged to the ground water, the existing fresh water acquifer of New Suffolk is protected to some small degree by the desalinized water produced by the R.O. syste~. - 3- The proposed condominium project will replace ~u ac~tive boatyard and year-round restaurant. The R.O. process provided for the condominium will result in the elimination of any dem~ud upon the fresh water resources of New Suffolk. Sewage from both present activities on the site will also be eliminated. On balance, the environmental impact of the proposed condominium project will be a substantial net gain through the elimination of any demand on the existing fresh water resource and a tremendous reduction in the level of contaminants introduced into the ground water. Other components of the Water Suooly System Two 3000 gal. storage tanks will be provided. Approximately one day's demand will be available in the event one of the R.O. units is down for repairs. Standby chlorination is provided. Calculations on which the system sizing is based is included herewith. Technical details of the R.O. system are provided in the addendum. } Consulting Engineer ' August ~6, ~983 Page I Log of test well la Chemical analysis of test'well at 70 feet 2-2d Calculations on performance and sizing of R.O. system Description of R.O. system 5Schematic of R.O. unit 6Layout of R.O. and water supply system 7a-c Equipment Performance Specifications and Projections 8-9 Diagrams of membrane and cartridge 10-11 Technical Specifications 12 Estimate of operational costs Insert Site plan PEDNEAULT ASSOCIATES TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. (516) 467-e477 1615 NINTH AVENUE BOHEMIA, N.Y. 11716 J,,ne 30, 1983 TO: ~kz,tlne Asso¢~_s, Inc.. North Fo,th Shlp~lard.s N~u S,q(folk, N~.u ~/ork 11956 Date: Collected ....6].~.4[~. ....... Analyzed ...~./.5.4.-,~L8~ ..... Report .. bl~0/.~t ........ Sampling Point 1.. t~q~ .~. y.o.~z. Sh~,p,~. ~ ..~ (~ .(~t, ...................................................... 2..~o.~.~.. p.oC. ~. . Sl~,p~. : . ~ .(t~ ...................................................... · 3..l~o.A.~. fp.4~ .$h~,pgp~t~. -..~ .(~ ...................................................... :4.. ~/q~,~. ~p.~-.$~.,~Ua~. ~. ~ ~..~ ...................................................... 5..Nqr~. F p.~ . Sh~up~d . = .Zo..~.~ ...................................................... Parameters I 2 3 4 5 Ch£o~lde r~/l 3375 ' 15634 15485 15735 15785 Total Dl.~olved SoLids mg/1 6268 37230 47376 42134 40144 Arnmonia m~/1 6.96 0.366 0.062 0.317 0.686 Nit~a~ m~/l 3.29 0.44 0.24 0.23 0.58 Ni~it~ rnO/l. 0.011 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 M~th~£ene Blue ActJve Sub~tan~e mq/£ ~ O. 05 ~ O. 05 ~ O. 05 < O. 05 < O. 05 JOHN PEDNEAULT Lab Number ~6058 Lab Director WATER ANALYSIS* (Sample taken at ?0 feet: after 2 hours pumping at 20 gpm) Mg/1 as CaCO3 Calcium 720 Magnesium 3,700 Sodium 17,000 Potassium N/A Chl ori de 20,000 Sulfate 2,580 Nitrate Mone Bi carbonate 120 Silica 9.6Mg/1 as Si02 pH 7.4 *Analysis performed at Cullig'an Laboratories, North- brook, Ill. -la- ~s:::::_ ........ :- :'.'":~.: · J · :' /: : I .. ~t : : : -I .-. :.- , I:F~::.-~':~:~¢,.o~i '"~ ': j'": 7": ~'" F~-7"[-~'-I ': ........ :':'1 '"~ '~' : ..... i ....... ~"-: ' ~._ ~:...~. .......... m~ ~o~o~..._..._.,,::.~.~ .......... ~ ....... ~..: ...... : ~'::~]~:~ ' · ' i . ~1 : . ~ ' ~ : · : : ~ : : -' '~: L. ~ .~ · : . : · ~ ' · ' ' ~ : ~ /:.} 7I : ' ' .: ' · ;: ":: ~ ~ .... .. : · . ~ · ~ · : · .:: . ~ . : : . . :: : .~ :::;"ii'::. ~:: .~' ' · . '00'O~...L ~... I.~.1 .~:_L.z_.J :..' ' '' '"/::77~?'~' ' /"~ ' ' : .... ~ ' " : '' ~ ~ ' ~'4"'~ ' ~ "7-: .... :.:~:::~L::" _=~ ..... i ' J ' ~ .......... "' J ' ~ .... ...... :"' ...... ~. :: ': : . ~.. : : . ~ : , · : .... ~..: .~ ...... ..: .. :..~ . ~ ~'-?" , , . .. ~ ..: . . ~.. .: :. · . . ~ .. .~ .... ~. : . [ . . ] ...... ~: .................. : · ~ : , · · . ~ · . ·. · ~ ~ ~ :.~ rZ : ~ , , . [ · ~ ,. :':: . .: . t : I ': ' ~ : : : ~ : ~ Z j · ~ . · ~ g' ' ' ~::::::.;::~ ..: z : ~e~+: 'co~'~,':~ ~3 ~LJ ] :':': ~ : [ J -[":"~";"::"' ~ ........ · : ''; j : : · i · : ~ ' i : :: :.~ ~ · ~ - . . ~: ~ -~--~ _~. .- . ~ ~ : ~ ~ :" ~ ..... ~ .: ~. ...~ .......... -2a- ~_..l ' I · ~---~ ['-T~T ........ I ~-%'-~:~ :~, : .l: --:--:--? ~- ': ' ~:.. :. I : - I~- : ~-~ : : : ~ . ~. I : : I :.: ~} .l:: : ~ ~:[-z ':'--: 'l'l .::.... [ .... ~l. JOOO 'l .... :l..~ ....... : ...... : ...... [ :l~ : Zll:--q}::~ ~-l~:::~:I ~.~ _ ~ l,nj ~: _~ _.~ x,~J (~8)~.:-~)r ~ l. .....: ' ' .........· ............... : ....... ['-- : ........ [ .....~ ~-': ~ 'Z' ~-"", ] ':..L: ::''[~ ~._ _' _ : ~ : : , . ' : , · .. . . , :'..~ .' · · ' '~7"V ...... ~ ....[ .... : 'j~ ~ ..... : '~ ~ ..... ~: .... ~' ~' ' ' ~ ........ ' ..... "' ...... ":'~ .... :"~:'": ~'D'~ ~ '' ~ .... 2 :' . . ~ ~'" :~ ...... : .~ .; ................. ~ .~.-..,. ~ ~ ~&ff · . . . .~-~z:..~'~:~-'.. '~ '.. ~ : ~ ~ ~ , ::. I ~ i.~.. . :: ~ · ~. ~ '. '/ .... ~ .... :-.':' : "7 .... ~ ..... :"-. .-"T: :''7': '~" ~'~Z :"':' ~ ' 'T, .. ~:;:~::~"?'"~ :" [: : : ' : ~. ~ :' : ~ ~ ~ [' : ~ ~ : : ': · ~ .[ F ~' ' ~ ' ' ' ':-'~ ~:..~-'-:': :: :. '~ :::: i : :U.l" : i : ...... ..... r'~:': ~ ":. ·: :-'. ~ 0~ ' I ': ~ ~ ~ .... i :''~:~.z ~'. . :... .: [ : : : ~ : :.:_.... ....... : . . : .... :.. : ~ .- :--- ~. : ~ ~.~ : .. : ................ : .~ . : ... : ........ : ...:. . : · ~ ' ~ : : ~ . ,~ · : . ~ : : . F. ~---~ ................... ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ : ~ ' : : ' AQUA-CLEER S6~ ~ERIES :' R.O. SEWATER CONVERSION SYSTEM SYSTEM DESCRIPITON A. INTRODUCTION The Aqua-Cleer SWL Series is designed for conversion of seawater to drinking water using the Reverse Osmosis process. The unit ha~ been designed f6r use on a seawater well. The natural .' filtration of the earth surrounding the well minimizes the need,' for pretreatment. The need for polymer feed for'removal of iron from the feed water nan be eliminated by use of plastics, fiberglass or lined carbon steel pipe in the feed system. It is also recommended that non-corrosive materials be used in the seawater feed pumps as well. The system is designed for continuous operation or can be operat- ed from a tank level switch. Operator attention is required once daily to monitor system performance, B. SYSTEM OPERATION (Refer to Aqua-Cleer SWL Flow Diagram) 1. A-20 antiscalant is injected into the raw seawater to prevent scale formation. 2. ' The seawater is filtered through a 5 micron filter. 'The filter housing is all plastic constr~ction and houses replaceable filter elements. 3. The filtered seawater is pressurized to 800-1000 psi by the high pressure'pump. 4. The high pressure pump and R.O. modules are protected from over-pressurization by a relief device an the pump discharge. 5. The high pressure seawater passes through. R.O. Modules. The R.O. module produces fresh water from seawater. 6. The concentrated brine from the module flows throagh a needle valve which regulates the system pressure. 7. Product water flows from the R.O. module to thJ unit storage tank which provides product water required to flush the R.O. system at shutdown. The forward flush syst'em allows product water to be drawn through the system by ~he high pressure pump. This rinses the salt from the system yhich prpvent~ membrane dry out and corros'ion during normal shutdown., -3-- SI~L SERIEs SYSTEM DESCRIPTION C. ELECTRICAL 'CONTROLS' The Electrical Control System consists of two circuits, a high voltage circuit for the high pressure pump motor and a iow voltage circuit for the electrical controls. All'motor starters and electrical controls are housed in NEMA 12 enclosures. Other voltages are available. Pump operation will be interrupted by low pump suction pressure. The motor cannot be restarted until corrective action has been taken and the circuit reset. The low pressure shut-down may be locked out while the forward flush cycle is operated. 1. Safety Circuit The safety circuit is for: low pump suction pressure. This situation will result in shut-down of the high pressure pump, and when activated will close a see of auxiliary contacts. The auxiliary contacts are provided for connection of a remote alarm system. The contacts will remain closed until the circuit is reset. D. SEAWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Seawater must be supplied to the system at the flow races and pressures specified on the equipment Specifications Sheet. The seawater should be free from iron corrosion products. Therefore, the system including the feed pump,, must be constructed from non-corrosive materials. Culligan recor, mends that the feed pump be made from non-corrosive materials and that the supply piping and well ~asing be of PVC, fiberglass or other non-corrosive If the source of t~e seawater supply is from an ocean intake or additional pretreatment may be required. Culligan can recommend and supply all pretreatment equipment necessary. -6 ¢ ( EQUIPMENT PERFOR~ta~NCE SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECTIONS MODEL: SWL-060 A. DESIGN BASIS Feed Water Analysis Reference STD Seawater Total Dissolved Solids (ppm) 35,000 Silt Density Index (SID) 3.0 Design Temperature (°C) 25 Minimum Pressure (bar-psi) 2.8 / 40 Required Flow Rate (M3/hr-GPM) 2.7 / 11.9 1 Product Nominal Flow Rate (M3/day-GPD) 22.7 / 6O00' Minimal Quality (ppm TDS) 500 Waste Nominal Flow Rate (M3/hr-GPM) 1.8 / 7.7 Nomimal Comcentration.(ppm TbS) 53,600 B. ELECTRIC POWER Power Supply Required 230 V/60 Hz/l phase Total Power Required - avg. 5.7 KW R.O. Pump bio,or · 10.0 HP ' Enclosure TEFC -Ta- Equipment Performance Specifications and Projections MODEL: SWL-~60 C. PIPING ~ Low Pressure Conforming to Piping . Type 1, Grade 1. sch 80 PVC ASTM D-1785 Fittings Type 1~ Grade 1, .sch 80 PVC (threaded) ASTM D-2464 (socket welded) ASTM D-2467 High Pressure Piping 316 Stainless Steel, sch 80 ANSI B 36.19~ Fittings 316 Stainless Steel, min 2000 psi ANSI B 16.11 D. COATING AND PAINTING R.O. Skid Zinc Primed Entire System'(after fabrication/testing) Epoxy Painted E. SYSTEM DIMENSIONS R.O. Skid Height (M/Ft) 1.4 / 4.58 Width (M/Ft) .84 / 2.75 Length (M/Ft) 1.47 / 4.83 Weight, Dry (Kg/lbs) 680 / 1500 -7b- Technical. specifications S~L Series " F. INSTRUMENTATION (cont'd) Product Quantity A water meter is included in the product water line to indicate the total production of the system. Flow Indicators A ro~ometer mounted by the control panel allows constant readout of reject flow rate. Sample Ports Sample ports allow the pressure and water quality of the feed, brine reject, and product water to be measured for each individual module. Elapsed Time Monitor To help schedule routine maintenance of the high pressure pump, an elapsed time meter is provided to record pump operation hours. Safety Devices To prevent damage to the unit, shut do~n will occur due to low psmp suction pressure. This prevents pump damage due to pump stsrvation caused by restricted feed flow. High and iow pressure relief valves assure protection of piping from pressure surges. If additional pretreatment is 'required, additional interlocks will be included as needed to prevent system damage. G. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Ail necessary electrical components and cabling are provided with the unit. Ail control components are located within NE~ 12 panel. Electrical installation requires only a single 230 volt, 60 Hertz, single phase connection. Conduit and Cable' Cdnduit'runs shall be heavy wall; rigid aluminum with aluminum fittings or flexible liquid-tight conduit. -?C- No.' ~76 Du Pont Company, Polymer Products Dept., Oermasep* Produd~s, Wilmington, DE 19898 PERMASEP'~ PERMEATOR MODEL NO. 6840-063N 8" DIAMETER B-10 PERMEATORS PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS - ; Membrane type B-10 aram,d Membrane conhgurahon Hollow h~er Shell d~mensions '10-3/8" OD x 8-1/2" ID × 59" rang f26 4 cm OD x 21 6 cm ID x 149.9 cm long) Shell maleeal Fdamenl-wodnd f,berglass epoxy End plates and segmented nngs F~berglass epoxy Connecbons Feed, product and bane 3/4" female r',IPT Brine sample. 3/8" female. NPT Permealor wefght, htled w~lh water 225 pounds ( ~02 kg) ODerahng pO$l[IOR Honzonlal or verhcal f In,hal product wa[er pa pacib/' 6.300 gpa f23.85 rn~, day) norn~nal --10% ¢ Salt passage' <~ 1 5% Rated operahng pressure2'3 800-1 000 ;,s,g (5.515-6.895 [,Pal Temperature range= 32 -95 F(0:-35 C) pH range3, COnhndOus e~Oosure 4-9 M~n~mum brine rate' 6.000 gpd (22.71 mUdayl / 10.100 gpd (392 m~/day) Max,mum bnne rate 40.000 god 051 4 mUday) Open Ends Brine Outlet Epoxy Tube Sheet o,~--~o F,l:)ers. 'O' Ring Seal ~ Flow Screen ' 'O' R,~g Seal%' '¢ .'~~t ~'' ' "-~,_---~-~, 'm.- '~ ~- ~ ~ .-,.:~ ~ ~. ~ -8- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AQUA-CLEER SWL SERIES SEAWATER REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS REVERSE OSMOSIS A. POLISHING FILTER A 5 micron filser provides protection against p'article, fouling of the modules. Five micron, filter elements are employed in ~heI plastic filter housing. B. HIGH PRESSURE PUMPS The high pressure pump increases the filtered seawater to its operational pressure of 800-1000 psi. A high efficiency plunger type pump is utilized " in the AQUA-CLEER System. No special tools or skills are required. 'Ail wetted parts are aluminum-bronze, ceramic or stainless steel to assure .' corrosion resistance. Flow through accumulators provide surgevfree feed to ~he R.O. modules. C. REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULES DuPont B-10 aramid hollow fiber permeators are used in Culligan seawater converters. Since their commerical introduction in 1973, they have been econmically desalting highly brackish and seawaters worldwide. Ihe long term performance of these membranes has been proven, and ongoing research' at DuPonc is continually expanding their applicability. D. FLOWBACK'TA~'K P~oduct ~ater flows directly to the flowback tank. This tank provides a- s~pply of fresh water required to flush the R.0. system at shut down. The for~ard flush system allows product water to be draw~ ~hrough the system by the high pressure pump. This rinses the salt from the system thus preventing membrane dry out and corrosion due to stagnant seawater during normal shut down. If power to the unit is lost, natural osmosis will draw water from this tank back into nhe modules to prevent membrane dehydration. -IO- Technical Specification SWL Series E. PIPING AND VALVES All valves and piping are of high strength, corrosion resistant materials. High pressure components are constructed of 316 stainless steel. Piping is schedule 80 with 316 SS 2,000 lb. fittings or ·welded construction. Pressure relief ~alves p~otect piping from inadvertent over pressure. All valves were chosen for their reliability and simplicity of operation2 Two way ball and needle valves of PVC and 316 'SS provide flow control in the system. Pipes and fittings conform to tbs following specifications: Low pressure pipe ASTM D-1785 Low pressure fittings (less than 1.5") ASTM D-2464 Low pressure fittings (1.5 and greater) ASTM D-2467 High pressure pipe ANSI B 36.19 High pressure pipe fittings ANsi B 16.11 F. INSTRUMENTATION All instrumentation is conveniently mounted to 'facilitate system monitoring. Pressure Gauges Corrosion resistant glycerine filled gauges with Ke~ isolaters are used to prolong service life. High pressure gauges are 0-1500 psi range and are installed on the feed manifold of the modules. Low pressure gauges are 0-20Q psi range. Ail gauges are mounted for reading ease. Temperature' Seawater fe'ed temperature is measured with a stainless steel bimetallic type thermometer. ESTIP~IED OPERATING COSTS SWL 060 SERIES Units/1000 Gal. $/1000 Gal. Unit Cost Produced Produced Filters1 (ed) $ 2.95 .125 .37 A-20 Antiscalant (lb) 1.86 .12 .22 Modules2 (ed) 9,028.00 .00009 Power'(KWH) .05 23.1 1.16 Maintenance Supplies/Labor 10.00 .05 .50 3 Module Cleaning Actual operating costs are dependent on many variables. Energy consumption fluctuates with seawater salinity and unit operating pressure. Unit costs will vary with plant location. Above is typical of a system operating on standard seawater ag 25°C. Labor costs are averaged across the series and based on part time attendance. This cost- generally decreases as the system capacity increases. NOTES: 1. Based on monthly, replacement 2. Based on five year life 3. Module cleaning costs depend on locagion of membrane treatment station. If optional cleaning equipment is included with system, the.cost/1000 gallon produced is $.07. This is based on four cleaning per year. !' --- 6 "Preserving Your Bit of History" The Peconic Bay Shopper June 7., 1983 E"HOLLAND" de of New Suffolk .......... .'. ....... 'By Sam Sander ~' ~'~ "~-' ~'L S ~ffolk County's Tercentary Celebration now f'fils the air. No story ........ ~IFa ~ -- of her contribution to our country would be complete without ~:.~:~.~.._.~. ..... ~ ........ ~'""-' mention of John P. Holland and his submarines. An important ............... ~ :~; '~ -~ .....,:.:..!.....~ ...... .~ar -,~--' .... · site of his activities was the waterfront around the foot of Main Street, ..... .... :...-...-.~. .~:.. ::~ .:~-~..!:... New Suffolk where the Galley-Ho Restaurant is now situated Here was ','"::'.::~ ........ ' ........ · ........ the Goldsmith & Tuthill Shipyard and its basin. Around 1960 this was re ..... ,:~ ........... placed by the present Nort~h Fork Shipyard. The U.S.S. Holland on test course during the summer of 1899, ]ohn The idea of a submersible boat that could mn unseen under the P. Holland is on Board. (Photo Courtesy Dean Blaikie) water has been in the mind of men of science for centuries. A Dutchman, Cornelius Van Drebbel, designed a craft for .King James I of England , . which was rowed beneath the surface of the Thames in. 1620. Twelve In 1904 the inventor built a respirator, a device to enable the crew rowers propelled it at a depth of 12 to 15 feet for several hours, members to escape from a disabled submarine. This man devoted his " In 1776, David Bushnell of Saybrook designed the "Turtle" which life to the development of submarines. It i~ said that his design for their attempted to blow up the British battleship ~'Eagle" in New York Harbor. propulsion was virtually unchanged from his time until the advent of me The plan was to fix a gunpowder charge with time fuse to the warship's atomic submarine. bottom by a screw. Attempts to force the screw through the copper ' As a' fitting conclusion, let us quote from a historical marker placed sheath failed, and the submarine rowed away, releasing the chaYge without at the intersection of Main and First Streets,. New Suffolk by the Cut- damage This was the first submarine to be tried for war purposes, chogue-New Suffolk Historical Council: · . "This marks the site of the first submarine base in this country During the Civil War on the night of February 17th, 1864, the where "U.S.S. Holland" first submarine commissioned by the UniX'ed Confederate submarine, "Hunley" blew up 'the U. S. S. "Housatonic" as States Navy, was based for trials. In the period between 1899 and 1905 ~ it was blockading Charleston Harbor. It was sunk by a spar torpedo six other submarines of the-Holland Torpedo Boat Company were based · fitted over the bow of the submarine. The sub then swamped through an " Open-hatch, sank and was lost with her crew of nine men The loss of the at this site which was known as the Holland Torpedo Boat Station. ' Naval maneuvers between submarines and the U.S.S. Torpedo Boat > "Housatonic" is the first known instance of the sinking of a warship by a Destroyer "Windsor" of Spanish War fame were held in these waters." nj submarine. r0 And now for a few Words about our hero, John Philip Holland,. ~ who was bOm in Ireland in 1840 and died in Newark New Jersey August' *It should be mentioned that the Electric Boat Company, the ,. ' surviving enterprise, later moved to Groton Connecticut and became the ~ 12th, 1914. He is known as an inventor and pioneer in marine, design ai~d ' ' ~n construction. As a youth he thought of building a submersible craft to be purveyor of nuclear submarines to the Navy. It is now a Division of General · used' against the British Navy for Irish independence. By 1870 he had Dynamics. plans for such a boat but no £mancing. In 1872 he emigrated to the United States and settled in Paterson, New Jersey. Shortly thereafter he started to work on submarine design and ~[. _...~, "-~ . arranged to have the building of his' craft contracted. On May 17th, 1897, his 53 foot "Holland" was launched at Lewis Nixon's Shipyard, Elizabeth- ~ ~ - port, New Jersey. It was the fkst submarine with an internal combustion [ engine for surface propulsion and a motor powered by electric batteries ~for underwater travel.' Subsequently, on February 24th, 1898, it was moved to Raritan " Dry Dock at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. On St. Patrick's Day, 1898, the '~ ~.' .~ boat made its first successful mn submerged. Lieutenant Nathan Sargent ' / ~ '. led the Naval Board in reviewing the~trial.mns at that time. Thereafter ~ .t the steering and firing mechanisms were 'further ret'med. The boat was , then shifted to the Erie Basin, Brooklyn, for a while. ~~ ;~ i'Z -~.._.~~~_~. _"2~i a~' ' · The busy .waters of New York Harbor almost caused disaster seVeral times to the submarine. On June 5th and 6th, 1899, the boat was i towed via Long Island Sound and Greenport to New Suffolk. Here at the ,~ Goldsmith & Tuthill Yard the two' recently formed enterprises, the ~;.~L_~ ~~ik . ~.~~ : Holland Torpedo Boat Company and the Electric Boat Company,* estab- ; lished their base. A marked three-mile course in Little Peconic Bay east ~l of Little Hog Neck (now Nassau Point) was completed in July ~1899 and ~ :. __ ,i ~ the perfecting of the "Holland" continued through the remainder of the '( i summer. ' ~ ~' . ~ ~, ~ There was a well-publicized submerged mn with Clara Barton, ~1 ' .............. i Founder of the American Red Cross Society, aboard She was the first .. ~ woman to travel beneath the water's surface. On October 1 l th there .~ "--~I~_ . -~,~, .... ~ . I was an exciting affair when crew and guests' were overcome by exhaust ~:_.__~=_ _ I// -..~, ,. -~ .-. ;. fumes as "Holland" glided, unmanned into the dock at Goldsmith and ~-~---.'" ~Ir ~ Tuthill basin. This.incident was written up in Engineer Morris's diary. After the November, 1899 test before the Third Naval Board, the All ' "Holland" left New Suffolk for the Washington Navy Yard on the Potomac, ,. . .. arriving.in the middle of December. During this passage along the .inland waterways spectators lined the shores. The submarine was accepted by thc~~, I ~ ~V'~ n~'~S Bank the Navy and commissioned April 1 l th, 1900.. The price was $150,000. Today's nuclear submarines cost in the millions. Six similar boats of which the "Holland" was the prototyp-e were subsequently ordered bY the ~rviccs Government. Holland also built submarines for Great Britain, Russia and . Japan. .. -: ''ever need ' Matt,tuck La nd t I, u roma .,,h,kid .'r~.in,.. Fr~¢ Ch¢¢kin, I LAUNDRY SERVICE ;i ~ GARMENTS FOR SALE J -u'-'__ COMPLETE ALTERATION SERVICE · General Laundry ~~ . Blankets · Bedspreads · Sleeping Bags ,~ ~o~ " Curtains · Drapes · Rugs up to 25 lb. ~N Iv~ ~ '~ u -_ SOUTHOLD, S417S Main Rd., (S 16) 76S-ZaOO. Commercial Sheet & Towel Service ~ Y,~ ~ ,l[C~ eOKT JEFFERSON ST&.. S.I:~ 0~1 Town Rd. at Neaeon~el Hwy.. (516) 471-7000 , I ' 2984280 ; ... SOUTllAMIrrON' ~ Wi~laill La~, 15 I~} 181-8100 jl' .. .. ,, Appendix 7 ~ing east from intersection of Main St. and First St~ Post Office ~ ~ine Associates office in background. ~king east from First St~ past storage building. Restaurant in ba~d~ Looking e~S~ from FirSt St South of intersection with Main St. This area is filled W~th ~ored boats during the w~nter. Appendix 7 Looking east from First St. near south end of property. Detarioratg~ maintenance and storage building is shown. Looking east near north end of property. Restaurant is red building in right background. Open area is taken up by boats during off season, Appendix 7 Looking west from boat basin. Post Office/Marine Associates buildin~ ~ behind large white boat. Main St. is in back of travel lift. ~ki~g nOrthweSt from boat basin° Post Office/Marine ASsOCiates ieft~ restaurant on ~ight. Appendix 7 ~king southwest from filled pier toward storage building near sout~ t~e of property. ~IECI~IVED '~{~!,~ g ~ 1~ ~raft Envi~,onmenaa~ [mFac+_ by ~%%-rine Associates Suff',)lk C~z~.l,y~ Ne~.3 York LI~J) ACENCY: Town of Southold To%m Board Town Hall Southold, iiY 3 i'-L 1 I~4~v AGEi~JY C(;i~ACT P~SON: ~uditl' T. ~l'erl%~, To~ Clerk P~P~d.~ BI': koy L. Haje, ~restdent En-Consul~ts, Inc. J~ North ~.~in Street S~uth~p~on, [fe~ York 117~8 List of AppendJ ce:] 1. Proposed site 21an by Ste. phen Shil.owitz, A.I.A. ~. i,~p of Jo..,.~ Forl~. Shipya:xl by Rw~,~z~c~ Van ~y~, P.u., Aug. 21, 19,]2. j. Sani~y se~ge sys~ s,ud ~ter s~[~p4, syst~ by Jo~ }. ~honey, ;*. ~g~eers report of %.~oer supp~ ~d se~.~ge system. ...~ 'i~ "~.~lla~d" Pride of New Suffolk. ~e Peconic Bay Shod,per, J~e, 19Oj. "" IT %~'1" ~.C ~'~ to aCC~D~ applicaticn for chamge of zo~c fr~ u to For ~rine Associates, ~c. by E~erick Van ~1, ?-~, Feb. ~.o~ 1. 7- ~otogra/~hs oi site ~ken Juiy~ lpg3 by J.A. Kenniff, -±- %he pr~sen'~. ~or~ Fork ~hi~yard, zoned "C" I.i~h~ Industrial to "i,~-I" General pursue other ~i)provals necassarz to const~e% % 2~ uni% cond~inl~ c~plex. '~%e upland acreage is 3.~5 acres. An ~.diti~l .22 acres ~,~ be ~ded ~th ~.be ab~]~o~ent of th~ ds~-end First St. Additiona~ ac~a~c is the subject of a ~S ~ Grant ~d consists r~ly of ~d ,~derw~'ber. ~a site prescnt~,, contains several bui~ings~ s~e in ad'zanced stages o~' deteriora~ion~ ~ich ~re used Lu ~e operatioD of the shiDya~.. Due a stea, i3r economic decline~ the ship)"az~ has virtual~ ceased operaDion. A restau~n% se~tlng 85 people plus ~ at 5he bar co~tJ.nues ~o i~ r~ oulluiug oo~ering the bul]'~.e~ed ~rina. The New [~ufFolk i'ost 3ffice operates ol~t of leased quarters '~nich it sh~r~s '~ith cbc Nort%: Fork Shipysrd - ~,'~rine ~ssociates -a s~i-anclosed~ 2J~ b~t capaci'~y ~ri~ is presentl~" less than i~;]] as the ship~ o~rations are phased out. ~e issues ~ich have been identified ~th the propos~ co~ini~ project ~re: 1. A-;ailabilit~, of potable ~ter 2. Conversion of ~terfront proper~y to multiple use 3. "~;arintensification" of ~sources h. C~patability of project ~th neighborho~ 5. E1D,~ination of ~'historic site'~ ~e paresl is located in the h~le~ of ~le~¢ Suffolk~ ~oz~ ~f 9'if fo.'2 County., II.Y. 5~e Southcld To~ B~I has been desi~nat~=d as "lead agency" as provided fo:~ ~ the l'Jew York State Enviro~ant~ Q~.lit3- P~view Ac~ (SE,]%~) and has issuer a "positive declaration" requiring the preparation of this document. It is responsible for determining whether a ch~nje of zone should be Site ~!an a.o~roval rust ~e /ranted bV the gouthold ?lennin,~ ~rd. Ap:0roval for the abandor~lent of i.~in Street from First Street eastward must bo i_.-~n, ted by the To~,~ Board. [>.~e Suffolk Counf. y Leparizment of Health Services (SJ, DH) _~ust approvc the s~nitar~; system ~nd ~ter supply. ~a New k'ork S~be Dep~ctraent of 2nviro~enta] Conse~a:-,ion a!a~s jurisdiction over tidal ~.~ters ~md ~jacen% areas %~thiu 300' of the land~ edge of ,~tO~ds or ~ters~ except ~ere ~ksta~tial ~u-~e J~t~rover~eots (bul~eags~ ro~ds~ crc. ) lie be~%reen the proposed ~,roject am.d tho '~her~ay. (See Part ,~61~ ~nd Use Re~a].ations~ sect. for Dill definition. ) In this instance, DEC j~isdictio~ is l~niLed to ~he art. a south of i.~.im Street. Descriotion of Action '~e applicant seeks ail necessarj approvals to cons%~ct a 24 ~it con- deuiui-~z complex. ~e units ~1! be sram'red in six 4-unit cllsters. :~%un heiEht of the unLts '~!1 be 35' To comi01y ~th f/o~ p~in the first floor elevation must be '8' above ~-~L. Aporoxh~!b~ ~000 cu of fill r%~lsh %:e t~cked in bo raise the preseD~) ,crades to the -,~' election. Ail units will have 2 bedrolls. 5he drive~ys and parkin~ aud.:as ~11 have a c~shed bluestone surface (subject to To~ approval) to facilitate drain~.~e. 5~e reg~er is referred to the architect's site plan Jo~_%r~d ~. ~ha ~ppen- ~iices for an overall view ef hke jroject. Se~e disposal *~11 be acc~D!!sbed on-site b~- a nitrif~.,ins~enitrlI~ing ~zta'.:2.c ~.m-.e.- :~213 b2 cup/!iea by ~.~o o~-si<.e ;~clLs. i'.e'cers..~ ,DSriOSiS e%uii:k~m[ v.i~ '~e instai]ec tc ra.~ov~ chlorides. dr~_ujs and ~'.3por5 in the ai?endicas. the ~aa'eal has been ~-.med by ~h,~ 3~'incipa!s since i~,l o~,e~azcd as a shifyard u~til rccen~ cL]e~ ~en Lhe ole~.'~llon hss s>~ipped. ~ith uhu ~ecline i~ ~,o~tance of small-scale ef thu ~peraLion ~ed. it ~s thc ho~e fort p~d 'Lest si'Lc for tie "iio~d' thc 2irst sub~rina c3:~dssloned tj t}e U.S. Ilt-~Q-. T~aL-~ a~ 'that ?~l~ins ~i that even~ is an %is~orical marker a; First Stra¢,.L aug i.~[n Street ~icI_ 2~arks the site. An 5rl. iclc ;~;ich appeared in a local ?aper is incl'adel l:~ the ai,t:endices given a fuller account of gka peri~. D~ts se~en% of ':Z~ site~ history rel~abLliLahe these buildings ~nd the vazaries of ope~:'atinc a success~! boatyard ~ea tile o~ers bo abandon <~e o~era.ion and seek 9.iL.~ovals f'.vr thc ~%e neec fo.:' %he 3roject, as perceived by its ?ro~onen%, deri-{es fr~ continuiu3 ,le~d for ~rfront hoasing a~. its declininil~ ~vailabi!ity. 2he usual anemities of w~terfront living plus she unique ~osset of a ~riv~te o~-siha 'oat Lasin ~_LL ~ahe th~ ~,ni~s attrac~,iv~ to %hos<. ~- 6~gil.~ a Description o? Environmental Settinq Location The site is !oaat~,d in the h~le~, of i]e~ S'd£fo]i~ Po~,~n of 9~thold, Suffo~~ 3ou~ty~ Long Is~r.d, ~[ew Yori~. it is bounded on east by Cutcho..f~e Harbor, on the south by ~terfront Erop,%rt5 zoned !izht industrial ~.o.f. South~l Lew~lo~raeut Corp.~ on t~e ~,ust. by Pirs~ Street and om ~he north 1~7 a small, lifht ~ndus~rial parco! n.o.f. Loria. A ~2 [ho~,rtni the sur- rouudin] usaa within ~QC' has been preDe~ed bo- ilr~erick Va~, 2~1, L.S.~ and is i~clu~ed in the aj~uendices. Environr. ental features of site ,]eoloc; and soils As ~.ndicated on sheet, il o? Soil Surw~y c,£ Suffo!/: C~:~n~ Jew Y:~rk [i is described as folio'ga: out and 7i~ lan! is m~le ~3 DF arras that have hc,~n altered in 7radinZ operations for bousin= dev~o?aents. skoL.inE cen'ters: and s~.ilar nonfa~ uses. Ge~.erally the 3nitial frying consists of cuts and fills for streets or l,arkin:u Sots. During this phase, excess soil ~atesia]. is stockpiled for final y~ding ~d toudressin:~ around h~ses or oShcr buildinss. Areas of Cut and fill ~nd contain deep cuts in near the sandy mlbstrat:~ of the ::o~l or sandy fLlls °9 inches or rote. Generally, cuts a~-e sc ~].ee? or fills so thick that identification of soils by series is u:" 7.~,ss[ble. ~e soil material makiuc -:D 5h~ uyp~-' LC itches cf Lhls ~tni~. conLains as muc~ as 12 inches o~ sand i..k~ or silt 1~; in scx, a ~)lace_s. The 2~ inches ~hai -5- Cut and fill land is general](., associat, cd with C~_~rver and P ~lymouth soils. T~e soil material that rar~in~ ax~ter finding a~ions ~e c~pleted has low avai~!e ~uoist,~re r~oa- city~ is drought~: and is low to 're~~ Iow in natu~l fertility. The arsas of Cut and fi~ land have severe !~i- bations to usc iu establishin,~ ~d ~taiuing la~s aha landscaping. %~ne areas are nov s~ited to fa~.in[: operations because of ~he ~te~tion cf existing soil ~aterial ~d the presence of buildln/s ~.d o~her works Cut and fi~. land, qently slopin~ (C~B) - ~is unit is ~te up of level to gently slop~z areas that have been cut ~d fi~ed for no~afa~ uses. Slopes r~nje fr~ iL to ~ a~ercent; and because of final jr~in:~ h~%ses and other huildinCs~ slopes denar~ly are c~plcx. ?ne areas Eener~ly are lar~e~ but so~e areas are ~ acl~s in size. A s~ll ]-ortion of .he parcel on tke s~lhe31y e~ is classified as "fl~] l~d~ s~dy (Fs)~" ~ose description fo~o%m: "~'i~ ~nd~ s~dy (Fa)is ~de up of areas %~ere sandy fill ~.~a~eria! has been placed on s~e%~at i.porly irained. poorl~~ d~incd~ or ve~- poorly dra~ed soils to LuPin./ sites. In places thin layers of 1~ or si!m 1~ soil r~teri~l are in t~e s~dy fill. ~e thictmess of the fi]2 r~ges fr~ ab~t 1' feet to 20 feet; ho%~ver, thick- ness seneral~ is ab~t 4 to 10 feet. Slopes a~ near~ level, but ~uge to 8 ~3ercsnt ~cre areas are ded aro~d buildings. ~e s~rces of fi~ material used in this muir are varigole~ consequen%ly~ the fills are a heterosene~s ture o[' sand ~d j~vel that contain "mryini ~om~bs cf fines~ soil material. In places portions of fills have been m~e bj using nonsoi! ~za~cia!s~... u~ed as b~inf si~s. it is ~ot malted to raost other usa-s. ~site investifati~:u is needed tc d~:em~ine thc suitability of individual a:~eas for bui~in~ sites... A tes~ hele du3 by the consultin~ enf'ine:~r is sho~ 0n sheet of 2 of tke ~ter supply add sauita~ settee slsvem d~n.zs. It confi~.~s the description Liven i,~ the soil su~e~~. Slopes and topo.zraph:r A leuch~uark located near thc Post Office indicates an els-sat!on of 5.c9'. AS can be seen 3:'~.~ the other elevations shown on '3,he s~3z~e?~, trades vary !~ttle thr~,fhou±, and apD~'o::imate ,~lmva'Lion +.='. ~.e f!a~ness of the si~e ~s mecessar~ for the safe ope_~tiom oC ~nd Porms '~.-~ land forms of ar~; ~eolo<ic. si.~nifica~ce are lo,~a~.ed ~,~r~-- . Cut and f!l1. ope~tions c~ated the l~d over 100 ..-ears H~ar~ Rescues Erosion and se,~entation ~oten2ial t]~, fast ~tez' percolation rate thr~j~ sand l~].us %~e f'/a~nes; I~ro~'.action .fr:~ both are affo~ed by the bu~esds ~i.~h line the ~ortherly hail (-,) o' '".he ~ :ra!inc erosion of th~ sandy beach on th~ s~ther!y %all ~L) .con,roLled ~;' seve~l 't~ber jroins extend~nq into Cutcho?e i~bor. Surface Wa~r ~e p~cel faces ~taho~e Harbor, a part of ?econic Bay on .~ast. It is a tidal b~y oF ~ter ~osa ~5e is approx~:a~e?_y Y'he ,~,.3_~C has classified it as SA, the hz.~he.~ classift-atien For tidal ~ters. %~ese ~aters ara "... m~!~ab!e For shelfishinL ffn- -~rk.ft G ~a em~ineers re~jc;-t bI Jok~ i.~honey~P;E, is attached ~d ~e o7 this sta±~ncnt. It ~z]dresses e:[lstin,-' -rourd~.~tcr condi*ons and pro~oseJL ~,~.cr supply._ ~e parcel lies ~.f~thin Lone I~. '~..,nr~,+~ !"o~i~ ,~'D.lt~ ~Ol'].j 8. g ~0~1'3~C~'~ i~ the "~]~ ~ " " ' ~e.,]_.,:~a~ ?la~li B~%L~ 1]'.?). "~e a,~uiYa/ ,:nderlyin~' ~,he -.DRY% Also. ~hcr~ ~s th~ potent, iai for s~1.%~ier i,~tr'~Jio~ jf , u~?i:~:E f~t. te]~s Ve£~e%ation Du~±r.g the nany z,'eaz's of operation O21 the shipz~rd~ the L~ s~facc %~ich ~s not t~[en up by bui~ings ~i automobile p~rkin~ %~s used sZo~je ')2' k. oa~-.s. ~e presence of ~' subs'~tial ve~e~tion w~!d h~ve ~hibite~~ access to the s:3o1~d crai't ~or ~'Le~ncc, ~u~chin~, etc. Wi~lifc Here aga~ ~he lon~ histo~j of ~'aLh~r inten~a usr has L~'~t~,.1 C~r~ng seve~l xisits to bhe site, a list o? ~n~ais n,D~ed '.,~s -!irds uo%ea can be divided iuLo %%~ categories: u21and and shcrebirds/ watcriowl. Of the Fo~eu~ r. ou':~ing doves~ s~arro~, rol~ins~ f~ckles, s~l~o%~; an~ starlings ~ru not~. ~%~c lauzer u~s represented hy L~ls and '_ei~s. Seven'al spccicz of ducks use thc nearb?~- .,~tur~ys nesting, feeding~ etc. ~ese includ~~ ~r L~- i'lcluae: ~%lia~. ~ers~ser~ canvasback, Lq~ckduck: redhead, scaup. .~osci~zatlons of ~i~ls d~drinc site visi~ i,ldicated cott~tail raD~it ~d mi,_'e (probs.hl~. mcado~.~ voles). ~ !:aibfish an.. juw~nilcs c:~' laujer s~ecics are ~:~,ccbe,1%o i~d-a%~ U]e shadows of the ~.-ljsccnh. ba~. '~e ~nost c~u]on of t?cse ar~: the fou~ spL'..~ stack!eL, ach. 6.Dcl~:s ~u~cus~ striped ki~ifish~ F~dulus z~,]alis) co~.~ou ki!lifLsh. }k~d~us Heter~lisus j sheepsh~ad C~rin~or, %~rie~'=tus~ sil~'ersiaes, ].~nidia menidi~ eel, An~.uil~ rostrata~ :e~uter l'lounder, gseudowleuronectes ~erican]ls~ r'orthern se~rob'in~ Prionotus carolinus~ Wb!ueFish, Pontius sal~'brix~ ~_f~sh, O3~osciou '..s~.uuer?]~nt~r (better kno'.a~ as /'luke) Daralich-tkis de~ua~s~ (~.Some of Thc nearby Peconic Bay ~rs also sustain n~~ of the bivalve =o~usks; e.I. softshe~ cl~ }~:,~ al~i~3 ha~she~ clx., 5~rcenaria mercen~ria3 scal!o, ibeten ir~lans; ~d the ~astrop~ mollush~ Conch. · ~o~inL origins on the docks, jetties and foci.ts iuclude i'[i~Llus ~ulis~ b~l'n~cles, Bslanus balanoides; ship %'on:; '2eredo n~v~lis~ O~.her t~ica! invertebra~.es :'a~ io?bl,~e ~u,l snails, ~ssa periods, L~t%ori~ ]_ittore~; ~D;~w c~crea, oj, ut. er drills; ~oo~ ~o- ' I-h sk~l~l ~c noted here %.hat there is no =~roposa! ~ i~ll the to create fast land. 2b_~ cnl~, thz'cabened or endan ~i~ed species ~faish ,,.~,h~ this vicinitU arc 5ems. ~e o~e]'s indic~Le hhat She/ h~ve nc' noticed any nes'~ '-rtl '~ ~ ~ i~ · ..... re but they occasionally, ~=_d nearb?,' ~Lers [7o i~"i]~lC ecos"g'iems, critical habitats~ .Jo.~t sourc'~s c)i- nestin~ locations arc t'~n,d here. ~ia usc As s~ted ir: r, revious sections, the l~i'o~ei'bj- has be~.i ~ ~s recently as se;ertl months ale. Bo~t s~es and.>_z .... zi,.~,'-'~ doc~iinb, _ ~-pamr~,~ eta. %~or~ c'~u. ical ac%irities. '~n La%r S~ffo~ Post Of%icc operates ~'.t o? leased luartors 2~e Var, ~y]. ~> of adjacent, uses ~,%thin ~ ~ ' ,U3 'gou~d :[~ ?he appendices sh~]ld be re?erred to ?or infol~a~on on surr~:ndin'% zoninj, f~0ecific~lll.-, north of thc su. bjeat parcel is m ?ishinj snatien ~ich i'e'lts ]"o~.~ts and ~a~,,oard.=. I'¥,rthel- no~h on thc l~%erfron.'b !s ~.ooher prints residences vi;~h ~OC~i!K.- spaces nor ~!i c~ercial a~,' .~!eas~re l/~al' r~3~d. D?rec-al~~ opposite Lhe praises is a llfhL ,.usi~ess zone s~icb ina!Kales a ha~'/~estau~nt ~d ct%riD sho.p. S~,~th of those h_~si']esses is o;~e,9 by zh~ ~ of Southold ~n,l usad ~s a i~ublic beach ~na parhin7' ares.. A 'Jo~.n bos. t le.unching ~.~ is loaated 8, t the east= t'.ly e~d of Jackso!~ -10- Directly south of the subject parcel lies land belono~ing to the Southold Development Corp. which also own Robins Island. It contains a v~cemt dilapidated building ~ud a fire damaged bud~kheaded bo~t basin. At one time it w~s the site of a~ oyster processing plant which ~s destroyed by fire. Later the open area was used as & p~rking area for shooting parties and other visitors being brought to Robins Island by launch. The parcel h~s not been used in recent years. The Town of Southold Comprehensive Developmsnt Plan, Part II (Raymondj May, Parish a~d Pinej 1967) envisioned First Street from King Street to Jackson Street as a "neighborhood shopping area" with an additional 45,000 square feet of co~mnercial development with additional off-street parking facilities. That these changes have not developed may be due ~ or in pa~t to the small stable year-ro~ud population and New Suffolk's "off the beaten track" location for the tourist trade. Elsewhere in the report, the import~nce of rehabilitating certain areas of the Town, especim2_ly the waterfront~ is stressed. While this proposal differs in usage fr~n the commercial usage ~ich w~s shown, the Plan f~rther states "It must be clear that a long range Development is not a permanent or unalterable document. It is based upon the best available information, judgement and forecasts of future events. But the uz~olding of new develop- ment will in one way or a~other vary fr~ current expectations. It is for this reason that the Planning Board must periodically review Whe Plan and all new proposals." The pla~ should be viewed as a dynamic rather tha~ static document adaptable to new innov~tive proposals and not tied to prior usage which may no longer be viable. An updated master plan ispresentlybeinE worked on but will not be available until an as yet undetermined date. T~e proposed project does represent a demographic change in the character o~ !ne ~rea. This ~ll be the ~'irzl multiple d~lli~% zroj~ct i~ t,be arc~ and the cost per ~it probabli ~i~ exceed the co~ of nei~.borin,~ one F~ily resime~ces, It mlso cous~il~utcs a rahabi'k~tatiom ~nd tlpg~in~5 3f 8 deterio~t[ng fic[lity. Historic~ Res~'ces T~.~o h[sboricaL ricers of ~is site a~e ef interest, TL_c f[olla;~d 5'0~2e~o Eoat C~si~any c~c to New Suffclk 3.n 1557 John F, t[~.,liaa~ ~oued the hu~ of hlu zuhm~rinc From ~Iew Jersey Sutton. between 1897 and 1.~00 ~]en the U.S. Navy hou3hJ [,~]c lIolland ~d o~eredflve "0" c~ss submarines frou the now '~lectric Bo~l, Oom~m.n~ bu~'in~ thc years l~O1 to 190( the Na~ h~ ils first Sub ~a~e on ~he property and tested the "0': class boats in th~ ~t~:rs of Pecoui~: .just off New SuffoJ~,. Eoth faa Uavy and Elact.~'ic B~ C,-,. moved Co~caticut la the year %~e l~resen't Post Office is housed in the North Fork 2hipya~[ :~ri~ %,asocial:es office building. ~.e f~rcs~,nt tui~ing :~s built in 1872 afte~" the first bukidins buzmca ~ that year. 'i~_e Post Office ~s located in this buildiaa 1~'~,8 ~.{~n a bemoc~t r~placed ~eremiah T,izhill 9.s ?ost~ster. He moved the ?oat Office twe blocks up l,~in Street. In i].,90 the Post Office to the G.)ldsmith L 5%~thill builm~],~ ~th Eo%~zu Tuthil! .az post~ster. Zt has rcmai],ed in the s~e hli~img from 1900 to date. ~e ],~oDerty is not listed ~s an kisboricai lan~,ar~: nor is it listed on the National Eegister of Historical Locations. Vis~ Chic ~e:~TM ~, ~':cries of recent photog~phs is included in the appondlc~s. At present, most of ~he buildings ~.re ,;acant and in various sSa~es o£ decey. '~he excepLicns s~ the restaurant ~d shi~j~5~ off~ice/Pgnt Office. %l~ese hay'. been ~i:lteine~ b~ttcr than 5he re~%, so~e rehabilitation repair ~r~ ne3~Jed. Thc t~lest buildings are ~b~t ~' ~nd occupy, several bhousand square f~et. Exis%inc buildings 5re sho~ on t%~e site plan by dashed [Lines. in ~.di%ion to tke buildin~js themsel'~es~ n~].er~s bo~t aradles ara scattered abou~ upon ~ich b~ts rested du~in~ n~uch of the 3ear ~ile the shipyara ~.~s ~se featu~s blocksd most vie%~ of ~ter fr,~ First~ StreeL. ~tcrfron% v!c~; lookin~ east~.~ fr~rm ~.~in Street is ~racket~d by %.~ty~rd stoic tures. '~:ile the proi',osed d~ve!opment ,~ill alter she pano~ua o.F khe bay, it is the appl[c~ts' coDtention i.hat this is a~ready l~u~tcd ~L' exisZiu,~ 5tmlctures. '~e To~-o~e~l pro?ert, y at ~c southerly' end of First Stree't off ors the public a mo~ panor~ic view of the bay and oFpostte shorelines With the removal of *~e equi~,ent associated ~th thc oueration cf thc b,~tj~a~, it is ~tlcl~d that noise leFels ;~!1 dec~ase upon c~platiDn of %b,: ~.ro.ject. Usual consi~ction noises ~11 ]~e 1L~it~,f. to daylijht h~r3 only. No ir]cre~s~ i~l ~or level ~s lo,seen. Existi~z enviro~ental const~ints affectin,~ ack. ion ~e site is sho~ on Flo~ Insu~nce Ral;a ~p (F~) for the Tov~ of Sm~tho~. It lies %~thin ~zone ~ich requires a ['irst floor elevation of any ~roposed hu!ldinys to be ~' above ]lean sea level. sand and lo~m. -13- . ,_.. ,:~.. ! ~h, Pe}_".na 5~1~ b,_. 'r?~'~"~' · .qt~enen. o7 ~nvir~ent. alc ~fec Cs i}' ',".' l~rl-dis~l:i'~'~aen 12 "h:' s~'e J.'!'~ ~ ..... '' ~ ,~2~ :C~'-2'' _~ ]. , 'v -'0 ~,~n- ~eccf'Oc.: ~!]e use, .._ t.hc p"~"-.~-el~ :hr,_:,? si/.:.)xlf, m.,,~l./ lC hri'}:]'" ;',.r .is.' . "a, sinsle or one 4~ecuion vehicle mov~ent ~tin either the origin or dest~ation {cx~tl~ or entering) inside the.~-~ud"~ site. Trip e~s a~ the to~! of all trips leaving a desi,suatad si~ ovur ~ sliven peri~ of Z~3r!rki ~ak, _ o'~eratiun_ of the shi'j?~,~'i. 8. -'rearer nu:~ber ~d cusT. ouer~ of thc ~rina ~(]. ~h~.. cenera~C sidni~'ic~ntLy ..... ~.l.~ca.._o~ fa,? bor of ~. } for .! e fic.~ures ;'i 'ch. ~e aver~'r,. ~ekda~.- ar~'. to. Se du2-in.i ~e~. hours i2 3_~._ ~''~ -:~_.[~ea~.'. hi...~ .... ~-. , .=s .... ~., ,-, i1.3-': ~au u~.~.'. A.:,. it. A~ ~n%~o~ ~.]us~:'z,:~r~t facl:or ~;iil aFfeCL this a-z~:i'~'~e ..... i's~s are as fo~o~: i~e~ weekda-; 30~ S~tui~ay, Sunday, ~y csnl~rast s reslde~Li~ cond~[ini~5 yenerates .51 ~ri~s i~.er peak %~ekday hour i:er ./nit; .4]~ SatuI~ay trips] .41 S~nda-2.. tl'.[i'S. tip~- these by 21~, the n~er of ~%its proposed, the ~ot~[is are a.~ ~o~,3ws: 32.2 '~ckday3 lO.f" ~ ~ ~' ' ~ ~' ~ - ~robsb~- be L olde heavil$r used on l~eK~n, is than .b.o~e con~i~leI'cu in the 'Tri~ _-enerst~or boo=., ~%e acJu~ weeke~l fi~Lres~ -..a~" ~e sea%e%~a% hicher. Levertkeless~ ~raffLc %f.~ :3c subs'.antiail3 less than :irsf'~fi,:: [:cnerated by condomimi~s is ~-o~;zhl~ half thab _ezerated by sin<lc' f~ily u~.ta(_n~u'~ ' '~ ~- hou~in:'/. ~is is dlle to b~le cliff=rent' ~ tN~e of usa~e~ z.~en~ r~s ~.~ be adequaue %o sel-;ice ~b~ c~mm~nitb follo~ng "~s state~ in an earlier sec%ion roaz] r,$%o£f %9111 be min~:~ized by usin~ po:'ous m~tcrimls ir ?~=~ittei bi the 2'o~. Any r~off ~fnich would r~ot, percolate direct~ %hrou~ Bhe r~ and parki~_~j surfaces ~ci]l be h~dled by le~chin~ basins ~ich %.'i~ ov~:r;']_ow into nbc ,:~%er~,~y ~]urln~ heavy rai~s%o~. The !e~chin~ bas~ns ~i1.I coa~%ip the ;z:.~ ~u~h luno~ ~ ~ c,,mtain a larya ~ercentaGe of %~i roof ~noff ~dll %c con%~in,:d in =rj ~.~211s ]_caching dirac[!j %.~ As the parcel ~s ~u3 ~e flat: ?~%ia~y bull~hea~ed 32~tensivelj' ].~td:~cal~u~ overland r~off tc sur/mce ~ters %~i] %e absent or ne,']lL~il~le. [%.e distal]ce of the m~_t.s from ~he %~%er an,~ porosityof thc soils also minimizers r,.moFf. Gr~i~ ~2 this parcel w[~ no~ Lc De~.itte~ to eff,-ct conditions of adjacent r~ys or parce]s. ~e effuct u~on Ground~;~er res~rces ~s discussed in ~e engineers' report. ~e t~e of system: ir~upaEe ~.d or-site recharEe ~! not adversely effcc~ s~r~ndln~ facilibies or cause increased salt ~Jcr FoYer ~.~te.;- ~sa.~_e b~,- the shipy~ for b,~au ~shdo~m~, fil[:_i~' tanLs~ un-site toilets; by the testament; ~d by thc post offic,~ approx~ten that ~ticipated for ~,2 condon~i~ii~. ~e %~icr supl;ly has remained stablu ~d reliable for recedes. A ~i~lue aspect of this cond~ini~ corn[lex is thc presence of the b~t basin. It is llkelM that potential purchasers ~11 be b~.t o~ers, ?robabl~- of ~rge sailboats and powcrb~ts s~ilsr in size to those ] erthsd there now. UsaEe of the basin by bnats %,~11 have a ~:in~al effect upon %~l(-,r~5 . l'~rine he~s o~ boats re'Asr c~,ply ~_ih all apui'icab!e .]6- s%,.nda_~-,Js w~_iPh 7,:'oh'[l:'lt m]tT£ o?erboa~/ gis~hm, rje o ~ untr.~'t,,d ca b,.::- 1~2. ] itie~ ~rc L,3 be 2_c~catcd hc, rc: contea,]in~Lic,p by Zm~o]inc or iiesel fucl is noC %n%ici?a~O. EotLom i,ainl, s (~nCl-fo~inj) ]each ';~-? ].[ttle mhd ~ no'~ hmvo ~y d,p~r~g influence ui~on hhe x,~Lcr~.y. pe~.. opep~tion, tb.~ shipyar~ emt~!ol-ed 21 part-time and p.~nent employees) ~ res~g~rsnt ~]i leave %be site but ore,eh. ~l~ns ere o r~-open J.n a lar~.r facil~2~ in nearb2~ ~,~ttltuc! . ~us %her~ %,~!! be nc !osc of ,~obs. 'i~e Po~t Office %~]1 ~lso be relocated neath3 c~i~sln/ no ].os~ o? emp!6[.~eni. C~u~la~i'~,~ ~pacts are um~[~ the mosi, difficult ~3 predict. 2~e role ~Dich this develo?~:enL wi~ i~3_a7 i, tke '~ture of S~uihold. To~.~ in zaner~l an! ~[e~ ~ffoll~ in ]~a~-[,i~ui~r C~pcnds upon .~any g ~v~ rse ~cr. crs Fe'~ other' locations cae oJ~fer the s~e ~ttractions. It~ va~rfront location and sheltered b3at basin ~]l mttrscL a b~tin2-~rlented c]ienbele not likely to bu interested in iz~ sites. In the vicinity of ~Ce~ ~f~oL]:~ tbls site is uni%ue ~[ue te its ~ize, ~ter~ront location ~nd histo~; of usac~. ~e shipT;m~ occupies a "%ulge" Ln hhe shoreline not present to '~c uopth or south. The nBr~o~ess Dg mearby parcels .~reatly ~-estricts their ~ieveloI~r~nt potential. further north~ sinjle f~ily ,2e-tmchcd residences occLpy ~nany Darcels. -17- 2±0~i.)~ kil~:-~ts ~er .~ear (based am an a,-ar~.;~ annual ussfe o~ ~.7~0 (~,mssau-S~ffo!k P~ion~! ~lanniua L~[. ]-q~7) ,~eu be sui?)icd by axis~i~j ZZ~a I~ru~c~ site izes %'ith[n ~he [.~e~, Suffslh ~chool Lis~-ict ~.ose soho<! ~opulaJZm~ in l[-C i~ h)~l-~2 ~s 2j (Hi6h school s~udents attend ik~.ttitue---C'_,tcl:ogae). ~l~i3 vbT;a of -,roject is n-,t. e~ecleJ '.- :'e~iu~nts with sch,-:ol a~e chii,lren %~_o '~u].d a'Tt~:xd l~cal schools. idemtifiao, vion of any ~vcrse effects ~ich d~_no~, ha L~ ~o significant ioss of o..,en space or acc.,ss tc %he ;.~tcr f~,~ [2~e General ~blic. Description of ,~itization measures to min~ize adverse kZ~e i,!anncd ~herence to ucS%~a[.ory ~stricLioas ~x] a~ ].cvels EmrZhe~ ~nd rock be~s are l)roposed ~]ich ~12 follow :be ami skore llue. in ~dition to the aesthetic a3peal, they ?fill r.~in~iz2 also .-in~i%e runoff. 'l%.e overall ~ndsca!~e l:lan ~.~ll include iadiieno'~m a.3 -~-.:iL as oma- o-' ~he ~ree'.-; a~ sh~i:s %,%iah woul~ do ¥~1! in '&his tls~e enviropz~.ent no-~ re,~uire %he hich level of uZ'~,ention needed ~,2.' m~j- otVar niecles. b, ,.[sin[[ ~.kese ~d s~ilar si~eaies~ fertilizer usage and ~,~t~rznL csn l~:e usaLa oF t~cl':isi~ ~?~ter for the d,~estic ~mter suff~' is an i:5.,3~r'tan't ~itication measure. ~incc ~'is ~.rii_l not dra~;,~ u.~,o[~. the ,3:cis%Ln~ ~'resh~e~~ aquifer, %ha~. resource will re~in a';~i~bl~ t,-, dependen k uDon '~.e bi, h .!egree of ~reatm~n~ of s~:e ~d ~ainj~ction on-si'~c '.ril]. not c~s,:. ~u~io~', of the ~jaeent ~.~'~c3~[, on& %:2![ J_ntm~s iou J.nlan,i. Yresex~Ja~.ion o~' t, he Pos~ Office has be~z, identified ~s issue, l~e ai~i~licants have stated their ~illingPess ~.o r~,lOaS .~[ the s~;~ctu~ Zo another location on the site Ir approves can b · s~c~.red fr~,~ all imvolved z'eL%~ato'~.5- acencies. ~_us, this port,on of Je%~ Suffol]. histol~r could Identification of any irreversible and irrelrievab!~_ u~;Litnants oi~ resources vehiclc~ is Irrevc:'sible a~' i~ ',h~ ccns:in?ticn of eJec~rf.~391 ,',~.~z' ~y DescriptJou of ~n? ~ro.~th-in,~uci~.~: as~:c,'.'.ts of ~,.he actien %~he i.opu].ation of ~le,~, Suffo]_l~ is c~;binad ~_~'h %hat · the ~oy, u]ation s:~rvey b7~ LI~O and bb the U.F. Consus. in ~2~7'). the ~et~sus fi3~r,: ~s ~7°°. 'i~e LiLCO --'~ ', _ ._ . _ lha [,c?:~ion has ~ssen~i~!l,~ :'emai~ed skatic for a l_on~ z'aslde~t s. · ~ !,a[:roniza ]cea/ businesses. S~c~ ~.he r,.:mker of pot,~'~:[a[[ -a~_t'ons at antici?aLe:l. - 2~ irapaaL of the act£on on %he use and conser~;ation of ener.?r he,ted b2 m~2cl~ efficient equi~sn%. -%~ ?~'o!~oscd s~urctures ~,~ll be ~e~ua,e!V insulated %o ~in~-.~ize enerL~' consug~:t~on. q~islin,'i s~.rces o~ e!~ctrical ener~- sup>Lied bI. Lilac are Description sglJ. evalt~Licn of reasonable aL-ternativas to aahic'ze the c.f s~ailar objectives ~nce ~.1 o?era~ OhS at :he ship~-a~l ~f.ll soon ,-'case. .h= "no ~cT.[on" a2'_er~tive %.~ould ].eav~ 'thc Darcel vacan~ and abandoned. Th2 ,~r~,, for ~dalism an,-I s~'l-i~is flr~ eou].d result. ~..o ac~.o~" ~r~]d also d~nT' anF ~e~'.h~n or~ ~;he applicants' in~c:s~z]:~2nt ~r [,he7' o_~ ~.c(r i'..,'~. ;, ~".-- u~i~. de~.~3.~:~ent_ ~.~s d_o~-' m,=c., for 'the site ~ritkf~ thc ~<.~?=~..-' '' ~h~e -~ 'bAl'~ ~.~r as the nocess~- ~.':~are ~oc~-'e Is silyht]v !aakin ') ~n .... g~u~,, or kui!t. This t:,~e oi' :'levolo?me~: v,~ n~t af?o:-I a ~o~ ~re +o sci] ?or an ~Inrcalishiaall~ hi~ price. ~:~'e-zlousl'-. E[coDcninj the o~era~ion under .i~ ~2'e--~.,L o~mershi:' is !i):elU