Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5432 _ a + r • 4)06-Nteie F.. 14 (/1,14 t)1nit;14or (19, Y41/c. o?U .as7 s6- /q1,q. 9/7 9 4" • / �/ W/A6-/-Y 'On b Ec-i5 1 7/1.b, _ 14:27` /Vett) 4(//N&,e/ h�/Cu (f 560 pHta.tg.03 LO T k_�� a- 5 n Ptl e v1 L - PUy . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS • ®�® ‘O Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman s� �ya`` 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer y, - P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora crrr Southold,NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando 4' ®!��� Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jr. -_ James 4, ��,�o� Fax (631) 765-9064 http://southoldtown.northfork.net RECEIVED / //in BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD WRIT 2.4 ,ligt4 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATIO ,/, MAY 20, 2004 s� >,::« 0 Appl. No. 5432-V-Long Island Power Authority, Lessee, by Keyspan, as Agent Property Owner: Osprey Dominion Ltd. by Frederick Koehler, President Property Location: 44075 Main Road, Peconic; CTM #1000-75-1-20:1; 20.2 PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's parcel consists of 50+- acres located on the north side of the Main Rod (NYS Route 25) in Peconic, including 4.6+- acres for the existing winery agricultural building and processing building, and the remaining farm land (vineyards) of 45.4+- acres. The property is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (A/C) Zone District. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Variance from Section 100-33A concerning the applicant's proposed wind turbine structure which will exceed the code's height limitation of 18 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on December 18, 2003 and February 26, 2004, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. In addition, legal replies were permitted to be submitted not later than April-2, 2004. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100-33A to install a wind turbine facility containing the wind turbine on top of a support tower and control equipment. This structure includes a width of 50 feet for the turbine blades. The structure will be located on a section of land 875 sq. ft. in size (25' x 35'), after dedicating two acres to the proposed turbine use. The owner(Osprey Dominion Ltd.) owns both this 4.6+- acre site with a winery and the adjacent 45.4+- acres with vineyards, restricted to non-development. Also submitted are a 12/17/03 Landscape Plan and 12/17/03 site map, revised 3/15/04 by J. Grammas Consultants, and construction details for the proposed 125' high wind turbine (100' plus 25' blade span). The proposed turbine structure will be at least 600'from road north of the existing agricultural buildings. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant, LIPA/Keyspan, indicates a 20-yr. lease, with a 25' x 35' section of land for construction and operation of a turbine structure. The purpose of the wind turbine structure is as an experimental purpose related to generating clean energy, in a joint 10- year program with the LI Farm Bureau for demonstration purposes. The production module is 15/50 Drive Train assembly manufactured by AOC. The applicant proposes a 20-year time frame. During the hearings, nearby landowners and homeowners expressed concerns regarding noise drone levels at certain times of operation. The applicant confirms increased noise `Page 2—May 20,2004 - Appl.No.5432v—LIPA/Keyspan/Osprey 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic and vibration levels for a limited time period, and proposes low-noise emission level equipment and operational procedures during construction activities. Max. sound power level is 101 dB (p.2-37 of EA). Neighbors also expressed concern over the visual impacts in this rural neighborhood. Once the structure is built, it will be visible from locations within 1-mile. The structure would be easily viewed from the Scenic Byways Corridor designed by New York State (Route 25 and Route 48)and within 1740 feet,or more, over open spaces and fields. The property is at least 600 feet wide, and clearly visible from adjacent areas, including open fields, residences, pedestrians, and while driving along the Main Road and along Wells Road to the southwest. The proposed facility will also be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center, from approximately seven homes on the west side of Peconic Lane, and adjacent areas on the east and north of this site. A structure at 125 feet in height is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area and will be visible from various segments of the roadways and from nearby parks, landscapes, farms and other open spaces, and residentially used property. The installation of this structure will create a distinctly commercial view interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. In addressing visual concerns, the applicant has offered: a) monthly site visits, b) a neutral color and a design with lattice built into the structure, and c) to locate the structure north of the two winery buildings on the site, within the agricultural landscape and grape vineyards. These measures do not satisfy the concerns about visibility, since monthly site visits will only confirm and not remedy this concern, and do not demonstrate how additional construction material (lattice) makes the tower and blades less visible, particularly at the top half portion of the tower where the blades are visible over the existing buildings and tree lines and not screened from view. The applicant owns other parcels within Suffolk County either being used or available for an experimental energy generating purposes, including some that are already improved with public utility structure uses. It is not disputed that other areas within the Town or County are available for purchase or lease to house such an experimental project. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections,the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The particular site chosen by applicant is an established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and existing agricultural activities. A Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tasker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed facility. The proposed facility will be • Page 3—May 20,2004 - Appl.No.5432v—LIPA/Keyspan/Osprey 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center and the Main Road and give an "industrial" appearance. The proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area, and the proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view over the surrounding farm lands and ' open spaces, impacting and interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. It is conceded that the proposed turbine will increase noise and vibration levels in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant is proposing a wind turbine structure at a height of 125 feet, instead of the code's height limitation of 18 feet, as an experiment over a 20-year time period. At the public hearing, the Board asked the applicant whether the turbine could be reduced in height, and no proof was offered to show whether a lower structure (wind turbine) was in good faith planned and constructed at any other locations, for any periods of times, with alternative designs or at an alternative, lower height. Also, the applicant has not demonstrated a current public need for the height of this structure at 125 feet to serve areas within the town. The applicant did not present detailed evidence as to which sites could be or may have been considered in its analysis. It was not adequately demonstrated that this particular agricultural site is the only place it can put a wind turbine, and why a full 125 ft. height instead of an alternative lower height is necessary. 3. The variance requested is substantial in relation to the code requirement. The height requested is 107 feet greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, resulting in a variance greater than 500%. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created. The code provisions were in effect prior to applicant's plan to purchase and build this structure, knowing that the proposed structure is not a public necessity serving the town, and knowing that the structure is experimental, and that the height exceeds the code at 125 feet in height. 5. Information has been submitted to suggest that grant of the relief requested will have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. This particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. The proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure is not consistent with the surrounding rural and residential character of this area. A Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tasker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed facility. The proposed facility will be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center and the Main Road and give an "industrial" appearance. The proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view,visible from the nearby homes and over the surrounding open farm lands and other open spaces, impacting and interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. . , ' Page 4—May 20,2004 Appl.No.5432v—LIPA/Keyspan/Osprey 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic 6. The proposed wind turbine would increase noise levels at the nearby residence by 1.3 dBA to a background noise level of approximately 49.7 dBA (ref. 2-38 of EA). Maximum noise levels from the blades of the proposed wind turbine occur during periods when high winds occur. The applicant stated that the maximum sound power level is 101 decibels of noise from the proposed wind turbine. During periods of high winds, ambient noise levels tend to be higher. (Pgs. 2-37, 2-38 EA). RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried,to DENY the variance, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman),Tortora, and Orlando. Nay: Member Dinizio. (Absent was Member CGsehringer.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-1-0). ` 9J U i6 d, RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN Approved for Filing 5/4V/04 oil �l L as APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS . ®r` 67®at, � Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman �� • 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehrin er - .. ` g � P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora `" ;`® � �� Southold,NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando � ®Q � Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jr. � •�,d� Fax(631) 765-9064 http://southoldtown.northfork.net RECEIVED le je„a BOARD OF APPEALS /,'/5 AM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ._�/fi AY 2 4 2004 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION {%,_,_ �.' MAY 20, 2004 Southold Town Cori 4, ZBA#5450-SE - Long Island Power Authority, Lessee, by Keyspan, as Agent • Property Owner: Osprey Dominion Ltd. by Frederick Koehler, President Property Location: 44075 Main Road, Peconic; CTM #75-1-20.1; 20.2 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's parcel is located in the Agricultural- Conservation (A/C) Zone District, and consists of 50+- acres, 4.6+- acres for the existing winery/agricultural use and 45.4+- acres, located on the north side of the Main Road (NYS Route 25) in Peconic. A 4.6+- acre section of the entire 50 acres is improved with two agricultural buildings and on-site processing of grapes from owner's vineyards. APPLICANT'S REQUEST/BASIS OF APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting a Special Exception under 100-31B(6)for a proposed experimental public utility wind turbine. STANDARDS/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: After review of the requirements set forth pursuant to Chapter 100 governing a public utility right-of-way, structure and use, as provided under Section 100-31B(6) in this Special Exception application, and on the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspection, the Board finds: The applicant (LIPA) is a public utility leasing 875 sq. ft. of land, with dedication of a two- acre area for the proposed turbine. The 12/17/03 site map, revised 3/15/04 by J. Grammas Consultants, shows all areas of the agricultural site, existing and proposed, with the wind turbine use. The owner's 4.6+- acre site (CTM 75-1-20.1) is occupied by the owner's agricultural winery. The owner's contiguous vineyard property, restricted to prohibit development, is 45.4+- acres. Combined the total property consists of 50.84 acres. Also submitted are a 12/17/03 Landscape Plan and construction details for the proposed 125' high wind turbine (100' plus 25' blade span). The wind turbine is shown in its proposed location 600 feet north of the Main Road. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant, LIPA/Keyspan, indicates a 20-yr. lease, with a 25' x 35' section of land for construction and operation of a turbine structure. The purpose of the wind turbine structure is as an experimental purpose related to generating clean energy, in a joint 10- year program with the LI Farm Bureau for demonstration purposes. The production module is 15/50 Drive Train assembly manufactured by AOC. The applicant proposes a 20-year time frame. During the hearings, nearby landowners and homeowners expressed concerns regarding noise drone levels at certain times of operation. The applicant confirms increased noise Page 2—May 20,2004 Appl.No. 5450-SE—Osprey Dominion/LIPA _ 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic and vibration levels for a limited time period, and proposes low-noise emission level equipment and operational procedures during construction activities. Max. sound power level is 101 dB (p.2-37 of EA). Neighbors also expressed concern over the visual impacts in this rural neighborhood. Once the structure is built, it will be visible from locations within 1-mile. The structure would be easily viewed from the Scenic Byways Corridor designed by New York State (Route 25 and Route 48) and within 1740 feet,or more,over open spaces and fields. In addressing visual concerns, the applicant has offered: a) monthly site visits, b) a neutral color and a design with lattice built into the structure, and c) to locate the structure north of the two winery buildings on the site, within the agricultural landscape and grape vineyards. These measures do not satisfy the concerns about visibility, since monthly site visits will only confirm and not remedy this concern, and do not demonstrate how additional construction material (lattice) makes the tower and blades less visible, particularly at the top half portion of the tower where the blades are visible over the existing buildings and tree lines, and not screened from view. The applicant owns other parcels within Suffolk County either being used or available for an experimental energy generating purposes, including some that are already improved with public utility structure or uses. It is not disputed that other areas within the Town or County are available for purchase or lease to house such an experimental project. 1. Zoning Code Section 100-31B(6)provides that: §100-31.Use regulations. [Amended 3-14-1989 by L.L. No.3-1989] In A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used,in whole or in part,for any uses except the following: B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. (Amended 12-21- 1993 by L.L. No. 27-1993]. The following uses are permitted by special exception from the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and, except for two-family dwellings and the uses set forth in Subsection B(14) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (6) Public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town, except that wireless communication facilities must obtain approval pursuant to Article XVI, subject to such conditions as the Board of Appeals may impose in order to protect and promote the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. [Amended 11-12- 1997 by L.L. No.26-1997] First, the Board determines that the proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure does not qualify as a special exception use under Section 100-31B(6). The proposed wind turbine is neither a "public utility right-of-way" nor a structure or other installation that is "necessary Page 3—May 20,2004 Appl. No. 5450-SE—Osprey Dominion/LIPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic to serve" any area within the town. By definition, the conceded "experimental" wind turbine cannot be construed as necessary. Moreover, the proposed turbine is not in harmony with the zoning ordinance and will adversely affect the neighborhood for the reasons noted below. 2. The Board has reviewed the General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in Section 100-263 and finds that: A) The use of a portion of this property for installation of a wind turbine structure will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties and uses in this zone district and properties and uses in adjacent districts. The adjacent properties are in the Agricultural-Conservation and Residential Zone Districts. The safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and the order of the town will be affected by the proposed use and its location. The proposed wind turbine is 125 feet in height to be hosted on an open farm. The structure is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area and will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of properties adjacent to this property and adjacent districts. The structure as proposed has not been a necessity for the operation of the farm or as a public necessity to serve the town. The proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view over the surrounding farm lands and open spaces, impacting and interfering with the historical and rural farms and open vistas along the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. B) The use will not be in harmony with and will not promote the general purposes and intent of the code. Zoning Code Section 100-316(6) clearly states that the only potentially pertinent use to be authorized by Special Exception is, "a public utility right-of- way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town." The applicant is proposing a wind turbine with blades at 125 feet in height as an experimental facility hosted on an open farm. The proposed structure and use is not a public utility right-of-way. In addition, notwithstanding the experimental nature of this structure, the turbine could easily be located on other lands, including on other available lands in the area, or on other lands owned, leased or otherwise available to LIPA or Keyspan. As stated, it is neither a public utility right-of-way necessary to serve areas within the Town. It is not a permitted use and therefore contrary to the purposes of the code. , C) The wind turbine is not compatible with its surroundings or with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regarding to visibility, scale and overall appearance. The particular site chosen by applicant is and has been a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres dedicated to agricultural open space, vineyards, and an agricultural winery use. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses are expanding and consist of a landscape nursery use, farm uses, single-family dwellings. A Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tasker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed wind turbine tower. The proposed tower with turbine blades will be visible across the fields between Page 4-May 20,2004 Appl. No. 5450-SE-Osprey Dominion/LIPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic the Peconic Recreation Center, from the Main Road, and will give an "industrial" appearance. The proposed 125 feet in height will create a distinctly commercial view, visible from the nearby homes and viewed over the surrounding rural, open farm lands and other open spaces, impacting and interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. 3. In making this determination, the Board has also reviewed other matters under Section 100-264, and finds that adverse conditions will result from an approval of a special exception in this matter: A. There will be changes adversely affecting the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of such permitted uses. The proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure will adversely affect the rural character of the surrounding area and the probably expansion of agricultural and residential uses. The property is Zoned Agricultural-Conservation and R- 40 Low-Density Residential. The proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view over the surrounding farm lands and open spaces, impacting and interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of agricultural and residential open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are probable expanding permitted uses. The location of a commercial wind turbine is peculiar to this district. B. Property values will not be conserved. No evidence has been submitted to show that the proposed experimental wind turbine in this area of surrounding agricultural and residential uses will conserve property values. The proposed turbine tower is not a public utility necessary to serve the Town, and as such is not an authorized use in this Agricultural-Conservation Zone District. The structure is not a farm structure, and no wind turbines have historically existed within area farms in the town for the purpose proposed by applicant. The applicant also has not provided proof that the structure is accessory or incidentally necessary to the agricultural uses at the site. The applicant also has not proven that installation of this structure is a public necessity to serve the town. C. The operation of a wind turbine at a height of 125 feet will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public, and by recreational facilities, existing or proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. The wing span of the blades will be 50 feet wide, and viewed above the tops of mature trees, visible from the Main Road and areas to the south/west, over and above the roof of the existing agricultural building(s). The area has historically existed as rural with open vistas, farmland and single-family residences. The interference will be caused by visual effects as an "industrial" structure from many sites, and with varying noise effects up to 101 dBA (maximum)from several directions. I ' Page 5-May 20,2004 Appl. No. 5450-SE-Osprey Dominion/LIPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic D. The site is not particularly suitable for a wind turbine operation considering its size and character of the neighborhood. The wind turbine is proposed at a height of 125 ft.from ground level,which is 107 feet higher than the zoning code permits. A structure of this height is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area, and the proposed 125 ft. high structure will be visible from various segments of the roadways and from nearby parks, landscapes, and surrounding farms, open spaces, and residentially used property. The installation of this structure will create a distinctly commercial view interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. An existing Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tasker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed facility. The proposed facility will be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center and the Main Road. There are approximately seven homes on the west side of Peconic Lane that would have views of the proposed facility. The closest mature trees adjacent to the proposed facility are at about 60 feet in height,which does not screen the very visible 125 ft. height at the top half section of the proposed facility. Adding lattice work to the structure as offered by the applicant would increase its visibility rather than reduce it. E. Evidence and concerns with respect to visual impact and noise impact have been presented to show that there will be detrimental impacts to adjacent properties and land uses. Noise impacts: The proposed wind turbine would increase noise levels at the nearby residence by 1.3 dBA to a background noise level of approximately 49.7 dBA(ref. 2-38 of EA). Maximum noise levels from the blades of the proposed wind turbine occur during periods when high winds occur. The applicant stated that the maximum sound power level is 101 decibels of noise from the proposed wind turbine. During periods of high winds, ambient noise levels tend to be higher. (pgs.2-37, 2-38 EA). Visual impacts: The property is at least 600 feet wide, and clearly visible from adjacent areas, including open fields, residences, pedestrians, and while driving along the Main Road and along Wells Road to the southwest. The proposed facility will also be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center, from approximately seven homes on the west side of Peconic Lane, and adjacent areas on the east and north of this site. A structure at this proposed 125 feet in height is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area and will be visible from various segments of the roadways and from nearby parks, landscapes, farms and other open spaces, and residentially used property. The installation of this structure will create a distinctly commercial view interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and Page 6—May 20,2004 - Appl. No.5450-SE—Osprey Dominion/LIPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery,farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. 4. The Board further concludes that without meeting the requirements of Section 100-31B as a public utility right-of-way, or structure, or installation, necessary to serve areas within the Town, rather than as an experimental wind turbine, the Special Exception may not be granted. The Board concludes that the wind turbine, as applied for, does not meet the considerations for a Special Exception. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando,and duly carried,to DENY the variance, as applied for. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman),Tortora, and Orlando. Nay: Member Dinizio. (Absent was Member ehringer.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-1-0). RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN Approved for Filing 5/6N/04 al) 01, LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18,2003 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on Thursday, December 18, 2003, at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter as possible): 1:30 PM OSPREY DOMINION AND LIPA, KEYSPAN #5432V and 5430SE. Location of Property: 44075 Main Road, Peconic; Parcel 1000-75-1-20.1 and 20.2. Applicants are requesting a Variance under Section 100-33A concerning the proposed height of new public utility wind turbine/antenna structure exceeding the code's height limitation of 18 feet; and a Special Exception for a public utility use/structure on this 4.4+acre site. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: November 21,2003. RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN BOARD OF APPEALS By Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk 0110 FORM NO: 3 TOWN OF-.SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHULD,N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: August 26, 2003 TO: Keyspan A/C Osprey Dominion 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,NY 11801 Please take notice that your application dated August 22, 2003 For permit for construction of a wind turbine on an existing winery property as applied for at Location of property: 44075 Main Road,Peconic,NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed wind turbine, o4 this conforming 4.46 acre parcel in the Agricultural Conservation District is not permitted pursuant to Article III, Section 100-33A which states that such structures shall not exceed 18 feet in total height. The proposed wind turbine is measured at 125 feet in height. A o r' ed Signature r - Note to Applicant: Any, hange or deviation to the above referenced a! . ication, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: ZBA,File / LLr I Q SEP �. 5 2003 I . • 01Cy- APPLICA i iON TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS For Office Use Only (� 2 0 Few; $ Filed<6'6 Date Assigned/Assignment No. `1 J Office Notes: Parcel Location: House No. h11°75Street frkl-tit/ j e,i4 Hamlet Pe-code SCTM 1000 Section • 7 Blocic I Lot(s) GU. I Lot Size Zone District I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: ,4UG..Jg 7- .,)-6 AA-get K ai- f €of S ?E-g ec—®R_c=- C4C`-vs PevA6 tee- / • /_•mss 6-(cow-/s' v A Po eJOre- ,sic- ') c7741 6- /14/ Mailing Address: /C YSP61-61 I7$ Gst OBD Cot/er:A-7 fz019--b f a�eec �/c�cJ Ivy j/ ®/ Telephone: (5;7 6) NOTE: If applicant is not the owner,state if applicant is owner's attorney,agent,architect,builder,contract vendee,etc. Aret6ad` `�,-s�+'�Cs) * am �. -_-_.-�- -• r /� .trPc7(C/c /�p�f-/Lev.je /9✓`�edIfI [.y Address: ;� l drr e16.- yf/ehS" Telephone: Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: 0 Applicant/Owner(s) Authorized Representative ❑ Other: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED / US% ,2-*133 FOR: ,,VBuiiding Permit ❑ Certificate of Occupancy ❑Pre-Certificate of Occupancy O Change of Use ' :, El Permit for As-Built Construction G Other: O SEP - 52003 Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subse �,tio>G, n =pa�ragf�g ' t�L of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article _J.` Section 100-334 Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. 0 A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. ❑Interpretation of the Town Code,Article Section ❑Reversal or Other A prior appeal 0 hasXhas not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal 5 No. Year SEP ® 6 2003 r� paF�i ir7�.�.+De�s9r�•-m �S ,rt • . • Page 2 of 3 - Appeal Application Part A: AREA VARIANCE REASONS (attach extra sheet as needed): (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: vJ<ND -175X8/ /cE /s co PA-77ee-Jr7 -1 ) S 77"1 Q- f16-AreoA7u2,4-L- 441oSa"; (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: HEY 7 ti)( .L j6- cofrr,"9-Ti.6'LAT' ' 714 � _. 4/9-NIS-get/Pe n,v.D Mcr)C14 ?,h`LLp�'t C CL Towc32S' /lac- IA) 4CI# rri, (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: SM c_ f er,/e147.- r 77 al G, (r-6172_ CD f' (5) Has the variance been self-created? ( ) Yes, or (X) No. If not, is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or (x) No. (6) Additional information about the surrounding topography and building areas that relate to the difficulty in meeting the code requirements: (attach extra sheet as needed) This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box and complete PART B, Questions on next page to apply USE VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please consult your attorney.) Otherwise, please proceed to the signature and notary area below. Signature of Appellant or Authorized Agent Sworn to before 9� this (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) `f day ofc. .4�J''�m�� ef/ 2003. Nota P •lic ,„4 fezi,ezeaq ZBAApp19/3p/U2 Public, tate of Naw SEP - 5 2003 32 Cualitled in Suffolk County COningssion Expires Nov.24,2ti v 2,0Kaa S9A` 3 OF APPEALS !. 7 Page 2914ppeal Application r r OCT 222003 1' Part A: AREA VARIANCE REASONS (attach extra sheet as needed): , (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if'granted, because: , Wind turbine is compatible with existing agricultural Land Use. - - (2) Thebenefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: Height is needed for wind capture. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: • It is closely tailored to meet requirements of successful operation of wind turbine. (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or-environmental- conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The Use is compatible with surrounding agricultural Land Uses.' (5) Has the variance been self-created? (x ) Yes, or ( ) No. If not, is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or ( ,) No. (6) Additional information about the surrounding topography and building areas that relate to the difficulty In meeting the code requirements: (attach extra sheet as needed) This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserves and protects the character ,of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box and complete PART B, Questions on next page to apply USE VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please consult your attorney.) Otherwise •lease •roc-ed to the si•nature and notary area below. Sign.' • e of Appellant or Authorized Agent Sworn to beforea this (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) / day o .0./V . de 2003 Karen L. Mintzer, Esq. I/' C1 ,(Z/S Kramer Levin .Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Not./ Public) Counsel to Long Island Power Authority ZBA App 9/30/02 LILIYA SURIS NOTARY PUBLIC.State of New YOfld No.01SU6014860 Qualified In Kings County Fled in-New ork CO. �. missies n '?9,20 r:_/ 1 7 • APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ���� • For Office Use Only y Go1�iJO Fee:bo Filed By: Date Assigned/Assignment NNo. Office Notes: • Parcel Location: House No.44O75Street Matin R arl Hamlet PPrflnie 20 . 1 SCT11'I 1000 Section 75 Block 1 Lot(s) 20 . 2 Lot Size;50 acreZone District A/C I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: • Applicant/Owner(s): Frederick Koehler . President , Osprey ' s Dominion ' Vineyards , Ltd . - Mailing Address: 44075 Main Road , Peconic , New York Telephone: 631-765-6188 NOTE: If applicant is not the owner,state if applicant is owner's attorney,agent,architect,builder,contract vendee,etc.' Authorized Representative: Frederick Peritor-e (Keyspan) as agent," for The Long Island Power Authority (Lessee) Address: Keyspan, 175 E . Old Country Road , Hicksville , NY 11801 Telephone: (516) 545-5720 Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: D Applicant/Owner(s) Authorized Representative D Other: Please copy counsel : Richard G. Leland , Kramer Levin, 919 Third Ave. ,NYC10622 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED FOR: ❑Building Permit 0 Certificate of Occupancy 0 Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ❑ Change of Use 0 Permit for As-Built Construction 0 Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article,Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article III Section 100- 32 Subsection (Height Variance) Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: 0 A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. 0 A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. ❑Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section D Reversal or Other A prior appeal 0 has Chas not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. Year " -. - , '4. i aur-4es+arl Ji van=-� t ``.-. •-i-'-`4:---,---.- - _ - i _ t 44fa 72 - � . "A . "t ° OP ° OUTHO 0' P. , <OPERTY RECORD CARD ,.. ai A4y Y .•w„„ - �- - -_ - -1' STREET L_�H 0 -, „r I VILLAGE ! DIST. I COUNTY TAX MAP.'1 ( F Litalce-.� . . x , :l7 �-/ / xC , I \ OG6O//C II A; . :' " ,1i- , - w r5 {V �,.�. �_i M L i { : � afc oftG eoat o i �.� I� -...446.........„,:.•:: k 3, -7—�;'t4mv— '_ -.- -IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS: Cr iS /BC� r`r (l ; ct �'" v�d A. v D O - .. �(o -i 2- `�,.„;;,2, , 1. ' c67wwti.. °^__ �, - _ ® f v 0 e,, r --4" �._ • �s '�i' d'`[� q/ �e�G�. C���r/ /AP.p-Z �F.zl '/1�- �� ZO trp'r>,Y.7011 - ._,,,,,-;._-.7(6..:' ',r.,:...,--,--- --- -------- - 2-c�a--- - //O d 0 r )---v ,3- P ice. -r ,c_ Lay. =,-P' �' -2--,---,,,,f,'.-:,•,,•40-.,7 �',�� - %% o.n :f----24-•:-Po' `� u%3i,,;f ,, . ,s ,�a-� e'er-; 4 7 7$ -- �-:1, :*;ts_', .----- -- -3 1.--er6)- -- - I-16--c --6-/30/5-g , •/,,I - • �i "f F 6f o a 3� � " t. ;.,� , --- - - - 3 - -/4 100 ''/4i /c 06,7-) / ,�� c f _oVi to ,ba3- -6- =y T �_ •-•,--.., .} N 6(12. / 5-. ,4-,V,----/ 7'u0 Na 9eiC� -d{ r .Ct' - 'I . - --•-• ,::--o- Ae-w,0--- - - IC --ts-0 , �c ;�-��. `/6/, - -- f. 7-0/. 'Y?iiS ---- ma ;.Z.- - - -- •j"3-l;tC_, . ' /a,Jrjr;(:. , G A..' A5 V e6.7-»S e. x e. 0- •+ - . . ,:;::''-'7-:: :."': �:: . - : y I ' ' }." -- ]!7 A ' - - � • - • SV ._5'l,1 / `:-1311''L �4 �. N..r": ; �- 1. .- ;ti< ,,;';° " u„'.: ..S/Sf �- - '00(.77 -, , - - - - -7-Q0 O- - ,z , O / ( i1gJ—' d1J_ pYl tt , �,� -410 O.O' 1// 7.?eti' hf ✓w „t, . ;, e• ej� ?( 3f/{ fi em ' •` ':'` Lb 2 S � ` `� fCd °//��d ! 1, ; _ ;i 6,(,y ? R i0-4,,-e., it7 2'1 4:117410.10„ ' 3/,/9� ,' , . S-YoU '1_3//1744 -141:10i2/:",./017,,r,::,,,,,,!,::::,_,*,' , r _, `� / // /y��o } ` 111 ( '�, ,Ct+',f•,.`" . -_ - sibilgz�-L 1/-61-f 43.9- -\4,5.18dL, re-wee 1' s (a/ its gam: ---Af Ai - �� ais rY; - A, -c- \ -- �/ 13-L //6I$p 44-0 - ea./ .c,/ 5.- '°' it:. • red -60/(il faro-(1 -654S-640-- ---' -- - t., :, 9 - �or�� ( t, _ }� .- o va+ / 6 �. 1'/�' &�.-(��76-0) 77-g.g< &�' , .i` :1 4 : � P / ., ': — •'r. , I Icy - �2 t C�`�S-C.�ose-'rn +e- FFEINt1(4.. Voa � : tv i. p-- 1�, ,� iy. 0 7`O 'ta,l w, •jai,B -d {r t,�eX. - .. .rt t 441,,-i,' ._.._____ -=.,,,---,-,-...s. ,. _ _ .. - __ _ v.v _-,�.�._ ,- _ 'Per e^ ,..., . „-- - 75 - c -ac TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB LOT ..._ 3Yce 1---t. ..)CYrr-,e1 t\ft(corf .\\Aci t o <c' .--c \7.-"I.ce,...);.ei! ,:. „..- ACR. REMARKS TYPE OF BLD. 3 /'( 'e' - //1 tç. , 4 (917 2 0) 47106 /4 1 f r P. lifOrD lAi2 ko tilea ,P20-9,75 , --- PROP. CLASS _ -3 ye, / 1 fi / / iherz) I ba. 1/ /( LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE :V/ tf // tr // 171r7j atc*) \,-..7),,x)0 I c4006,4(A,,,-;‘• &,frekr-i., 1,.,, \ 1 P3'rvs636,3 --sft;+ ,5c crv• v-0142' rIve-lopole4- . 6 I CI 7.... .,--:j.' 'P SOC, 471-,b-s- R l- 4 -4, 5 ed4, C•44‘_- 346,'Too -2 -- 1OO e., i 0 2-00 i Zi 3 c;. 3/ /99 - .. .... FRONTAGE ON WATER TILLABLE _ ___ FRONTAGE ON ROAD WOODLAND DEPTH MEADOWLAND k6.5- / 42) /zoo -- /zoo BULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT ----------___ TOTAL -7;:,P COLOR - x TRIM • M. Bldg. Foundation ce Bath Dinette F Extension Basement CRAWLULL Floors Kit. SLAB Extension Ext Walls Interior Finish - L R Extension Fire Place Heat D R Patio Woodstove BR. Porch Dormer Fin B Deck Attic Breezeway Rooms 1st Floor Garage Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor O.B. Pool M-• �Si i,�'zsrt ^7dr �'`w. , •ti;. ' :.its 'w�N,F.Y�' `t1re,.;.5 ::. ,,L. + rr ..5. ..k X.,, .<.;... _"�'��:.+,.a+a,t'_,a+"��s ;. _�Jt3�''cF�'. t:`�`-m r �,4; ,'2 1...4 r.,:t.1-. k"£ '�•.,. ,t:.;'Y,. 4 � .�:J-n Y. r -"..... 1 �._ � 'i r.z.. a aR. ty „ `-,�:ice+• 4'`.11 t,'"it��Ll""`1'`•w - - 8'' re.,: UK ' _i,,,`y`P• ev s ons r` 12-06-96 /O'.1�8' 12-01-97 '10-07-97 `•\, o<. SEE SEC.N0.069 01-23-95 C10�1 04-03-9D p9-01-9E G�• y 8 304 200 WAr MATCH z z 6-02-00 1.2 -�� Z-- 06-14-01 1.0A Id, . I 07-06-01 * a 05.10-02 1.1 .17, 3.5A(c) e gR gyp. 16.6A(c) II' 1 46 4% 4' e A 2 N. q� •�, 37.8A(c) 'r1y (/\ 4' '�- O b S . O -i a 4' <2 v), 6 O A c1�9, k 10.4A(d yy S O 20.4 a 1 46.4A COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 0 6 /6 (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) 9G �tiO4' (<s .t.% 17.2 19.6A :5TOWN OF SOUTHOLD % C 4, $ (DEVELOPLGNT RIGHTS) % FOR PARCEL NO. .fol SEE SEC.NO. 4 074-03-024.1 N 4. ' * 4 (9 Of' ti� o� Q A T.-0 tiS F I b 0 e 74 •8 20.1 / 7.6 �'i g7 4 SA r 1.8A �� 8 ..t. 2.84(c) /. 4.2A(c) 0 G 4 .-g- <v 0 43? *ek • Gp '" 4f y ,y '• a G 6.2 5 ti� y'' 1.8A 4P ,. 0 7.7 s ti 13 _~ °F 15.4A 4.3A(c) a b fi W g COUNTY OF SUFF 6 * �' (DEVELOPIENT RICHT SCH.DIST.N0.5 �. , 4. 41‘A��' + .? 15.4 $ P`` - 0 7.5 d 23.0A 1.8A t 15.2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 4 2.3A(c) (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) 4 * �4 ra TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 6.1 K0 9 1 23.1A(c) 1 1.1 /6 4' sTS O 2.8A O FOR PARCEL NO. .y 4F y v� SEE-0. N ® !s v 074-05-015 ,A a 153 ,5<6 ^ 2.0A * 7.SA(c) C 3 m O a' A o9 $ 0,, i' ‘ ': R. $ t6 Q 9 O 14 2.9A 8 • a 1a ,� q ilk 40 13.1 � L. • 14.1 e v 1.13.1 C0 ,¢ 12.1A(c) ,, • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD '41 4 o PI FORPARCEL SEE SEC. <� 4,4c. B 13.2 NO.086-01 FOR PCL.NO. -003.1FOR PCL.NO. ' SEE SEC.NO. g d 2.2A s ` Q$ {I' SEE SEC.NO. 086-01-010.9 u1 FOR PCL.NO. W SEE SEC.NO. N 300 000 ^� b .! •y v 086-06-028 MATCH LME ~o MATCH 086-01-009.1 UNE E J 4 za 8 MATCH , • ..o—o------ 4- --i ' 1 H i CS 9 „„ H COLOR li yil - 11 . 661'1" •,,,. 4 0.') A l' / .-1--------7-----------______ 1 9 i- ''''' ‘• \ • • -________ Ill ris , - I s ..,'- -s: -. • TRIM _ ,..- ' '-',..'• '' if 4 .....,..- AM 5-,V*, "-', k'...:',,'-` , '' ',,, 'Z'' '1,-,4.,;4,•--,:kc' ', .: , IBM'Aunt ' ,•-• .; . .„ itv ..• -II MI 6 R C--I;Al - .- (•I lit4' i ,ii , - ..• - - 4-2... - '.et"11 4,411C ,''''''',7 -fW ....;':,#•_,-,--'7-''.'..; .:It-..,...-':'. ,-7: ---', *E_Af:•..s'W".•;:i ."7•247 --'-'44A ,, —LH 0.0C.:,r/7"t*ti" *.*-`'.: -• - --2 .!:.:-7,:.74(4,17:- Jr-'7.t.-7,1"''''icA r,..:-.14.4,',...t*, :s."---;:f.,:-'---- '— „.„ . -'44,42:-,:git.:.: ),:-, ....--•,'.`,4.,',E 1,-"'— '2 ' L ' ..------- 7, ,i r - o., ,..'(• 1.3 '-' EPD1---44 Tr: 1 1 l . Bldg. fOt, 21....o.k.--44 -2: 11,44 Foundation Bath Dinette ,-.. Extension 7.'1/4.1:4" ---:'. i44 ., 7 , L —. 1 -1) '-'; 0"--) Pr')‹.421 • '''.;"^ P-7:"...,, 1 .7)6,1-) ——10.-"_-',1,-..- _-_____;: 144:"._ Basement Floors K. _ x ensior19, si x i05--, : 2_65" , 7 242/. 1 Ext. Walls _ Interior Finish LR. xtension— I 4. I Fire Place Heat DR. •,i' -4.0 X-(8CD : 4;-.....0 •i)a - Type esv-, Type Roof Rooms 1st Floor BR. (..0)<-4-(..., Porch F1-5f,:v , _1:5 6 __-,31, Recreation Room Rooms 2nd Floor FIN. B. Porch Dormer . Breezeway Driveway Garage, ) Patio • / t ,..., 7e.--' ,t•• ,.,_ ,e,Iej',::':+4'....'A':- 1\t kw O. B. Total - . .. .---,---- --,..., 7 __1_,___ _ _ ,.. , - ''' '' Na,:. i 1 . . ICS-- /0 ''..' 1 t--1 ' '1 . ' ......0 •-•,,„,, -, ' , , • - i +55. w�g H t0`-�#;,' ,_,.. - ' - ,,,,x,:.__ STREET- -- VILLAGE =.c, r „ 1:7.7", ., , DIST. SUB. LQT., _ P --- e 5 . FORMER OWNER N ect..4:1-z—e5---0---eLl E ��,r- ACP p f __ ,-- . 1 te'`'l�'� -4.p 1 "n ' e.e`'-6. (pfd,.-.ps ,/ ` /fid S W -/..) - TYPE OF BUILDING e, e ',(/4.9-s('cjci // n� / �7-6,yg: nlveils-'le-,oRRbY ve;404>$1AN I " `�4 �'. '��hc I' /G/�A iti lac� ---- RES SEAS. VL. AR7 /g 0 7O COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value ID IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS 10 ) D O v ..�u` C'0 1 ) 000i .--5..�.?d ff.- // i //71". / 4/<f'�5--c- ; _ S. Al 0 f(q r-ci e L. #4,4 ift..,e i/. , M C- �/ -I •ice/ a 1,0 /J /7 �/; � ��f�e 0'5 i0�.i - 7,{ pos- t 2. #6 c v�7 r4 i►/- ► 447,.5'S' fie�c( . y9C) 3 3 O U / O Q `t'//o/`��l//,.� / (.4-4,,,,,,,„(„ ,^:c; L iu--. .0 .✓ d 9'2-rJ 41-, ' / 3 / 6 o . .3. 6- / 51 et) '1 J/127 .1)/�ad 7f'.L2 1-q comet �eT���// 6Pd-�'/I' C� .7 L1 i'� �2 3-d O/ •S'c3e_t Z7 I/i /i/ -'j3�• • CL>71C�+� ' /erd. !Ci-e' A.0 .eJJ�4- ',/, E' ,ir 41,1 L19 C'Ar.s-a. A E BUI DING CONDITION/ / ,/ � J�,o�;,:xp rQ''c. �p � '�'� 13 / 3� " - /(, SL 1a/ �d /3/�/ SA Lr."r/0 o.00v. •ZeS�ace �l �G.f L/iv/ 71. �/A,r,ee/J /moo-- Pt' / �o7upSar� NEW - NORMAL BELOW �/AB QVE c9 • `'.,` -'D '''''f.; .%oaa 3,3 //s4,0 % �9/ �yl�/nt.-c ioo; aa� J,V._a. 174 4 d°9/9o/4.7; Rv, n•,.;�.,v.r-__ 6, e�lAA51 FARM Acre Value Per Valuer ' Acre 4 4 - 1 4,010 ' i•58- -re: f �/ / - L�C��=. �-`Ya'`\f He �-.4e:I2'�..� d vl t C"�,Gt�e� Ti e 1 2/J .. .�O _,// (,s.---13 ✓ , Till-able 2 Tillable 3 Woodland - Swampland �` / r., ;� YO t.:5' FRONTAGE ON WATER Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD House Plot DEPTH - • • BULKHEAD Total .5 o, P 1 3 s- c 0 DOCK GENERAL NOTES +•'" N\ ... e.w .o ..K�. M.4.2. ��i 1911 '- / oar c) ^'[GONIC �� Om, \ \ I( ' N�e� - I IMSS': 11ir.58 ! 1? I ` d \� Pn.121220 i Iw'Irao, _ / '.M:,` 04 .r' i `. \ It iii a 99 �' \\ f un 1..16100.. I .:`>,-.-r CJ 74:0;-... .114... ��` ° "�`\. 1 ' ++* wIm.la. «.amv�;..K) , :242.3r,ne.K a L • " v ,a0 '°c "'.' �.,,' 2.1422 4..Lm.o„ I. ` .a.H t 24 2. is�r»ni N. �..> \I an nark.--- a I r WRc :i KEY MAP \ •° \ I ,--1•01.nYn me 11. I 5. 44 ew WV»m x mow smI 22.7... Muco 0.21.1--- ,2.µ ./ • \ NN ,EYE $ v o N• ...212420.0 142.4 _--N N �xv 2..o a..•n I N N m m UV=MY --- +M ox,•w,,rmnw.. � �\� � '� LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD 1 � .� ; \ i -., _ i , ..." a. 1 ' \\ 3 irli ' �M1a LEGEND '^ .. � _ :mss=-� •* x222.,.,+..,.Id- 9E99 - l.E =axon TainV27 lan �'�! ti —c c In0iw,,.:0 w.oxs mcc -- 1....i.74-7.171 w ?I'll' I ui .n ` ,a u c—acwau.0 °61„14 9C 99 :-.7 ( , .----47-4 °V.A..7 i ...._.F4-_,-,.., r��° - 14�a r.r . .x.r°2.w.x.»�.22, Ego -<� oil _1 \, _ _- .a 121144412...44.1.....-1,..:2122 , Il._ ��� _ ....-4.72.37.1a7.7—. ..41 2.2..14 ca_[Rc-1t _=ico yr.T_� '� _ ..]�o.�.n rem 1 .r�k.. rte= � ' , C r;r42;47,-75` -.:,.I, I� _.y .wenwn 2.22.2..,a,n ...mi ��... ;"-am - �• ''`S•G,°•C`••,+•••o,'v ? �•J✓o:•.;'a': v'� 4_,_117.7..;--;.� 2.i.; yy .. ;. „.., -� 1 7 f44•'.1 ✓h �Y .s✓ sh>�'�v✓ti> >k3 � d �'%:<S�•� MAIN ROAD `y� •ma C• ,y. Y om` ✓' '•�N 1 _�- r ."'T � (_ I `••'�{::,c.}•;'Trv`:3:` i'V •,✓•.•v2.. .•"'✓✓' ,��r-.. t"%'••Yy d•:}• :'&.,, ''`'n 1:+P'.1 I �?:��,' OVERALL SITE PLAN I / 0,21/ r ` '.c"•'. L ✓^ io$y;.,:; 2�{ .>\•1. - - -—- l'''•:+40:•.•:,;%:*;..c.v. I✓ ✓ ��1 ,' . ... s;;f;hsfs? �, ;�= BOHLER ENGINEERING, PC. l LANDSCAI'F. SCHEDULE ENLARGED_1SITF, PLAN T y✓ .... �Nf 1 }L, ..."""`rte "'"°" w°••'°�'r^^r• I i L Lx } _LA.' y` i ` I ii g 201 NORTH sl 11174'RD •L, per eOi&KIL r1Y6 ikn.e_w0. ... NLN•Y, 10 ` .. I.}� _.-_i_I _ _ ___ _ _ — u¢nIJE Win eroRK Inn r v. IIL I g lele)�e].z000_ L 69.x2.2.2..I41[(2) a CJ ti .o.a ` - —T— nIta k— I if w . nz..,°s wx,..uwac E u., �— rmw'ar.,, I-JF �,t? 7�ft''�'T1� Ti.. h���`�,��� SITE PLAN .�P_1� O` HIGH CHAIN LINK °C 51(/J,- y 4.202 4.1 LONG 151AND P�O11LA Admin. J _ FENCE DETAIL � '1 ` e:._'m�'^ WITH f o �" „� ,r 2222 v...x :,`J 3ARDSD WIRE ON TOP ? 1%°,:t"',4", / µ Y®y p '��� =n.. o =IS S� :,g6. o i—'',..,°_!,±2..," NO� 402,24 `.~,m 2.1°,,, -, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK - 4 144.1(63 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No. S45-0 `P Date Filed: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: I (We) , The Long Island Power Authority off333_.Earle Ovington Boulevard , (Residence, House No. and Street) Suite 403 , Uniondale , NY 11553 (516) 222-7700 (Hamlet, State, Zip Code, Telephone Number) hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III , SECTION 100-31 , SUBSECTION (B) (6) ' for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale) : proposed Public Utility Structure - Wind Turbine LIPA is the lessee of the site upon which the wind turbine will be2 constructed and has been authorized by the property owner to make this application. A. Statement of Ownership and Interest. Osprey ' s Dominion, Vineyard3 Ltd . is(are) the owner(s) of property known and referred to as 44075 Main Road , Peconic (House No. , Street, Hamlet) identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 75 , Block 1 , Lot(s):20: 1, &20. 2, which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed "Map of " Filed Map No. and has been approved by the Southold Town Planning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner on B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The proposed wind turbine structure is physically compatible and consistent with the agricultural character of the property and surrounding properties . The'wind he' wind turbine will provide a benefit to the community in that it--Will demonstrate the feasibility of green sources of electricity and provide power to the existing grid . - - C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned A/C and Ex ] is consistent with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. L ] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s) : [ ] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) • STATE OF NEW, YORK) ss. : TSignatur Edward Grilli Sworn to before this /677` day of oc z,3 , 19 . (Notary Pub ''�� J, atiNfle Notary PubIto, State of Nei York ZB2 (rev. 2/6/86) No. 01006038213 Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires March 6 (26 - '''SOFFOL f. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �hp�� . �'pG Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman i,11= y� 53095 Main Road -4 Gerard P. Goehringer ry Z . • P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora V 6 47? .Southold,NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando `-,p�0 �p�'.0 Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jr. = 1 �►s,6i Fax(631)765-9064 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD .ti April 9, 2004 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Re: ZBA Referral#5432V and 5430SE—LIPA Windmill (Osprey Dominion Winery Site) Dear Mr. Newman: Supplementing the recent referral by the Board of Appeals under the Suffolk County Administrative Code, please find enclosed the following which are also part of the ZBA record, as per the Board's March 18, 2004 public hearing: a) copy of a legal brief, submitted on March 22, 2004 in support of the application, b) copy of a legal brief, submitted on April 5, 2004 in opposition to the application. c) copy of correspondence dated March 5, 2004 to the Board of Appeals from Kramer Levin, in support of the application, d) copy of correspondence dated March 5, 2004 to the Planning Board from AKRF Inc., consultants for the applicant, e) copy of the LIPA Environmental Assessment dated March 2004,prepared by AKRF, Inc. Please call our office if you have any questions or need for additional information. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Linda Kowalski Ends. ( OletU4L4. n .(1'1 ,P PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSV.e gUFFO(,�► �OJERILYN B. DHOUSE • �O C9Gy P.O.Box 1179 ��� Chair J� Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO y, Aft Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS �� 0��,�►� Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS MARTIN H.SIDOR : 1 i6%,„01 01 MEMORANDUM E [ 1 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Date: March 31, 2004 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD l APR 6 2004 To: Agency Referral Request Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals/ Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Josh Horton, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer 2004 Suffolk County Department of Health Services MAR NYSDEC - Stony Brook U.S. Army Corp of Engineers zoaoG soika® OF APPEALS. ; New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Water Authority {` E�� S-;�ffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works APR 0 7 2004 From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewe APPEALS ZONING SOAR . OF Re: Proposed Amended Site Pla for Osprey Dominion Conservatory 44074 Main Road, Peconic SCTM# 1000-75-1-20.1 & 20.2 Dear Reviewer: Status: New Active Site Plan. The above listed action and site plan is referred to your agency for review, comments, concerns, permits requirements and jurisdiction. Attached is a copy of the site plan application information for your review. This site plan is for an alteration and addition of the existing conservatory building of 1,357 sq. ft. to include a first floor addition of 1,350 sq.ft and a new second floor storage area of 731 sq.ft. which includes a site plan change in parking from 31 spaces required to a 36 spaces provided on 4.46 acres parcel in the AC Zone located at 44075 NYS Road 25 (Main Road) in Peconic. SCTM#(s) 1000-75.-1-201 & 20.2 Please respond on your agencies position of the above action. Thank you in advance. cc: File *Maps are enclosed for your review 0 / e /lea �+ rn' ,off(194.4.&J 7cea.�� -17-4 3 sP- sP�La'/ ' 6 '> ,= , z 'PLANNING BOARD], ,Ii A ,1#° uFFO� - - BENNET'P ORLOWSKI,JR. 11� Nov CO/�; _ P.O. Box•1179 Chairman �,��a� �\, Town Hall, 53095 State Route : O • 1 Southold, New York 11971-09E ~ RICHARD CAGGIANO ; W "� Telephone't631) 766.1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ‘`Oy �*' 0 Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS MARTIN H.SIDOR =_�01 Jig 's�'iii ee � Date Received " Date Cotrtpleted PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Filing Fee TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CLACE [IWE APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A , N MAR 1 8 2004 New Change Qf Use Southold Town Re-use Extension P!ao:v lc E!cz.+ �,.. Revision of Approved Site Plan Name of Business or Site: es/f ry ys poll moll yin E b► LD 3 )4::a. SCTM#: �/T 1000- 7 01 62. 7 • / et - g'`F) rg, Location: /*O 7 c f'i Ally R i Address: PFCO NI C / it f S 6 Y ))U�� n / Name of Applicant: PiWP = 'v R /cJL 11E/4i- iL Address of Applicant: ,C'7,; Q,,O _ 4-A it to rt. R.D fiCW_s a cfaLk Telephone: '765-- 6/g"' Owner of Land: Os ply y s ?O?4I 1 JcW- I/J jy rz,n s Agent or Person responsible for application: PRA 0fft i s g' WI "I Address: - .~. '�` f'.eccWI(_ 1.4„ •Prco,wc, . .• ••. Tele phone: 5' — GI Y • • Site plans prepared by: • ''' o kii _ 6r .4 OARICkS e -1 License No. 0a. /I II, Address; S 1,9 PUI.Tay_57 . FARfl/ 'pAi'_ J 17,3$ Telephone: 4' Frage 3 Planning Board Slte Plan AppllL ..ti, • • 0 .trt$Total Land Area of Site (acres or square feet) L Zoning District • Existing Use of Site FARtii1 PkacE5541/0 j EPf/L- 54L4-c Proposed Uses on Site. Show all uses proposed anexistTrig. Indicate which building will have which use, if more than one use Is proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area that will be reserved per use. 46 - 1 -- /173 )6 s ,.Es os& lcE D - 2 602 pRo vuc,-r s-ro R A C fAJ R F4 RM. 81.3346 -3 - aoo Er? 9g r sroxilo E l�iq 7 Aross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) �4 toe-Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) .(o r Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) )5;//7 ;;44Nf pqq Xi60`= •bre Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where applicable) Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by neN044,6, Board of Appeals- Case# &date L4/I D 7-t4,Q1510.'E C`4' .t i .Board of Trustees- Case # &date c Ivo ' NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # &date Me Suffolk County Department Health Services- Case # &date Case Number • Name of Applicant Date of DeAsion Expiration'Date Other f*Akrtisope5 Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? `les If so, have proper permits been obtained? Name of Issuing agency StA Fo-K cry D T °F NMLTyj Number and date of permit Issued. F'1-crc-,7-7 Ifs,# 10 — -v2 �13 O10 q dIP pe ric IDE S 7ra E� ��lo• Ati5Pee- 4-'u.D ` ,1oTh D ON s?e -s FERm cT NO ACTION(EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTIONI MAYBE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN BY PLANNING BOARD. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION. • • 3 • • ' i Page2 _ Planning Board Site Plan Application • • APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK • f=RRPER1 Cil -Iv )c yz� being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at SIS OLD- HA nox - RD -1`/EW-4 c2..k- /19s? in the State of New York, and that he is the owner of the above property, or that he is the PROS,A0 - of the CS PREys - D014111 160 1- ✓/ )IAtvS (Title) • (Specify whether Partnership or Corp.) which Is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, Including all rights-of-way, has been clearly established and Is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan Infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or jnanged In any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed In strict accordance with the plans submitted. �f D . Signed �• . •� �f (Owner) • i Signed ; _ . -' •artner or Corporate 0 Icer and Titl:. • Sworn to me this dad /t)lday of f—/rua/v/ 49- • . • (Notary Public) • . • ••�.. • BARBARA LAUFMAN Nary Public,State Of New York No. 01LA6084233 Qualified In Suffolk CountyQOmmission Expire.pies.2,2642:4 . • • • r , f . c lkg ft I \ \\\O �\ KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 TONI L.FINGER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-9239 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 Fax (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 tfinger@kramerlevin;com April 2, 2004 - ECE BY FEDERAL EXPRESS APR 0 5 2004 Ms. Ruth Oliva Chair, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ZONiN .BOA---RD�APPEALs - Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Oliva: Enclosed please find one original and four copies of the Long Island Power Authority's memorandum in further support of its applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception and a height variance. Very truly yours, (:), t94.10f/iter. Toni L. Finger Enclosure cc: Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Scott DeSimone, Esq. (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Bruno Semon(by FedEx w/encl.) Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. (by FedEx w/encl.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/encl.) KL3 2331197 1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance.Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels Lr-) 1 I1 - . • GENERAL NOTES • oy �0j • \ 1.,,rs.N RI(rNE.CCS w GIGO s2 VETO.Aro•0M01Y I9 I I \ x>v Wa,DeM d roPa;Nw,•L.suR.tr Or 1,,,111,0 Rdv,Aswctarr _ _ - . �M .5 NON.le W114.10 N. 0. xd/ r. u.+1c R. Ufrn ..Viii I.. 740.3 /TL'W(02 c) ICONIC �...4 \� BAETFrBE9'03(®6R64101EFHOIf \� V'•L .� N54y9Le'E i - 2 uNwfl Da rY.lrrRodl Co v ��� �'�•')� I . N fCST'u.00 ,x, 4. �• !(GLr M 1195 II%58 �1• • Ts. 2s'„•OT(D[[b) nx >vx D.eErLG.,' LONG MATZ MR.fuNlcR"N1.SP•N j NexsvNlE.w I1m1 © \ � x� MR A9[A YGT ../711111‘,'''. l.DST otn CounR•xru 1' ` N (m or q 4Vi _ 4 IMMO DATA .075 mol.3.0 rosmn DOGG,Nnum) r \ not a.=s [[. v , rsval•Dr s[c,ln1 rx aco.I in x 1 5 m( \ TOME _�_= 5 STATE c 187 NK SOUINYO SUM.COLwtt ; J 20'F et.clal5lJRu,caarRwrmv ,y 777■■■ ifit., W r N Vox.TOM IGO= lid "Il )).0 5 ) 1WC LW M.1311 TIMMY. [WM REDO•RCUCN,i • - WSW.,_e-r' PPtr•:SF] l 40 Td H ^ e C ZIT. J YxD YN MT ARG i OgDW L lld4/<) 120 N[ ]0]011:-(4.pc) � �\ A�4 \ W aT:YrtTY �: .Y[lug 20].Srr s•OLIO AC. O- \ 1�m(mn• `' r�[.L.isl:; -cR-rLT ♦ct �� \ _.raw 00 m c[ Nut 0m xum [:,, 1 454.1 I _ .� _ _ .t \ [w INTx MEGwt CON.LOT avm ,rc 2 ra s7 ' x� _ KEY MAP N \1 I \,\ uv rIRDr,I Tr.: ra' 12.2'(57 CRC ULz y • \ly \ `-PIGP 21'121'NC.P10 :4 8 1987 YR TN[ 20' S9 T tY_LLL La.]D) N 1 5 N(W7.1 Stl[5) 83(387_00 0007) N Y.O. ' 8 T00.0'11' Yw0 71 _-=.0.WO•520801() ggg,,, \ \ 9:,,,'v & MG 144011 •],7214 STOOLS 123• \/\ N yf \ y ~• LCOHRYY 20x 070 \ \ ' `\\., u • MITUV1 7 ' \ \ 1.x+•..�i 5 DLYEE0.16 011 ciTLO an 11 mg,rR7Y OSPRE•Or r8W,CO TO 011 i RR \ N >\ � 0TT I7*LOT[12 mo 20-0000*0-RSCORCCO eN ,206. OR TS KS"MIS S01N10 0�7 O••PURPOSES N N / PLOP 0.611CCIRc 512(0[ `\ x� OINCR Ruh M0Ll4TUPIL PPoJU:ICH "�♦ \ \\ tt /� LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD x� \\ xd \ �. N\ Jr,, MM.woo \� f ?� xy I • \ mo mN.�(\ \ OOj.IIIII 1 i. ,3iiii p ia4y _ I rP LEGEND 327 2"..* 0300.1 WOO 2 urn I F.�� / / rrcvrRl•u\(li,Inc I w ro� (III 1000 ,'il -I-1-...STD CI AIN IIN.i-ACL Dom 1660 t5 I [ ���� e0ai h -'[---E PM1P45LU F1lC1fl,f"(PNCC j.rr l y f % "102o soMIPn.73 �(� �•OM1y _ [_..1-avNM LLL4164CN.STROLL 1a•v 8 IOti] ~( (.� C`4 4S�'d W,C IP,MVP.,f.YS 70 REMAIN .3a ;1 ../ �"m ��'-' 4141•S Oft C Olot tiOr:e,• Srs'N•1 moo I ,dr�bt¢aro, _ O,p Il •TYMf 091 I yip7a ( Lan ma R.. rLia r--- y _,�s[rz +uo -�_� �_ , �! r nlTan L• _ rte. f•1.SI9r[[tJ T Mal '��T-t•BgY LIMO,, s700. /� "'Wall r \�y` 6y' ^ Y:CPN.1 l .' ,--141.2.1.?:...- I SrMT 511 7---- 1 ! \I elori '�•,u! I f .(l[IMY) \ 1 i i ` I 71 • �A•1 ml 18710 PS[�r 1000 _; form go 1 1 ' �•r. _� .� i ti SDK.P.130.3 O -RwRIU mist w.7 00 71 D.VA0prnry 05•BLD wwE,o bbunOR z , or-J,IN- „,• ( 7 mi>Mnn u1 J r _-_.`� \\l -�a WN 5701 5770051---T/1 1 0050 Etr071570N v[iril• R r r.s^__- • �'']�'��� -.spoof'0.0 1 , /' / C _ _ 1 CN+sra0 Pcz., _.�ucC,..`11.,,_ J \ �y, '11187/9, I fwR Y I . _ !j( LOT 21 R.vL lNU NURJr NTN w.,11 17 ipp,i - _i-,r„D,,,,ice � ' / 'n�1>WO '=r C 1 _ f J i r,_r T fT^ ' e.ruvey 6uv1 .7e7-7,..,„ U•a.an[w[vl j 41A MAIM ROAD 0 11M • 3♦>�4.,y0 g�.4,-�♦�♦7.._,♦•� `:vs et•J}l aY w72,,`T1 OVERALL SITE PLAN , I ' I I ..4041:::•S .•��C._^♦0 ♦$Y'0♦•i♦$,v '•♦♦_♦A• j • <1'} ♦ i�\, � 1•' -3,0 ' �rPCNrCR&J: •1♦•.4♦�,,ti. �, •♦ ••,4 4.. �i.� �I+.Y l r��'.�i �1 - - ___- __. -__ _-__ -_ LANDSCAPF. SCHEDULE `.o ;. viO�`'` �•rlry+. �'y�;`> r ._. E BOHLEE ENGINEERING, RC., fva0 .71 OP.(L REV Ic.sL- rT�PC 1 Nr1C GTE�~- •0.0 8 .0.f[Nr1N[ERS•700,07 01 ,SSERVICE e•E P.e0•¢PS•u.70C8•.r 700.1 a; ENLARGED_SITE PLAN I. 1:,i_ L y j1,y, y- I i( DOC Tt GUMP zo1 NORTH SERVICP,RD x•YRoa It aO su[ la !CT OTT UVT.•nl ,YWyr iLYVVB_7M,L ..../LL ffiMSY•9 -20 i 1„8787 MG t[ I _--- i �- - - -- --� s .0e.1,li wl-elm'„ MELVILLE,NOW YORK 11747 •a�n1t>+,i sia�e,.<�e LI S ___ _____ (_516) B7L-2000_ _ I I /[ Ir 77 r1 1p MLC 'r- SNELI N: rob 6 „O:CA AWES NORre.31.11071 6 / 01J _ I_ f I �• I J_ g_ C:t.,TA9 'C A T.J. F1IIA7,7OLA SITE PLAN CORNER/1•11.1,051, 11 1..1; k• a - SP-1 W a - h;T' 0870501 LONG,SIA\D PODFR AUTIIORITY I 8'HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL I f DrS.wND t�P J I'�p1Lsy51@1'GC.;tn," P9arrszwxN 1Na.uR "s'rwrl'0m Ncm.�Rm 1 tD .Pen 9•r1u:m:. 0 a�= � �'�•- 'r WITH BARBED WIRE ON TOP e �-f L_ „e1743 .n �<<� tW..,151Rf.:di.'L: �-Em'dFri-..,l -_� #T5 ._" ,I _ ,rrc_:�" eNn,:».•••,I_�lai7.N21^ I 1.482552 ,A5 SHOWN �ID/To/o5 _ tiI ' APR 0 5 2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK ® 8� o �o op XPPEALs In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority- Osprey's Dominion t #5432V and 543OSE SCTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY'S APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 '. A i OF APPEALS -�o`�+"G BOAS O. :. X eV 1 ., OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK C APR 0 5 2004 °!' l= e Matter of the Application of # eONINGBOARD OF APPEALS EI aiig Island Power Authority- Osprey's Dominion '.,.. .1302V and 543OSE '' 'mS'CTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 # ill i MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND GI POWER VAARIANCE 'S ` °y APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ! ,' " ") submits this memorandum in further support The Long Island Power Authority ( LIPA of its applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special and a height variance pursuant to Zoning pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-31(b)(6) tOrdinance § 100-32 and in response to the March 22, 2004 Memorandum of Scott DeSimone in id, opposition to LIPA's applications. ii THE APPLICATION i The approvals LIPA seeks are necessary for it to construct a 125 foot high wind turbine 1 on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, located at 44075 Main Road in Peconic (SCTM# e The Project is part of an alternative energy • 1000-75-1-20.1 and 20.2) (the "Project"). J . , 1 demonstration project undertaken by LIPA in coordination with the Long Island Farm Bureau., ° ; i p J The property, which is zoned Agricultural-Conservation, totals 50.84 acres. The proposed wind turbine is on Block 1, Lot 20.1, which is 4.64 acres in size and is already location of the 'I ; ' improved with a winery. Two acres of that block and lot are available to be dedicated to the , requested special exception public utility structure use. -• .. 1 :i::‘ 1 • is 1 RECEIVED APR 0 5 2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK � � APpziltsIn the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority- Osprey's Dominion #5432V and 5430SE i SCTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY'S APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 . . • i r 1 Q9 i M1Ti:`.,; ki ,4 A BOARD OF APPEALS F 3 OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK X RECEIVED . f1 C t• APR 0 5 2004 ;x� b Matter of the Application of 'i! ,; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Island Power Authority- Osprey's Dominion � r,.x � '� 2V and 543OSE raa�s ;I s ��`"` - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 � `�}�:� '� parcel#1000 'ts CTMI r MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND POWERHT VARIANCE 'S APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEI °', The Long Island Power Authority ( LIPA ) submits this memorandum in further support pp of its applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special ; ht variance pursuant to Zoning I exception pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-31(b)(6) and a height Ordinance § 100-32 and in response to the March 22, 2004 Memorandum of Scott DeSimone in f v. opposition to LIPA's applications. I THE APPLICATION 1'ly The approvals LIPA seeks are necessary for it to construct a 125 foot high wind turbine 1 on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, located at 44075 Main Road in Peconic (SCTM# },li 1000-75-1-20.1 and 20.2) (the "Project"). The Project is part of an alternative energy ' 11 demonstration project undertaken by LIPA in coordination with the Long Island Farm Bureau. The property, which is zoned Agricultural-Conservation, totals 50.84 acres; The proposed �� SIG • location of the wind turbine is on Block 1, Lot 20.1, which is 4.64 acres in size and is already ail. improved with a winery. Two acres of that block and lot are available to be dedicated to the requested special exception public utility structure use. I Ii. I'"ill. jl I,' 1 . LIPA, through its agent, KeySpan Electric Services L.L.C., has entered into a 20-year lease with the owner of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, which permits LIPA to use an approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land necessary for the construction of the wind turbine. LIPA has also been granted an easement necessary to run the underground wiring from the wind turbine to a nearby distribution line. LIPA will construct and operate the wind turbine and be,• responsible for its maintenance during the term of the lease. In August 2003, LIPA gave written notice to both the Town of Southold Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 8 ECL §8-0101 et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 6 NYCRR § 617.1 et seq. ("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency status and directed its consultant, AKRF, Inc., to prepare an Environmental Assessment I ("EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was delivered to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. The EA analyzed the potential impacts of the wind turbine on land use, zoning and community facilities, historical and archeological resources, visual resources, natural resources, hazardous materials, waterfront revitalization, infrastructure, traffic, air quality, noise and environmental justice, and analyzed potential construction and cumulative impacts. The EA reveals that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the wind turbine. On the contrary, the wind turbine will benefit the environment in that, over a 20-yearperiod, it will eliminate the use of 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas and will 1 �. '-;,rt'; eliminate the emission of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of <sitlfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates. 40, '.1'�'�'�-'1�,.�29117 3 �t . , 1 , m In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant, Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised ' the EA in March 2004. Among the revisions to the EA is a "Visual Resources" analysis, which was modified extensively so that it would follow the New York State Department"of Environmental Conservation Program Policy(DEP-00-2, July 31, 2000) entitled "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts." This analysis examined the potential for significant adverse visual impacts from sensitive aesthetic and visual resources. As explained more fully in the EA, potential visual impacts were assessed based on three field visits to the Project site and surrounding study area and a balloon test conducted on February 27, 2004 to determine locations from which the proposed facility would be visible. In addition, the EA includes photographs taken to depict typical views from the proposed wind turbine and photosimulations that superimposed the proposed wind turbine in the photographs showing existing conditions. The balloon test and the photosimulations were taken in the winter time, when the trees were leafless and the proposed turbine would be most visible. The detailed analysis clearly demonstrated that 4 that while the proposed turbine would be visible or partially visible from various segments of the roadways,it is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on the visual character of the .x: study area,which includes Main Road and Peconic Lane. Revised EA,p. 2-26. In addition to the inclusion of a visual impact analysis, the revised EA also contains • additional information to supplement the noise impact analysis included in the October 2003 EA. Specifically, the revised EA includes (1) design specifications for the proposed wind turbine, whichdesigned as a low noise emission turbine, (2) figure 2-10, which depicts hasbeendi sgn a new �' • the location of the proposed wind turbine and the noise monitoring location, and (3) a table (Table E)that predicts noise level calculations. See Revised EA,pp. 2-33 to 2-39. •Tci 3 • • K13 2329117 3 ;ir. i d Based on the recommendation of its consultant, Nelson, Pope &Voorhis,lus, that the revised EA adequately addressed all of its comments, the Planning Board signed off on the revised EA. A copy of the March 11, 2004 Nelson, Pope & Voorhis letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.'- On March 9, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined based on the Environmental , Assessment Form, the Environmental Assessment dated October 2003 and the revised Irf' Environmental Assessment, that the proposed wind turbine would not have a significant adverlcse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact �. statement. Copies of the March 9, 2004 Negative Declaration are March 15, 2004 Notice of Negative Declaration are attached hereto as Exhibit "B." The ZBA hearing on this matter was opened on December 18, 2003 and was adjourned until February 26, 2004. The hearing was continued to March 18, 2004, at which time Scott DeSimone, a member of the public, expressed his opposition to theos ro p p ed Project. At the request of Mr. DeSimone, the hearing record was left open written submissions only for until April 5, 2004. This memorandum responds to Mr.DeSimone's written comments. A. REFERRAL TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING BOARD F1 e. 1 According to Mr. DeSimone, the subject property adjoins a New York State highway i 1 and, thus, the application must be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission 'I' ("SCPC"). In his Memorandum in Opposition, Mr. DeSimone reminds the ZBA that absent such F d, a referral, any variance j granted by the ZBA would be void. Memorandum in Opposition dated I I March 22, 2004 ("Opp. Mem."), p. 2. Mr. DeSimone's argument, however, does not take into11 1 account the ZBA's procedures for making such referrals. The ZBA does not refer applications to I the SCPC until after it has made a determination.ermnation. Therefore, the ZBA'sdetermination, absent a referral to the SCPC at this time, willnot render the ZBA's determination void. Moreover, the 4 !I �- . RT,_23291173 Pr .f. 1,1 , • i i I. , z planning Board, which has before it LIPA's application for site plan approval, has made a i referral to the SCPC. t I B. LIPA'S APPLICATION IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH SEQRA t ' Mr. DeSimone opposes the application, in part, because "LIPA has declared itself lead i _' agency to perform the environmental review on its own project." See Opp. Mem., p. 3. Mr. :; DeSimone argues (without the benefit of any legal authority to support his position) that under r fix no circumstances "should an applicant proposing development be able to declare themselves lead agency when it is required to seek relief before another agency."Id. (Emphasis added). Contrary to Mr. DeSimone's opinion, SEQRA does, in fact, permit LIPA to declare itself i1 d lead agency. Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, LIPA has state agency status. See Public 3 Authorities Law §1020-c(1). SEQRA requires that the agency principally responsible for r 1x 1 approving or funding or undertaking a particular action (the "lead agency") determine whether je that action may result in significant adverse environmental impacts before it approves, funds or i undertakes that action. See 6 NYCRR § 617.2(u). Because LIPA is the agency primarily I. responsible for funding and undertaking the project, it is an appropriate agency to assume lead I., T.. agency status. {i' Moreover, LIPA adhered to the proper procedures for declaring itself lead agency. 1 SEQRA provides that when an agency proposes to directly undertake, fund or approve a Type I l. f or Unlisted action undergoing coordinated review with other involved agencies, it must, as soon V as possible, transmit Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") completed by the {4 project sponsor to any involved agencies and notify them that the lead agency must be agreed A i; days upon within 30 calendar da s of the date the EAF was transmitted to them. 6 NYCRR 'I §617.6(b)(3 �� ). Any agency with approval authority over a particular project is an "involved 1; _ 5 f 11- . K 1 L3 2329117 3 1 L__ agency" that may vie to act as lead agency for purposes of conducting the required SEQRA review. is In August 2003, LIPA provided the Planning Board and the ZBA with Part I of the EAF and notified both of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the " $z environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant SEQRA. Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA appropriately assumed lead agency status. I Accordingly, LIPA's status as lead agency for this project is entirely appropriate and in A compliance with SEQRA. iC. LIPA IS ENTITLED TO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE IT SEEKS ,i. For the ZBA to grant a height variance, it must engage in a balancing test whereby it 4. weighs the "benefit to the applicant" against the "detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community." In balancing the needs of the applicant against those of the community, Town Law § 267-b requires the ZBA to consider whether: (a) an undesirable 1 3. change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; (b) the benefit sought by the applicant can be i (p ` I , achieved by some feasible method other than the variance; (c) the requested variance is .1 substantial; (d) the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or t.-'1 environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) the alleged difficulty was self- ,, 1 created. II To be entitled to an area variance, an applicant is not required to meet each of the istatutory considerations. Rather, a zoning board must balance these factors in determining i-,1=,, _ , t '! whether the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community should the 2 w variance be granted. LIPA has clearly shown through the in-depth EA, that there will be no ,i k3E cif, 1Y w „' 6 .;"Sr=t,'Ku 2329117 3 ,,, .,:, +i )x,,, X11 I i it i detrimental impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the community as a result of the 'f requested height variance. In fact, as described above, the proposed wind turbine actually will benefit the environment by reducing the use of fuel oil and natural gas as well as reducing i, I. particulate emissions. 1 , 1. The Project Will Not Create an Undesirable Change in the Character of the 1, Neighborhood Nor Will it Cause a Detriment to Nearby Properties r Mr. DeSimone alleges that the proposed wind turbine will create an undesirable change ,f in the character of the neighborhood, will cause a detriment to nearby properties along Peconic ,1 11 Lane and to the east of Mr. DeSimone's office on Main Road, and will have an adverse impact .j on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood due to visual and noise impacts. 'i Opp. Mem., p. 4. The only evidence Mr. DeSimone submits in support of his position is: (1) his H� Iopinion that the turbine, coupled with two existing cell towers, will be an imposing site from the Main Road and (2) what he "imagines" the potential noise from the turbine would be when the ,1 winds reach 45 to 50 knots. As will be shown below,Mr. DeSimone's opinions are merely that-- h, 1'I opinions that are not supported by any factual data, scientific authority or any explanatory j 11 information. 3 Moreover, Mr. DeSimone's bald assertions fail to contradict the comprehensive visual � 1 impact and noise analysis set forth in the revised EA, which clearly demonstrates that the proposed turbine will have neither a visible nor audible impact to nearby property. In the face of 1 ,I the in-depth impact analysis set forth in the revised EA, Mr. DeSimone's opinions are not rl i' enough to support a finding that the proposed turbine might have a visual or noise impact. See ''' t ]'I WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 583 N.Y.S.2d 4,1 170 (1992). ''' ', I .I, �I'Ili 7 � 1,1 KL3 2329117 3 ill,' - A i--..1';;; `:' In WEOK, the petitioner submitted a site plan for proposed radio transmission towers. '-'L-: a application was denied based upon the alleged visual effect of the project upon the Franklin C A_ ,, ,, I'' D. Roosevelt ("FDR") homestead in nearby Hyde Park. The petitioner filed an Environmental i I Impact Statement ("EIS") which considered the towers' visual impact from nine locations, i 1. jincluding the FDR homestead. The EIS concluded that there would be no visual impact from the I1 11 homestead. The visual impact analysis from the FDR viewpoint was conducted in the spring, 1 . 1E • - when the trees surrounding the proposed site were leafless. The planning board also retained an 1 „- tt independent consultant to critique WEOK's draft EIS. The consultant found that petitioner had prepared "an in-depth analysis which utilized a professional and thorough methodology to i -4113 objectively assess the visual impact"of the proposed project. Id. at 378, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 171. :" Nevertheless, the planning board denied site plan approval. The board based its negative decision primarily upon statements from community members, agencies and organizations that the study was flawed and that the towers "may" be visible from the FDR homestead. The If G Supreme Court annulled the planning board's determination and granted petitioner's application ti A for site plan approval. The Court found that "nothing in the record other than generalized 11 complaints voiced at public hearings contradicted [the report of the Town's consultant] or I WEOK's visual study." Id. at 379, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 172. The Appellate Division affirmed and the planning board appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the planning board's determination was not supported by substantial evidence--substantial evidence being "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind i,' may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact"-- and, therefore, affirmed the il ' lower court's ruling. Id. at 383, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 175 (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals found that petitioner's detailed visual impact analysis was made under the least desirable .. j 8 KL3 2329117 31 1,1 fl IE A andthatit ' �- eatest, ' facility would be gr �'� k when visibility of a tower radio transmitting C'-4-conditions, y The Court further found eon from the historic site. 4'eoncluded that there would be no visual impact and statements from �� fanning board's contrary determination was based on comments •�', that the psupported by and agencies that were at best mere conjecture and were not ` community members g thus, such generalized authority or any explanatory information and, any factual data, scientific 1 objections did not constitute substantial evidence. community J inions do not constitute substantial tI ,., As in WEOK, DeSimone's unsubstantiated op or from nearby properties t' wind turbine will create a visual impact evidence that the proposed DeSimone's generalized �' will be loud noises at certain wind levels. Thus, Mrcreate an that there his allegations that the proposed wind turbine will �r complaints cannot support neighborhood and will cause a detriment to nearby property. undesirable change in the neigh adjoining property " objections from it should be noted that there have been no obj turbine.Moreover, wind turb } the east of Mr. DeSimone's office or on Peconic Lane to the proposed about the �;' owners to know opposition is likelybecause residents do not Mr.DeSimone says that the lack of ublic hearing, application. Opp. Mem., p 8 However, where the ZBA is required to hold a p a Pp 100-275 and 58-1. Among �1 notice requirements must be followed. See Southold Code §§ j, certain q these notice requirements is the requirement that the applicant send notice to the owners of 1} 1 property which abuts, and every property which is across from, any public or Such notice must be made by private street from the property included in the application. prior to the date of the return receipt requested and posted at least seven days certified mail, to the owners at the addresses listed for initial public hearing on the application and addressedIn accordance with these e local assessment roll. Southold Code § 58-1(B)(2) them on th to all owners of land ublic notices regarding the ZBA hearing requirements, LIPA mailed p . 9 1 L ' ^ KL3 2329117 3 y f 4 k' ail re receipt II 1 ber 4, 2003 by certified mail,wind turbine on Decem owners did have ` ,, _.- "surrounding the proposed the ad oining property -� y,.,_ to Mr. DeSimone's assertion, J : i. requested. Thus, contrary ay.` ty to object. ', }� ��: notice of the hearing, and ample opportune W` DeSimone argues that the ZBA's determination should be mindful of the 1 Lastly, unction wrth the ` Peconic Lane School for development in cont r{ in purchasing point in :��:. Town's interest p at this Town pool and park. Opp.Mem.,p• 4. However, } 1;-;' recreation center as a p or definitive plans have been ,, adjoining preliminary the Town has not purchased such property and no p Y '�� time, on the instant application. developed. Thus, this speculative venture should have no bearing . hool and the Town Recreation Center were both included in Nevertheless, the Peconic Lane Sc t: the half-mile study area analyzed in the revised EA. `` . _ t b an Other Method 2. The Benefit to A.,licant Cannot be Sou• of wind turbines for power N` The benefit that LIPA seeks is to demonstrate the feasibility sources of �, ;, een applicability of distributed energy sources, and to expandgr �, x generation and the determining In electricity on Long Island as a part of its Clean Energy Initiative program• T site search,which is detailed in the appropriate sites for the Project, LIPA engaged in a thorough li! 'f ppropri j LIPA identified and studied approximately 45 t0 find a suitable site. In so doing, revised EA, to :; different possible sites. tle es that LIPA has not shown that the benefit it seeks can be ', Mr. DeSimone simply al g meet, Mr. 5h In of his argument,achieved by some feasible method other than a variance. supportosed turbine to site the p p 1I DeSimone identifies several sites that he believes LIPA can ro is based on several minimize residential impacts. However, Mr. DeSimone's argument _ property all along the First, Mr. DeSimone alleges that LTA owns waterfront p p y and inaccuracies. in Shoreham north shore of Suffolk County and other property slated for power plants 10 1(1,3 2329117 3 E. Riverhead, which could mitigate the placement of the wind turbine in residential areas. Opp. Mem., p. 5. However, the waterfront properties referred to by Mr. DeSimone are not owned by LIPA. Rather, the sites identified by Mr. DeSimone are owned by Keyspan and LIPA has no development rights to them. Second, Mr. DeSimone alleges that LIPA failed to identify the owner of the land north of the proposed site for the Project, toward the railroad tracks, to determine whether the owner would permit the proposed turbine. Opp. Mem., p. 7. This statement is also erroneous as Suffolk County has, in fact, purchased development rights attached to this property as part of its farm-preservation program to preclude uses other than farming. Mr. DeSimone also argues that LIPA has not submitted any scientific evidence or ` otherwise demonstrated that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to achieve its goal. Opp. Mem., p. 5. LIPA's initiative to demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbines for power LL generation simply cannot be conducted without a wind turbine. Table D of the revised EA E5 contains design specification for the proposed wind turbine. The turbine, which is state of the art, is the recommended minimum height for wind turbines in this area of Long Island, as it is the minimum height necessary to capture the wind required to generate electricity. Thus, there are no other alternatives LIPA can seek to the requested height variance. However, as detailed in the EA, LIPA has conducted an exhaustive search to determine the most appropriate site for the proposed turbine and has performed a comprehensive assessment to ensure that the proposed Project will not create any adverse impacts. 3. While the Height Variance LIPA Seeks is Substantial and its Hardship Self-Created,Neither is Fatal to LIPA's Application Mr. DeSimone alleges that LIPA's application should be denied because (1) the variance LIPA seeks is substantial and (2) LIPA's hardship was self created because it leased the property 11 KL3 2329117 3 and purchased the wind turbine without considering the required height variance. Opp. Mem., pp. 5-6. While the requested 90-foot exceedence of the permitted maximum height is substantial,the 125-foot height of the wind turbine is necessary so that the facility is high enough to capture the wind required to generate electricity. Nevertheless, the "substantiality of a } 0variance cannot be judged solely by the percentage deviation from the mandated requirements of a zoning regulation. Instead, the overall effect of granting relief is the relevant inquiry." N.Y. jt Town § 276-b cmt. at 334 (2004); See Kleinhaus v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Cortlandt, 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37 (col. 3) (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 1996) (Although a variance application to erect a 120-foot amateur radio antenna was considered substantial with respect to the applicable 35-foot maximum, the Court determined that substantiality is relative and could not be gauged in the abstract, thus, although the Court credited the board's finding that the variance was substantial, the Court concluded that the deviation only becomes relevant if it relates to an adverse effect in the neighborhood), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." Despite the substantiality of the variance sought, LIPA's comprehensive EA has clearly demonstrated that the requested variance, if granted, will not create any adverse effects to the neighborhood. Therefore, the quantity of the variance sought is inconsequential. Moreover, while LIPA's leasing of the property and purchasing of the wind turbine without considering the height variance could possibly be construed as a self-created hardship, it is not fatal to LIPA's application. While the self-imposed nature of a hardship'is a factor, it is not determinative. De Sena v. Village Bd of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Hempstead, 45 N.Y.2d 105, 408 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1978). Thus, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created is a consideration that shall be relevant to the decision of the ZBA, it shall not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance. Kleinhaus 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. at 37. In fact, courts have held that 12 = KL3 2329117 3 as long as there is no evidence that granting a variance will not have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood or adversely impact the physical and environmental conditions, area variances may be granted despite the substantiality of the variance sought and the self- created hardship. See Easy Home Program v. Trotta, 276 A.D.2d 553, 714 N.Y.S.2d 509 (2d Dep't 2000) (The Court held that the zoning board's denial of an area variance was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence because, even though the applicant's difficulty was self-created and the requested variance was arguably substantial, there was no evidence that granting the variance would have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood or adversely impact physical and environmental conditions, and the board acknowledged that there was no feasible alternative to the proposed plans); Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 633 N.Y.S. 2d 259 (1995) (The Court held that the granting of an area variance to allow the demolition of a boathouse and construction of a larger boathouse was rational and was not arbitrary and capricious even though the difficulty was self-created and the variances sought substantial, as the record supported the zoning board's findings that there would be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, that the variance would have minimal impact on nearby properties, and that no alternatives to the grant of the area variance existed). LIPA has provided substantial evidence to show that granting its requested height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and would have minimal or no impact on nearby properties. The revised EA provides an in-depth analysis of various potential impacts, including visual resources, noise, traffic, community facilities and natural resources. Thus, despite the height of the variance, there will be no undesirable effects and thus, LIPA's variance should be granted. • 13 KL3 2329117 3 D. LIPA IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 11, Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100..263, in order to grant a special exception, the ZBA must determine that: (a) the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable u'se of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the proposed use will not prevent ti the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district in which the proposed use is to be located or in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, rP • convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; (e) the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general; and (f) all proposed structures are readily 'L1 accessible for fire and police protection. In making such determinations, the ZBA must consider a number of factors set forth in Zoning Ordinance § 100-264, including the character oft e existing and probable development of uses in the district and the suitability of the district for the location of the proposed use, and whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed use. Mr.DeSimone simply argues that the special exception should not be granted because the experimental project, "a power generation facility," is not in harmony with general purposes or intent of the zoning ordinance or use district in which it is located and, thus, will likely adversely affect the reasonable permitted uses in adjacent use districts and the Town's intentions to develop a pool adjacent to the site. Opp. Mem.,p. 6. Again, Mr. DeSimone proyides no support for these allegations. The revised EA • discusses at length how the proposed wind turbine site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and agricultural-land uses dominate the land within 1/2 mile from the site. Windmills 14 1(1.3 2329117 3 i have historically been part of the farm environment and the wind turbine constitutes a I historically consistent structure that conforms to existing farm uses. The proposed site is suitable 1 for the proposed use, as it is flat and provides exposure to prevailing winds and is located at least 1 1/2 mile away from the closest community facilities and would create only minimal visual impacts and insignificant noise impacts. Moreover, specially permitted uses in the Agricultural-Conservation zoning district, include, among other things, "public utility rights of way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town ...." Id. § 100-31(B)(6). The inclusion of a particular use as permitted in a zoning district is tantanttbunt to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. North Shore Steakhouse, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeals of the Inc. Village of Thomaston, I 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645 (1972); Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 10001002, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 628 (1997). Thus, the fact that the Code specifically allows for a special permit for a public utility structure means that the legislature (i.e. the Town , Board) has determined that, under the prescribed circumstances, such a facility is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code. The revised EA also demonstrates that the proposed wind turbine will not interfere with any permitted uses, community facility, historic resources or the neighborhood character. Mr. DeSimone's argument that the proposed turbine could interfere with the Town's intent to develop a pool is entirely speculative at this juncture, as the Town has not yet developed any such plans. It is ludicrous to deny an application based on plans that may never pan out. Based on these facts, more fully discussed in the EA, the erection of the wind turbine will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or the orderly and reasonable 15 KL3 2329117 3 , ;1 A to' 5j'� Y ,. f • dor specially permitted uses in adjacent zoning districts. Nor will the wind 6 °••%.-,0/1 permltte � properties districts. � � 5 : a•interfere with existing uses or the development of adjacent ro erties or zoning ,,„- will be no adverse effects on health and safety and, as the wind turbine is consistent with moi u �r I rreharm with and promote the purposes of the use willbeon k ' agricultural uses, the in Y : S orical agri al dards for granting a special H4= the wind turbine meets the star ....-:4-11.'"-' �.rig Ordinance. Accordingly, f . , ' ; ,t , Oi , < exceptionun CONCLUSION F" for a for a special exception and height j '1 For the forgoing reasons, L]pA's applicationi is , *- variance should be granted. Dated: New York,New York April 5,2004 .;!1 S Respectfully submitted, I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &FRANKEL LLP ,I ` Attorneys for the Long Island Power Authority , 1 1, 1 By: Ric and G. Leland 919 Third Avenue !1 New York,New York 10022 11 (212) 715-9100 i Of counsel: Toni L. Finger,Esq. . i. 16 j . !1 KL3 2329117 3 .13, LLC �-.: - 1%1"3GN------ 471:11:1. N, VI'JOI_ _. �,j • IIONBULTING Mt CN V$RDNMEN TAL Pl,4NNIN® ,, I CHAMP J.VOORHIS,CEP AO,•ARTHUR J ROI:RSES,SE.vary 'P.E B JOSEPH R.EPIPNNeA PE•ROBERT G-NELSON,JR,P.E. PAULM.RACZ RLS.•'TMA HOS LEMBO P.E. .L, i. 3.1'' March 11,2004 li• .t Town of Southold Planning Board (i~ ;' Southold Town Ball t5 53095 Main Road IRECEi4 I Southold,New York 11971-0959 Attn: Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse-Chair BAR 1 5 2004 Re: L t'A Wind Turbine Envirott1n: i .anent . F • . n - 1 atlorlS NP&V#03434 1 Dear Ms.Woodhouse: At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the revised and resubmitted Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared404 for the aboveA Tannin Consultants (AKRF) and dated March, I; Environmental and Planning ;: referenced project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR), 6NYCRR ; Part 61 .9(a)(2)(i). `- ti ter' 2003 and based on our review Previously AKRF submitted an initial draft of the BA in October, .,, of the document and the SEQRA regulations we believed that the document was insufficient as a decision-making tool and submitted several comments to be addressed in a letter dated January ', },; 19,2003. AKRF has responded to these comments in a letter dated March 5, 0 and� all of revised EA. Based on our review of the resubmission we find that it adequately ,,.:, : :r the previous deficiencies of the initial document reaching a d determination bane Plarming of significBaneed accept •, . the EA as complete to be used for the pulp and 1' `. . 0 I� a to review this documentplease call if you have any questions. v ; Thank you for the opportunity ;; ..a�_ Very truly yours, 1, : NELSON.POPE&VooRHIS,LLC ;, ;y,Elk Eric Arnesen,RPG I, R,,. Project Mata er `.: ` / 4.6.-Iii,_/ , i.r. ,'-._ ,fg ._.. .- -,,....„ ',4,,,, ,'4 - CEP,AYCPa: I -4. =f • Man ._Partner t 67P WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE. NY 11747-21138 1.1 •,2, (83.1)427-EEG5 PAX IMO'S 427-oaao wwW.NELBONPOPE,COM , , TOTAL P.©2 II ''�A�+ ' • `N• 4r. ..-..;= � V 1,61/.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review ,,, FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM • C ly manner, whether a oject or The full EAF is oigned to her an action may be plicants and significant isencies rnot always easymine,in an toanswer. F equently,rthere are aspec s of on may ti The jecquestionief whether y9nificant. '' technicallyexpert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge r t that are subjective or unmeasurable It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal a{ec W1ed9e of the environment or may not be ,die P articular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. 4" The full EAF is intended to provide a method �ib ewhereby enoughPolicants and allow int odu ctionsofanformat onassured to fit athe proje tdetermination actionProces =been orderly, comprehensive in sat yet flex ;,EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: : Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data,it assists 1 a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. ' ,,i.' ro ect or action. It provides guidance Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a p 1 wyw as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The iI form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. 't,,,, , Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is ' actually important. f THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY • } DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions ', El .. Part 2 Part 3 Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: EllPart 1 'Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate),and any other supporting that information, and `,yconsidering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. will not be t ri B Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, in PARTre have been a significant therefore for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures descn a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. 'A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions ,I' Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Town of Southold,New York. /1\ Name of Action Long Island Power Authority , I Name of Lead Agency Chief of Staff I Edward Grtlh 'I Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer ) 7 , — __________________ ��ure of ` Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) ;I Signature of Re�a(ionsible Officer in Lead Agency /r P1 Cwte"i CJ g" 0O17i ate Page 1 of 21 • . State ental QualitReview NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Date: March 15,2004 j This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to ualit Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. Article 8 (State Environmental Q Y proposed Island Power Authority("LIPA"), as lead agency, has determined the The Long will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft J action nmedesci al pa below Statement will no be prepared. ` ,\ Environment p s Name of Action: Southold Wind Turbine Project SEQR Status: e 1 Ung]std X I Yes Conditioned Negative Declaration: X es o r Description of Action: The construction and operation of a 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Southold,New York. l Location: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Southold,New York, SCTM Section 75,Block 1,Lots 20.1 and 20.2. ,\ Supporting This Determination: A long form environmental assessment form Reasons Suppo g comprehensive environmental("EAF")was completed in October 2003. In addition, a comp i f Cance << A" was prepared in October 2003 and revised in A.Marchc2004 to address sign assessment( E ) sigic comments provided by the Town of Southold Planning B character,historic and d byLIPA on March 9, 2004. The EA and the revised EA use, community nlyzed the potential environmental rssuewaterfront environmental impacts of the project related to land visual resources,natural rand construources, acardous materials,upon the EAF,the resources,archeological resources, quality, noise, ndinfrastructure,traffic,hair q Y, revised EA,LIPA has determined that the proposed project would not have any EA and the significant adverse impact on the environment. KL3 2321468 1 » _ For Further Information C C dPerson: Edward ng eland power Authority Address: 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale,NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail egrilli@lipower.org � I III • I I I I • I ' I KL3 2321468.1 ' I III 91 Page 2 of 7 • wfi w 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) Page 1 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) New York Law Journal Volume 215, Number 58 Copyright 1996 by the New York Law Publishing Company Tuesday, March 26, 1996 Court Decisions Second Judicial Department Westchester County Supreme Court KLEINHAUS V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF CORTLANDT Justice Joan B. Lefkowitz Petitioners contracted to purchase a residence in the Town of Cortlandt in 1993 at a time when the Zoning Code of the Town of Cortland had no height restriction applicable to free standing antennas (former X88-39[B] [2] ) . Prior to consummating the purchase, the Town amended its zoning laws to provide that in an R-40 (residential one acre) zone the maximum height allowed for residences is two and one-half stories or thirty-five feet (5307-17) . The Table of Dimensional Regulations (5307-17) provides that the maximum height allowed for a free standing antenna is the same as for a principal structure in any residential zone, i.e., cannot exceed thirty-five feet. Petitioners have a six foot directional antenna on the roof of their home. Roof antennas may be of any height under the Zoning Code provided they do not cover more than twenty-five percent (25 percent) of the area of the roof (5307- 18[E] [2] . Petitioner J. P. Kleinhaus is an amateur radio operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (hereafter "FCC") . Said petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals (hereafter the "ZBA") for permission to erect a one hundred twenty foot free standing antenna on his property with a wing span of twenty-four feet. The property consists of 58,432 square feet and is heavily wooded. The respondent held three public meetings on the application at which neighbors spoke; persons who have similar radio towers or antennas also spoke; the petitioners made submissions of documents and members of the ZBA conducted site inspections on the subject property and the surrounding area and also at six other locations where antennas exist in other communities. The ZBA treated the application as one for an area variance, a classification not contested herein by petitioners. On October 19, 1995 the ZBA made findings, set forth reasons and denied the application. Petitioners thereafter commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding to annul the determination. Petitioners contend that the Zoning Code restriction on free standing antenna height is facially invalid, or, alternatively, is invalid as Copyright o 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. I L httn://nrint.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000028560003992100BBO... 4/2/04 Page 3 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) Page 2 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) applied and that the determination by the ZBA is arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. On September 16, 1985, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling, known as PRB-1, partially codified at 47 CFR §97.15. The essence of PRB-1 is that amateur radio operators are important to the interests of the nation. Therefore, conflicts between amateur operators using radio antennas and restrictive zoning ordinances • are to be avoided. On the other hand, the FCC recognized that local governments must address the concerns of all its citizens and if their interests are applied in an "even-handed" fashion (PRB-1, para. 24) , they may affect amateur radio • operators. Consequently, "a limited preemption policy is warranted" (ibid.) . Nonetheless, regulations that preclude amateur communications "must be preempted" (ibid) . The FCC Ruling went on to state that it would not "specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the prese mechanisms for special exceptions, variances or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve . . . height of antennas based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose" (id. , para. 25; 47 CFR § 97.15[e] ) . The FCC authorizes antennas up to two hundred feet in height, with approval necessary for those who wish to exceed that height limit (PRB-1, para. 3; 47 CFR §97.15[a] ) . Prior to proclamation of PRB-1, it was held that FCC preemption, such as it existed under former regulations, did not oust local governmental authorities from enforcing height requirements on antennas for amateur radio use. Matter of Presnell v. Leslie, 3 NY2d 384 (1957) , rearg. den. 4 NY2d 1046 (1958) ; Guschke v. City of Oklahoma Citr, 763 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1985) . The regulationsf the FCC have the force of statutes. City of New York v. FCC, 486 US 57, 63-64 .(1988) . As such, the FCC regulations preempt local zoning laws to the limited extent, provided in the regulations. Pentel v. City of Mendola Heights, 13 F.3rd 1261 (8th Cir. 1994) ; Bodony v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point, 681 F.Supp.':10Q9 (ED NY 1987) ; People v. Krimko, 145 Misc. 2d 822 (Just. Ct. Nassau 1989) ; see—Matter of Marino v. Town of Ramapo, 68 Misc. 2d 44, 57-58 (Supreme Ct. Rockland 1971) . In Pentel, supra, the Court summarized the statements of the FCC, the types of arguments advanced by petitioners in various cases and the applicable requirements concerning height of. amateur-radio antennas (pp. 1263-64) : -"The FCC was attempting to referee the tension between these interests when it issued PRB-1, in which it attempted 'to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters. ' PRB-1 ¶22. After weighing local, federal, and amateur interests, the FCC issued a ruling that has a limited preemptive effect on local regulations. See PRB-1 ¶24. The federal courts that have addressed this ruling have upheld its preemptive effect. See, e.g. , Evans v. Board of County Comm'rs, 994 F.2d 755, 760-61 (10th Cir. 1993) ; Thernes v. City of Lakeside Park, Ky. , 779 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) . Courts applying PRB-I have discerned two means by which PRB-I may preempt a local ordinance. First, the local regulation may be preempted on its face. The city's Copyright © 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000028560003992100BB0... 4/2/04 1 G1,6v-r vi , Page 3 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) 1 zoning ordinance does not conflict on its face with PRB-I because it neither bans nor imposes an unvarying height restriction on amateur radio antennas. See Evans v. Board of County Comm'rs, 752 F.Supp. 973, 976-77 (D. Colo. 1990) ; Bulchis v. City of Edmonds, 671 F.Supp. 1270, 1274 (W. D. Wash. 1987) . Second, PRB-1 also preempts a zoning ordinance that a city has not applied ed in2d manner that reasonably accommodates amateur communications. See Evans, , at 761; MacMillan v. City of Rocky River, 748 F.Supp. 1241, 1248 (N.D. Ohio 1990) . The FCC refused to specify a height below which local governments could not regulate, and instead declared that 'Local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. ' PRB-1 ¶25. Initially, we must discuss the extent to which this language requires municipalities to yield to amateur interests. Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interests against the federal government's interests in promoting amateur communications, see Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990) ; MacMillan, 748 F.Supp. at 1248, we read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do more - PRB-1 specifically requires the city to accommodate reasonably amateur communications. See Evans, 994 F.2d at 762-63. This distinction is important, because a standard that requires a city to accommodate amateur communications in a reasonable fashion is certainly more rigorous than one that simply requires a city to balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit a radio antenna. Application of this reasonable accommodation standard, however, does not require the city to allow the amateur to erect-any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city 'consider[] the application, ma[k]e factual findings, and attempt [] to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant. ' Howard V. City of Burlingame, 937 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1991) ; see, e.g. , Fa2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing to permit a crank-up tower, a shorter tower, or a tower located elsewhere) ; Williams, 906 F.2d at 997 (stating that the city suggested a limitation on the hours the antenna could be extended, and noting that the amateur could apply for a shorter antenna) . Under this approach, a local regulation that impairs amateur radio communications is !, preempted as applied if the city has not crafted it 'to accommodate reasonably ; amateur communications while using the minimum practicable regulation [necessary] to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. ' PRB-1 ¶25." I In Pentel, the zoning ordinance limited the height of a radio antenna to I twenty-five feet. Petitioner was using a 56.5 foot roof tower antenna but wanted to erect a free standing sixty-eight foot radio antenna. The city council denied her application but permitted her to continue to use the present antenna though it Ii was in violation of the zoning ordinance. The Court held that the ordinance was I not facially invalid as it did not ban antennas nor impose an unvarying height I requirement (13 F.3rd at 1263) . Other courts have held that where the zoning ordinance provides for variance or special use permits and standards exist for the reviewing agency to follow, the zoning ordinance is not facially invalid even though it prohibits antennas beyond a certain height because a reviewable procedure exists. Evans v. Board of County Commr's, 994 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1993) ; Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1990) ; Bulchis v. City it Copyright ° 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. ii ,',4:,' �� ,; .Vii••. ht // nnt.westlaw.com/delive html.Best=at &dataid=B0055800000028560003992100BBO... 4/2/04 tp; p ry. P Page 5 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) Page 4 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) of Edmonds, 671 F.Supp. 1270 (W.D. Wash. 1987) ; see Matter of Basile v. Town of Brookhaven, 170 AD2d 1043 (4th Dep't 1991) ; cf. Cawley v. City of Port Jervis, 753 F.Supp. 128 (SDNY 1990) ; Village of Elm Grove v. PY, 724 F.Supp. 612 (E.D. Wis. 1989) ; VanMeter v. Township of Maplewood, 696 F.Supp. 1024 (D.N.J. 1988) . At bar, the parties have charted their own procedure with respect to how the matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals as an apparent original case and not on appeal. Cullen v. Naples, 31 NY2d 818 (1972) . Since the application has been treated as one for an area variance and the relevant provisions of the Town Law (Town Law §267-b[3] ) were considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the only remaining issue is whether application of the variance standards is consistent with PRB-1. Stated differently, is the height restriction on antennas in the Town of Cortland's zoning ordinance invalid as applied? It seems that application of variance standards can occur consistently with PRB-1's concerns. 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law & Practice (3rd ed.) , § 13:38; Matter of Basile v. Town of Brookhaven, supra, 170 AD2d 1043; see, 83 Am. Jur. 2d, Zoning & Planning, §488; 3 American Law of Zoning (3rd ed.) , § 17.60; Ann. 81 ALR 3rd 1086 (1977) Zoning: Radio & Television Facilities (esp. §8, pp. 1094-96) . The standard of review in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding is whether the action of the zoning authorities is illegal, arbitrary and capricious or is not supported by substantial evidence. Rice, Practice Commentaries to Town Law §267-c, p. 122 in 1996 Ann. Supp. , McKinney's Consol. Laws of New York, Book 61 (Sections 190 to End) . The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board even if compelling inferences to the contrary can be made. Matter of Doyle v. Amster, 79 NY2d 592 (1992) . A determination is supported by substantial when the record shows evidence of relevant, probative and material proof that reasonable persons would accept as adequate to support an ultimate fact. People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 (1985) ; 300 Gramatan v. Human Riahts, 45 NY2d 176, 180 (1978) ; Matter of Party City v. Bd. of Appeals, 212 AD2d 618 (2d Dep't 1995) . Prior to 1992 there was no general state law that deferred the criteria for review of use or area variances. The applicable statute, §267(5) of the Town Law, required that the ZBA consider "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships." Case law filled the gaps by defining "practical difficulties" (e.g. , Matter of Wilcox v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 NY2d 249, 255 [1966] ) and "unnecessary hardship" (e.g. , Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 76 [1939] ) . In 1992, the Legislature specified what factors the ZBA must consider on use and area variance applications. Town Law §267-b (2) , (3) . As to area variances, the ZBA was instructed (Town Law §267-b[3] [b] ) : "In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the ,health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the w; Copyright ° 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B005 5 800000028 560003 992100BB O... 4/2/04 Page 6 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) Page 5 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance." In Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 (1995) the Court of Appeals held that an application for an area variance need not establish under Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) "practical difficulties" as formerly required. In applying the statutory criteria the ZBA found: (1) an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood would occur since the antenna would exceed the tree line and can be seen from adjoining properties; (2) the applicant could continue to use his present antenna; (3) the variance requested is too substantial, from thirty-five feet to one hundred and twenty feet; (4) the proposed antenna would have an adverse impact on the environment by reason of its visibility during the six-month period the trees are leafless and would have an "industrial" look, and (5) the difficulty was self-created since petitioners purchased the premises when the zoning ordinance prohibited free standing antennas to exceed thirty-five feet (unless, of course, a variance was granted) . The Court finds that some of the ZBA's findings are not supported by the evidence. First, as to visibility, one board member observed that the balloon floated over petitioners property at one hundred and twenty feet during a site inspection was not visible from certain nearby areas. Additionally, next door neighbors did not object to the application and one actually supported it. Second, the fact that Mr. Kleinhaus makes good use of the existing antenna should not prevent him from attempting to maximize his ability to connect with other amateur ham operators throughout the world with whom he is presently unable to communicate with because of the inadequacy of his present antenna and the topography of the property. Pentel v. City of Mendola Heights, supra, 13 F.3rd 1261. Third, while the requested change is substantial it is also relative. We are measuring height. The/difference proposed is really forty feet above the tree line. Petitioners could have sought a two hundred foot antenna but realistically proposed a smaller one that suits their purpose. Nevertheless, the change is substantial and the ZBA rightly considered it a factor. Fourth, the alleged environmental impact of visibility during the leafless season, while tied to the first finding, is a factor correctly found by the ZBA to be considered. Fifth, the self-created hardship is benign. Such a finding is not fatal in an area variance application. Perger v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 146 AD2d 698 (2d Dep't 1989) ; Rice, Practice Commentaries to Town Law §267-b, p. 115 in 1996 Ann. Supp., McKinney's Consol. Laws„of New York, Book 61 (Sections 190 to End) . To the extent that the last finding suggests that petitioners build an antenna closer to their home on higher ground or on their roof, the record shows that neither suggestion is feasible because of the length and type of guy wires that must be used. Based upon the foregoing, the first finding is not supported by substantial evidence; the second finding is also unsupported by any evidence as the ZBA turned a negative on its head - petitioners established that they cannot communicate by their present radio antenna as they desire and there is no evidence to the contrary; the third finding is correct but begs the question as the deviation only becomes relevant if it relates to an adverse effect in the neighborhood; the fourth finding is credited and supported by common sense and on site inspections; and the fifth finding, while supported, is neutral. This leaves us with a finding supported by substantial evidence that during part Copyright ° 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. rvp :At," ittp://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B005 5 800000028560003 992100BB 0... 4/2/04 rage / ofi Page 6 " 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) of the year the antenna will be visible to others and may have an "industrial" look. While this finding standing alone might be sufficient in the ordinary zoning case to withstand analysis and support the ZBA determination, it cannot do so in the context of limited FCC preemption. This is so because the application of area variance criteria "must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose" (PRB-1, para. 25; 47 CFR §97.15[e] ) . The effect of the ZBA determination is to bar antennas whose height greatly exceeds thirty-five feet even where such antennas are needed to fulfill the amateur's radio goals. But a delicate balancing process is required on amateur antenna applications. The licensed ham operator would like the ability to the full use of his amateur license (i.e., make contact with the whole world) , while the zoning authorities are rightly concerned about visible adverse environmental impacts. This does not mean that the amateur ham operator receives permission to erect the antenna of his choice nor does it necessarily mean that the ZBA can deny the application with impunity. At bar, neither side really made an effort to accommodate each other's interests. Pentel v. City of Mendola Heights, supra, 13 F.3rd 1261; MacMillan v. City of Rocky River, 748 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ohio 1990) . For example, perhaps petitioners could utilize a retractable antenna that would exceed the tree line height only in the evenings and use a wingspan of lesser dimension and apply a color that blends in with the surrounding environment, including buffers to mask the guy wires on the ground. In view of the foregoing, the determination is annulled as irrational, arbitrary and capricious. However, rather than declare the zoning ordinance invalid as applied, the Court remits the matter to the ZBA for further proceedings to weigh whetl'ier it can reasonably accommodate petitioners' request or a modified request, if one is made by petitioners. If the ZBA concludes that it must again deny the application on a new or supplemental record, petitioners must commence a plenary proceeding for review, if review is sought. Imbued in the findings of the ZBA are matters of personal knowledge of the board members. Since the facts they presumably relate to are not generally known in the community, the ZBA should set forth precisely what facts were used to reach their conclusions. Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 NY2d 445, 454 (1956) ; cf. Matter of Von Kohorn v. Mornell, 9 NY2d 27, 34 (1961) . This is not a situation whete the Court is remanding to the ZBA for precise factual support for its findings; rather, since the matter must be returned to the ZBA for further proceedings, the admonition appears appropriate. Matter of New York City Housing Board v. Foley, 23 AD2d 84 (1st Dep't 1965) , aff'd, 16 NY2d 1071 (1965) . • Submit order on notice. 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) ty END OF DOCUMENT Copyright ° 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. ,: rt r• i4 http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest—atp&dataid=B0055 800000028560003992100BBO... 4/2/04 \' y NAFTALISAA) ac-d & FRANKEL LLP d'" F'� Y� KRAMER LEVIN 919 THIRD AVENUE P14(311S/1°0_,EPA�,I 2��� NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 PARIS TONI L.FINGER 47,AVENUE HaCHE 75008 ASSOCIATE TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 TEL (212)715-9239 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 FAX (212)715-8000 tfinger@kramerlevin.com March 24,2004 -81 9-J2- BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department H. Lee Dennison Building, 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 1600 Hauppague,NY 11788-0099. Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Mr.Newman: • We represent the.Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Town of Southold Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic (the"Project") and Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice,LIPA assumed lead agency status and directed its consultant,AKRF, Inc.,to prepare an Environmental Assessment("EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. We understand that the EA was provided to you by the Planning Board in November 2003. In January 2004,the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson,Pope &Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF,Inc. for your records. These documents were circulated to the involved agencies on March 5, 2004. On March 15, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and,therefore,will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non- xt 3 2329034 1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Marta Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan *Rome London*Brussels fi 441 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS.. , RANKEL LLP Mr. Gerald Newman March 24, 2004 Page 2 significance,which was provided to the involved agencies on March 15, 2004, is also enclosed for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (212) 715-8087, if you have any questions or require further documentation. Very truly yours, V • -/) Toni L. Finger/ , Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon (by FedEx w/o encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/o encl.) - KL3 2329034 I Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals REC,,.. NED In the Matter of the Application of MAR 2 2 2004 6-ovv, d cat di Long Island Power Authority, Lessee ' ZONING BOARD OF RPPEALs • adiv_ /o /o fli ) SCTM No.: 1000-75-1-20.1 44075 Main Road, Peconic MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Scott DeSimone, Esq. 41780 Route 25 Peconic, New York 11958 (631) 765-3535 1 fY r • BACKROUND LIPA,by its authorized agent, Keyspan Electric Services LLC, alleges to have leased a portion of property owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, LTD., for the construction and operation of an energy producing wind turbine that is 100 hundred feet high with three 25 foot blades. APPLICATION Applicant filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 5, 2003. Applicant requires a special exception for the location of a utility structure and an area variance for height. The maximum height for an accessory structure in the Town of Southold is 18 feet. The project description describes a 100 foot tower with three 25 foot blades. Accordingly, the applicant requires a height variance with the blade at its highest peak of 107 feet or 594% relaxation of the maximum height requirement. The application appears to have two different page 2's completed by different people, dated differently, and each claiming different reasons for the grant of an area variance. LIPA has declared themselves as lead agency and has issued negative declaration of significance in connection with the EAF it has submitted. The hearing in this matter was opened December18, 2003 and was adjourned until February 26, 2004. It was continued on March 18, 2004. The hearing has been left open for written submissions. THIS APPLICATION REQUIRES REFERRAL TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The subject property adjoins a New York State highway and therefore the instant application must be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to section 239-m of the General Municipal Law. I am not certain whether this matter has been referred but remind the board that absent referral, a variance granted by the board in this case would render the board's determination void. 2 I , SEQRA REVIEW I urge the board to scrutinize the EAF closely as it is always suspect when the applicant declares itself lead agency status under SEQRA to perform the environmental review of its own project. Under no circumstances should an applicant proposing development be able to declare themselves lead agency when it is required to seek relief before another agency. This is akin to letting the wolf Sheppard the sheep. The law should not permit this in this situation nor should you. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Height Variance Applicant seeks a height variance to permit a structure that will be 125 feet tall or variance of 107 from the maximum permissible height feet or a 594%relaxation from that maximum height requirement. In order to grant the requested relief,the zoning board must perform a balancing test that weighs the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community. The board must consider five statutory factors when conducting this balancing test. The five factors are 1)will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will it cause a detriment to nearby properties, and 2) can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance, and 3) is the relief requested substantial and 4)will the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and 5) is the alleged difficulty self created. Any area variance relief granted must be supported by substantial evidence. I have reviewed the application,the memorandum in support submitted by applicant's counsel, and the transcript of testimony offered at the hearing on December 18, 2003. I attended the March 18, 2004 hearing. As of this date,there is insufficient evidence to support the grant of a height variance as requested. The first factor and fourth factor to be considered by the board is whether there will an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will it cause a detriment to nearby properties and will the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Applicant states that"the wind turbine is a structure historically consistent with the agricultural uses of the surrounding properties and would not produce a change in character of the proposed site or nearby properties". This statement is conclusory and unsupported in the record. I am unaware of any operating windmills 3 (, 1 on the North Fork associated with an ongoing agricultural use. Older windmills can be seen here and there but are left over from another time when no electricity was available and there was no zoning. In any case, I have never seen any older windmills that come close to the height sought here. Contrary to applicant's position on visual impacts and noise,the proposed wind turbine will undoubtedly add to an already undesirable skyline in the hamlet of Peconic. I maintain my residence and office on the Main Road directly across the street from the police station. I, as well as every other passerby, already have to stare at two cell towers in excess of 100 feet. A third structure of comparable height will be prominently visible to passersby on the Main Road as well as those residences east of me and those along Peconic Lane. The turbine is to be constructed directly behind the winery building. That building is not set back from the Main Road any great distance and the wind turbine at 125 feet will be an imposing site from the Main Road. The applicant has provided a simulated photo depicting the proposed turbine. The photograph provides no'assistance to the board in determining what the visual impact will be from the Main Road or any adjoining properties. Quite frankly, it is difficult to discern from where and at what angle the photo is from. Relative to the potential for noise, the applicant has offered no scientific evidence of the noise levels associated with the turbine in operation. While they have made general statements as to the anticipated noise levels,they could have easily retained an audiologist to conduct noise testing at the Calverton site. They did not. I can only imagine the potential noise it could generate when the winds are at 40 or.45 knots, a wind speed just below the automatic trip. If the trip is set at 50 Knots, it must be loud at 50 knots. I do not need to remind you how many days this year the winds reached 40-45 knots. On summer weekend days, Osprey Dominion often has live music which I can hear from my yard which means that those residing immediately to the east and along Peconic Lane can hear it also. How much more noise do we need to hear? The Board should also remain mindful of the Suffolk Times article this week discussing the town's interest in purchasing the Peconic Lane School. It was indicated that the town seeks to redevelop this site in conjunction with the adjoining recreation center as a town pool and park. This property directly adjoins the Osprey Dominion property and would not only have an unobstructed view of the turbine but be in close proximity to the turbine as well. Do we want a Town pool where town residents sitting poolside have to look at and listen to this turbine for the next 20 years. 4 4 f , � 7 The second factor to consider is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance and that the relief requested is the minimum relief necessary to achieve its objectives. The applicant barely addresses these factors. The applicant owns waterfront property all along the north shore of Suffolk County. They currently have operating power plants directly overlooking the Long Island Sound in Northport and Port Jefferson. They own other property that had been slated for power plants in Shoreham and Riverhead. While the 500 acre parcel in Riverhead was just sold for preservation,the applicant retained 5 acres for the construction of a power substation. The applicant makes no reference to the suitability of these sites, sites they own and which would mitigate the place!ment of these experimental turbines in residential areas. As a matter of fact,the applicant's site search criteria does not even consider these locations. Additionally,the applicant when preparing is site search criteria was looking for privately owned land and knew it would need a substantial height variance. The site search criteria address mitigation of visual impacts by considering"adequate setbacks from neighbors". The applicant however does not define "adequate" or even consider distance to main thoroughfares. Furthermore,the applicant has generically stated that it requires the height as proposed. The applicant however has not submitted any scientific evidence or otherwise demonstrated with any reliable information or data that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to achieve its goals. When asked by the board about a smaller turbine,the response was that the applicant had already bought it and that's how it comes. Finally,the board should remember that the applicant's proposed project is experiment and therefore denial of the variance as it relates to this particular property would not cause any hardship to the owner or - applicant. The only hardship they can argue is economic as a result of their investment in the project. This hardship cannot be considered by the board as they assumed these risks prior to application to the ZBA. The third factor to be considered is whether the relief requested is substantial. It is obviously substantial. So substantial that the relief requested is a height slightly seven times the permitted height and a relaxation of the current maximum height standard of nearly 600%. We are talking about a structure with a height equivalent to a twelve and one half story building. This board has never before granted relief of this magnitude. The potential problem of granting this variance is not necessarily that the decision would be a precedent for the board. The problem is that if the board were to deny another similarly situated applicant who submitted a similar application that 5 C , did not meet,the statutory criteria necessary to grant the variance,that applicant could argue that the board was acting in an arbitrarily and capricious manner because it was not treating all applications the same way. I have no doubt that based upon this record,that should this board grant the variance requested,this decision will come back to haunt them. The fifth factor to consider is whether the hardship is self created. Quite frankly,the applicant has not even demonstrated a hardship,nor can it. In any event, any hardship that the applicant creatively conjures up would have to be deemed self created. The applicant put an experimental project together which included identifying and purchasing particular turbines and going out and leasing land long before it had ever even considered that it might be before this board seeking such a substantial height variance. Special Exception In order for the board to grant a special exception, the board must determine, amongst other things,that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of properties in adjacent use districts,that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted uses in adjacent use districts,that the health, safety, welfare, comfort and convenience of the of the town will not be adversely affected,that the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, and that the proposed use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a structure that will be 125 feet tall. Unlike the applicant for a cell tower, who could argue that a tower is necessary to provide growing essential telecommunications services,the applicant herein is seeking to conduct an experiment to generate power. A power generation facility is not in harmony with,nor will it promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance or use district in which it is located or those of adjoining use districts. Clearly, with the recent expansion of adjoining residential uses nearby and the town's espoused intention to develop a town pool directly adjacent to the site, clearly the proposed use is likely to adversely affect the reasonable use of permitted uses in adjacent use districts, and the welfare, comfort and convenience of the of the residents of the town. The proposed project is certain to cause a visual blight and interfere with important scenic vistas as 6 the Main Road is the major east-west thoroughfare in town. These reasons alone should be cause for this board to review this application with close scrutiny and deny it. For many of the reasons expressed above regarding the application for an area variance, there is just rio benefit to the community. This project serves as just another assault on the backdrop of our beautiful scenic community. The only benefit arising from this project inures to LIPA so they can conduct their experiment and to the property owner who will be the beneficiary of energy subsidies from LIPA. A 125 foot wind turbine cannot be said to be compatible, or in harmony with the surroundings of the proposed site or with any of the adjacent zoning districts and uses. CONCLUSION LIPA in its usual arrogance designed a project,purchased its equipment, and acquired the property it needed, all before it ever applied for the variance relief it knew it would need. LIPA did the same thing in the Town of Riverhead. It purchased land for the construction of a substation before it ever went to the zoning board for the required special exception. In response to the question of whether it could locate the turbine further north toward the railroad tracks,the applicant stated that the development rights on that parcel had been sold. It does not appear that they investigated who the owner of those development rights was and whether they would permit the proposed project, being that LIPA only needs 875 square feet for site area. While LIPA indicated that it reviewed many sites,they did not present detailed evidence of that analysis and the other sites considered nor did it present evidence that there were no other sites better suited to mitigate the substantial visual and noise impacts expected from this project. Especially,the sites it already owns and/or operates. When,asked by the board whether the turbine could be aesthetically improved or reduced in height, LIPA provided no data supporting the requirement of the height and added that,well, we already bought them. LIPA basically went through the motions on this application assuming in their arrogance that the variance would be granted. This board should remain mindful that the hamlet of Peconic is already host to two tall cell tower structures and to permit this project would be piling on. This board should remember that the proposed project is experimental and not necessary for LIPA to provide electrical services to our community and that LIPA did not adequately demonstrate that this site is the only place it can put the turbine or that the turbine must be that tall. This turbine is advertised as capable of 7 providing electricity for twelve homes. At what point does the experiment become reality. If the Board allows the first one,how does it handle the next application from a developer who wishes to include on site electrical production through the means of a wind turbine. Additionally,this board should not let the Calverton project lull them into a false sense of security. That turbine is located at a much greater distance from Edwards Ave. and therefore will not have the same visual and noise impacts as the proposed site. Quite frankly,the photo simulation does adequately demonstrate the visual impacts from the Main Road or adjoining properties. If necessary,LIPA should adjust its site search criteria to look for an alternative location which permits the siting of the turbine at a greater distance from any major thoroughfare, adjoining residential properties, and proposed town parks thus mitigating the substantial visual impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, do not let the lack of opposition at the hearings be the barometer for town wide opposition. Sometimes people just do not know about the application. If anything,the 1989 Church Lane change of zone should be proof of that. I feel fairly certain that if the variance is granted and the turbine constructed,there will be a backlash over it from the silent majority. Finally,the applicant has not met its burden of proof having failed to present substantial evidence in support of its application. Based upon the evidence presented,this board can not conclude that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. LIPA has failed to meet the criteria for a special exception and for an area variance. Therefore,this Board must deny the relief requested. 8 • 5-4 3 I i LPg KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com [ RECEVE1.: March 15, 2004 MAR 2004 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse Chair, Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ms. Ruth Oliva Chair, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Ms. Oliva: This is to advise the Southold Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals that LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency for the above-referenced project, has determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and,therefore,will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non-significance is enclosed for your records. As indicated in the notice, this determination was based on the Environmental Assessment Form, the Environmental Assessment dated October 2003 and the revised Environmental Assessment dated March 2004, which addressed comments on the original EA provided to LIPA by the Southold Planning Board's environmental consultant. Please do not hesitate to contact Edward J. Grilli at LIPA or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP (212 715-8087), if you have any questions regarding this determination. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer xt 3 2327082 1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance.Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS&FR;KEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse March 15, 2004 Page 2 Enclosure cc: Mr. Bruno Semon(by FedEx w/encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Edward J. Grilli (by FedEx w/encl.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/encl.) KL3.2327082 I 1110 ale State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Date: March 15, 2004 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"), as lead agency,has determined the proposed action described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Southold Wind,Turbine Project SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: The construction and operation of a 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Southold,New York. Location: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Southold,New York, SCTM Section 75,Block 1, Lots 20.1 and 20.2. Reasons Supporting This Determination: A long form environmental assessment form ("EAR")was completed in October 2003. In addition, a comprehensive environmental - assessment("EA")was prepared in October 2003 and revised in March 2004 to address comments provided by the Town of Southold Planning Board. A determination of significance was issued by LIPA on March 9, 2004. The EA and the revised EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project related to land use, community character,historic and archeological resources,visual resources,natural resources,hazardous materials,waterfront resources, infrastructure, traffic, air quality,noise, and construction. Based upon the EAF, the EA and the revised EA, LIPA has determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. KL3 2321468 1 For Further Information Contact Person: Edward J. Grilli Address: Long Island Power Authority 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale,NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail egrilli@lipower.org KL3 2321468 1 03/16/2004 11:2 FAX 212 715 8000 KRAMER LEVIN LLP Z002 • ■� NELSON, POPE a& VOORHls1 LLC �r I I � @NVIRONMEN TAL �44rvNlrv© DON Q V LT ING CWARLES J,VOORHIB,CER AICP•ARTHUR)KosROCR,RE,•VI0TO11 BERT,RE 1,1 n ,(� JOSEPH R.EPIFAfJIA,PE•ROBERT G.NSLSON,JR.,P.E. r PAUL M,MO7,t,LS.•TNQMAS F.LEMBO,P E. ECEIR✓ Marek 11,2004 MAR 1 6 2004 own of Southold Planning Board outhold Town Hall 7 u L t 3095 Main Road .0 Z.�o�i�� � 4.1 �� APPEALS.'e 'outhold,New York 11971-0959 er ttn: Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse-Chair MAR 1 5 2004 Re: L I'A Wind Turbine D. Enlvironni +: r hent rl�- 'atiorts NP&V#03434 Dear Ms.Woodhouse; At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the revised and resubmitted Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by AIME' Environmental and Planning Consultants (A1C,R,F) and dated March, 2004 for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR), 6NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(2)(i). Previously.A.XRF submitted an initial draft of the EA in October,2003 and based on our review of the document and the SEQRA regulations we believed that the document was insufficient as a decision-making tool and submitted several comments to be addressed in a letter dated January 19,2003. AKRF has responded to these comments in a letter dated March 5,2004 and prepared a /; revised BA. Based on our review of the resubmission we find that it adequately addresses all of the previous deficiencies of the initial document and reoomtriend that the Planning Board accept the EA as complete to be used for the purpose of reaching a determination of significance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON,POPE&VOORHIS,LLC Eric Arnesen,RPG Project Man:Ler /Air"' ,r ales 3 oor 's,CEP,AIC? Mara: •: ?artner (37e WALT WHITMAN ROAD. MELVILLE. NY 19747-aloe teal)427-eGGE PAX(6G9)427-131Pau WWWNBL9CNPCPE,CAM TOTAL P•02 03/16/2004 11 243 FAX 212 715 8000 KRAMER LEVIN LLP al 001 IP KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10022 (212)715-9100 f Fax Department: (212)715-9191 0, 1ESall t'' Fax Number: (212)715-8000 . .ZONINGBOARD.OF) S FROM: Toni L. Ferrucci DATE: March 16, 2004 PHONE: (212) 715-9239 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT COMPANY FAx No. PHONE NO. 1. Ms.Linda Kowalski Southold Town Hall 631.765.9064 631.765.1809 2. Mr.James McAllister AKRF 631.265.3796 631.265.0735 Total number of pages including this page: 2 The documents accompanying this facsimile transmission are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you. Re: L1PA KL3'2327324 1 r m,�s p, Page 1 of 1 OS 1L `� �Kowalski, Linda To: ZBA Member email list Subject: Osprey/LIPA Windmill Dear Board Members, as an update 10:40 this morning from Richard Leland and Toni I , attorneys for LIPA, that they have issued a Negative Declaration as the lead agency, and the PB's consultant report was reviewed by PB at their work session yesterday, indicating that the amended environmental assessment meets all criteria, they said. The hearing is on the calendar for Mar 18th at 1 PM when they will answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you, Linda 3/16/04 C i X~� •1 411. 410 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP ( i 1 \`' 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com rfkirgIVED MAR 0 8 2.004 -3/r/ £ A March 5, 2004 At✓Q,uu-r&A-e"/-1 PL-L) 4_4 2> ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BY HAND Ms. Ruth Oliva Chair, Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Oliva: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and operate a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Southold. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency statuts and directed its consultant,AKRF, Inc., to prepare an Environmental Assessment("EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson,Pope &Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V"). In response to those comments, LIPA has revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your review. You will note that the revised EA contains additional analysis of the potential visual impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. This additional analysis should address your concerns regarding the views of the wind turbine from Route 25. LIPA intends to make a SEQRA determination of significance regarding the proposed wind turbine by March 15, 2004. Accordingly, to the extent that the ZBA has any comments xi s 2324904 I Affiliate•Studio Santa Marta Alliance•Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels all KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& rRAICKEL LLP Ms. Ruth Oliva March 5, 2004 Page 2 regarding the revised EA or LIPA's environmental review of the proposed wind turbine, we request that such comments be provided to LIPA, or its counsel,prior to that date. Very truly yours, CG� Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse Ms. Linda Kowalski (w/enclosures) KL3 2324904 1 Pw, KRE,,,, TIAKR Environmental and Planning Consultants 222 Middle Country Road,Suite 314 Smithtown,NY 11787 tel: 631 265-0735 fax:631 265-3796 www.akrf.com March 5,2004 Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse Chair,Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA—Proposed Wind Turbine, Response to Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC Environmental Assessment Review Comments Dated January 19,2004 Dear Ms.Woodhouse: We are the environmental consultants that prepared the October 2003 Environmental Assessment(EA)on behalf of LIPA in connection with the proposed wind turbine to be constructed on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. We have reviewed Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) comments on the EA, which were submitted to the Town of Southold Planning Board on January 19, 2004. On LIPA's behalf, we offer the following responses to those comments. The EA has also been modified to reflect the responses to NP&V's comments. The new text has been highlighted to aid in your review of the EA enclosed herewith. Figures: NP&V Comment 1: In Chapter 1, Section D it is stated that five (5) sites in Suffolk County were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Figure 1-3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered one (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional site omitted from the total. Response: Figure 1-3 has been revised to show that five sites were considered as part of the initial LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project. Section B Land Use, Zoning and Community Facilities, Probable Impact, Land Use, Project Site page 2-4¶1: NP&V Comment 2: It is stated that the proposed wind turbine would not confli" the general area immediately adjacent to or within the g--"-- since historically,wind turbines or windmills have been pa\ While it is recognized that windmills have been and are still Long Island their use has been partially or directly related to\ each farm which with they are associated. It is apparent that AKRF, Inc. • New York City • White Plains • Long Island • Western New York • Ba Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse - 2 4110 March 5,2004 turbine at the subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Dominion Vineyards with the exception of an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kilowatt hours(kwh) issued to the land owner.In addition,from an aesthetic point of view, the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with windmills historically utilized on the east end of Long Island. Several of these structures which still exist in village and hamlets of Long Island(i.e., Sag Harbor, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer a much different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice tower wind turbine would not offer.As a result the proposed structure may present visual characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic normally associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sections which state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical use of windmills on farms within Long Island. Response: LIPA acknowledges that the proposed wind turbine is different in appearance from historic windmills. However, as analyzed in the EA, the proposed action does not pose significant impacts with regard to land use and zoning or visual resources. The EA has been revised accordingly in response to this comment. Pages 2-4 through 2-10 NP&V Comment 3: Analysis of probable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a new-type of windmill structure, different in context, design, and function than historical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions). • The setback to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual character,noise, safety, and aesthetics. • Setback to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflicts. • The configuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and future use of the subject parcel. Response: Long Island, according to "The Windmills of Long Island"author Robert J.Hafner, is an ideal place for harnessing the steady wind from the ocean and bays. Many windmills were built and still exist on Long Island, particularly on the East End and are part of the wooden technology of the past. In fact, the South Fork of eastern Long Island contains the greatest number of surviving windmills in the United States. Windmills were a vital necessity to early settlers of Long Island just as electricity is to current inhabitants. The windmills were constructed to produce energy to mill grain, saw wood,pump water, and do various other jobs. The wind turbine is being proposed as part of LIPA's Clean Air Initiative to create needed electricity for modern day technology without burning fossil fuels. So while different in size and design,they share a common theme. The wind turbine is proposed to be located on a 4.5-acre lot which is part of a 50-acre site owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. Development rights for approximately 46 acres i. 4110 - Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse --- 3 March 5,2004 of this property have been sold to Suffolk County ensuring that this property adjacent to the proposed wind turbine will remain undeveloped. The nearest residential zoning district is an R-80 zoning district, which is over 600 feet away. Lots in an R-80 zoning district must be a minimum of 2-acres. Setback requirements in R-80 zoning districts, as in other Southold zoning districts,are designed to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses by requiring appropriate distances between developments. The location of the proposed wind turbine on the central portion of a 50-acre site, in conjunction with the setbacks required for development of properties in adjacent zoning districts, ensures that the wind turbine is an adequate distance from any residential development that may occur in the future. Accordingly, there are no potential land use conflicts. The EA has been revised accordingly,as indicated above,to address these comments. NP&V Comment 4: The statement on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surrounding the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned" goes beyond a rationale conclusion based on the information presented. It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A-C zoned properties. Response: It was not the intention of the statement on page 2-6 to draw the conclusion that the proposed use fosters the preservation of the agricultural use solely because it is a historically consistent structure. There were a number of factors which resulted in the conclusion that the wind turbine is consistent with existing land uses and encourages the continued use of agricultural land. The Long Island Farm Bureau, a function of which is to preserve agricultural lands, and LIPA jointly identified potential agricultural sites for placement of these facilities. A requirement of the program is that the wind turbines be located on agricultural property. It is reasonable to conclude that the Long Island Farm Bureau would not support the wind turbine demonstration program if the program was incompatible with agricultural uses. The statement on page 2-6 has been modified to address this comment. NP&V Comment 5: The statement on page 2-7 referring to four(4) vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generation information on page 2-22. This information should be reconciled. Response: It is anticipated that a maximum of four vehicle trips per month would be generated as a result of this project.This comment has been addressed on pages 2-7,2-10,and 2-22. NP&V Comment 6: With regard to the information presented in response to "Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate, and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof' the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Response: No expansion is anticipated. Comment noted and addressed on page 2-8. NP&V Comment 7: Statements on page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further support as indicated above. Response: Comment and prior comments have been noted.The EA has been modified to provide the necessary support. Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 4 March 5,2004 NP&V Comment 8: With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously indicated. Response: Comment has been addressed as stated above on pages 2-7,2-10,and 2-22. NP&V Comment 9: Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located within the boundaries of the property, "...which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Response: LIPA has committed to providing landscaping on the publicly visible sides(i.e., southern and western) of the proposed wind turbine. The northern and eastern sides face the vineyards, which are not accessible to the public. Though different in size, structure, and materials from the typical wooden windmills historically associated with Long Island farms,the proposed wind turbine would be a modernized structure consistent with current farm land uses.The EA has been revised accordingly. NP&V Comment 10: Page 2-10 indicates that the facility is "...consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Response: The proposed facility is consistent with the existing development on the site and will be located on only 0.02 acres of land that is now vacant. The proposed wind turbine project is not inconsistent with agricultural uses or the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Specifically, the project would not degrade or consume natural resources or features, or prevent the opportunity to continue the use of farm practices in the area.This comment has been addressed on pages 2-11 and 2-30 of the EA. NP&V Comment 11: With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with the architectural features of"... the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood." Response: While different in size and appearance from historic windmills, the proposed facility would be consistent with adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The wind turbine, while visually and physically different in height and appearance from windmills historically associated with agricultural uses, does not conflict with the existing site uses. This comment has been addressed on pages 2-8,2-10,and 2-11. Section C Historic and Archeological Resources,Archeological Resources,Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-15,¶4 NP&V Comment 12: It is stated that the proposed location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P 1B investigation and that no archeological resources would be impacted by the propose project since the tower still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil types.Upon inspection of the site,it was observed that the ) •Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 5 March 5,2004 proposed tower will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether this portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farming activities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find the information from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage 1B Archeological Assessment. It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage 1B assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Response: The shovel test pits, while not at the exact location of the proposed footprint for the wind turbine, are believed to be at a close enough distance to warrant the same conclusions for this location, which has been cleared, graded, and planted with turf grass. No archaeological resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. To ensure that there are no unanticipated impacts during disturbance of this area for the purpose of constructing the wind turbine, staff from Historical Perspectives, Inc., will be on-site to monitor the excavation for the purpose of identifying any possible archeological resources. Section D Visual Resources,Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-16 NP&V Comment 13: Visual impact assessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar facilities in the context of the area and/or corridor subject to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, sensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area,but the exact height and location of this utility are not provided, and the zoning, surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different from a Police cell tower. Finally, the pre-existence of a Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape,particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural,A-C zoned location that may be different from other more intense use areas. The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings" does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements at the end on the section, "...the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility" and "Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely affected"are not fully supported given the information requested above.It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent or similar to a •Ms. Jerilyn B.Woodhouse - 6 March 5,2004 flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the tower to be of a different character and larger than that to which is being compared. Please provide additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind turbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Response: Section D, "Visual Resources," of the modified EA, has been completely revised to follow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Program Policy (DEP-00-2, July 31, 2000) entitled "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts."The modified EA addresses each comment listed above. Section G Waterfront Revitalization,Town of Southold LWRF,page 2-20 NP&V Comment 14: Insufficient information is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. Response: As concluded in EA Section D, "Visual Resources," the proposed facility would not significantly impair the visual landscape as experienced from any scenic or historic resource or interfere with or reduce the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of any inventoried scenic, historic, or locally significant resource. Accordingly,the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. NP&V Comment 15: With regard to Policy 12, please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Response: A review of Policy 12 does not indicate other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural land surrounding the wind turbine. Section H Infrastructure,Existing Conditions,Sanitary Sewage,page 2-23 NP&V Comment 16: It is stated that since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However, the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a visitor's center which discharges some volume of sanitary effluent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site,and method of disposal. Response: The project site is proposed to be sited on 0.02 acres of an approximately 50-acre site. The existing winery/visitor center currently contributes to sewage flow, however, the project site is an existing grass field that does not currently contribute to any sanitary discharge and would not in the future with the proposed project. This comment has been addressed on page 2-32. Section I Traffic,page 2-23 NP&V Comment 17: It is stated that the turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that there would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Please provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. Response: The trip generation figure of four vehicle trips per month is based on LIPA's experience with the existing wind turbine facility in the Town of Riverhead and from the Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse _ 7 • March 5,2004 recommended maintenance schedule provided by the wind turbine manufacturer. This documentation is included as Attachment D to the modified EA. Section K Noise,Noise Prediction Methodology,pages 2-27 and 2-28 NP&V Comment 18: The basis for the maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the source of this approximate sound power level, and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation.Noise monitoring station locations and receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aerial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information concerning methodology for decibel addition and support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exists,based on zoning. Response: (See bulleted items below) • As identified in the EA on page 2-37,the source of the sound power level was identified by the manufacturer based upon field measurements of existing installations. • Design specifications for the 50 kW wind turbine are included in Attachment D to the modified EA. The AOC 15/50 has been designed as a low-noise emission turbine. The sources of noise are the drive train and the aerodynamic emissions of the rotor as it passes the supporting structure. A diagram of the drive train assembly is also included in Attachment D. • A new figure,Figure 2-10,has been included in the EA which depicts the location of the proposed wind turbine and the noise monitoring receptor. • Predicated noise level calculations have been included as Attachment E to the modified EA. • Based on the existing zoning,no residential structures can be built any closer to the project site due to setback and other site requirements. Additional Information NP&V Comment 19: Mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA. Mitigation to be considered would include the following: • Modified tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or provide more appropriate historical context. • Modified location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or, an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the facility within the parcel.Property configuration,receptors,wetlands areas, and future potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Landscape screening at base of tower to"soften"mass of structure, screen fence, and partially screen base of tower. • Conditions in balance of property within proximity to tower to maintain access control,and improve safety within"fall zone"and immediate area. Other mitigation which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary. , Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 8 • March 5,2004 Response: SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Since no significant adverse environmental impacts were identified in the EA, mitigation measures were not included as part of this analysis. In addition, several of the mitigation measures suggested are not practicable or are unnecessary:-For-example, the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested as the wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. Also, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process, which is described in the EA. The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to safety, the wind turbine would be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly,no safety mitigation measures would be necessary. Miscellaneous Comments NP&V Comment 20: Inspection of the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where occasional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at the winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discuss any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design, or institutional controls to protect employees and/or visitors to the winery. Response: The EA has been revised to include the specific safety measures that LIPA intends to undertake as part of the proposed project. Such safety measures, identified on page 2-1 of the EA and illustrated on the proposed site plan submitted to the Planning Board on October 20, 2003, include an 8-foot chain link barbed wire fence that would be locked at all times with the exception of maintenance and emergency visits. The fence would be screened from public view with landscape plantings. We trust that the above and the modified EA are responsive to NP&V's comments on the EA. Sincerely, AKRF j C. PA4!5 --------) • es P.McAllister v ice President cc: Ms.Ruth Oliva(w/enclosure) Mr.Bruno Semon(w/enclosure) Ms. Linda Kowalski (w/enclosure) Mr.Mark Dougherty(w/enclosure) Mr.Frederick Peritore(w/enclosure) Richard G. Leland, Esq.(w/enclosure) k/v PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ��i �®����®��� O : II r SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION /, COMMISSION '_&/1 Town Hall > : 3 ,a i 53095 Main Road K, " S.�o Southold,NY 11971-0959 t `x 1 Phone(631)765-1938 1 fax(631)765-3136 Date: October 14,2003 To: Southold Planning Board From: Neboysha R Brashich,Chairman Nelicet,1 , *L Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project As you are aware, SR 25 is a New York State Scenic Byway so designated by New York State Legislation in 2002. As such, the viewshed along this road must be protected given the scenic, historic and cultural importance of the old"King's Highway." The proposed project is to be located within the viewshed of SR 25. The Commission is concerned that the design and,particularly the-placement,of such a turbine would have a lasting negative effect on the Byway. During its review,the Planning Board should ensure that the viewshed be as minimally impacted as possible. RDE ID El V EI OCT 1'5 2003 Southold Town Planning Board 1 1 /i/iii, ---) PLANNING BOARD MEM] �S ��,#%$UFFOf�c , _ BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. Q OG; P.O.Box 1179 Chairman ,���_�' '��\ Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 o - Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO V W ' $ Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ® 0 Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS `y� . . 0•r�� MARTIN H.SIDOR --_:149 **„..• PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: January 12, 2004 To: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector ,�1 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ' From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Interoffice communication on the New Amended Concept Site Plan for Osprey Dominion Conservation alteration and addition. 44075 Main Road, Peconic, NY Zoning District AC, SCTM: 1000-75.-1-20.1 • On 01/05/04 we received a request for information from Mr. Tom Stevenson. He had questions about a preliminary site plan detailing an alteration and addition of the existing conservatory / building of 1,357 sq. ft. to include a 1,350 sq.ft. first floor addition and a new second floor storage area of 731 sq.ft.on a 4.46 acre parcel in the AC zone. The site plan proposes a change in parking from 31 spaces required to 36 spaces provided. Mr. Stevens indicated that he had been referred to the Planning Board by Damon Rallis for a site plan application and no other filing requirements are needed with your department. Please confirm that the proposed amended site plan is Town Code compliant and indicate what will be needed for the Building Department? The PB will review this submittal at the work session tonight. An active incomplete concept file is in the Planning Boards Office for review. In reference to the above concept site plan, please review and forward any additional comments or concerns. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, Planning Board Members, VL 02/24/04 TUE 11:03 FAX 21271'"" 10 KRAMER LEVIN 11002 A)--) KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS&FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HPCHE75008 TEL (212)718-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715.8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com February 24,2004 BY FACSIMILE T VED ) Ms.Linda Kowalski FEB 2004 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall ZONING BOARD of APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 119710959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: Per our conversation yesterday afternoon, this is to confirm that the Long Island Power Authority("LrPA")has requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn its further consideration of LIPA's applications for a height variance and special exception in connection with the above-referenced project from the ZBA's meeting this Thursday,February 26, 2004 until the ZBA's meeting scheduled for March 18,2004 at 1:00 p.m. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Very truly yours, Z.. /1--- Karen L.Mintzer cc: Mr.Mark Dougherty, LIPA Mr. Frederick Peritore,KeySpan Mr. Matthew Gilles,Peconic Bay Winery KLs•2322256 1 Af Itate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance.Berwin Leighton Parsner Milan r Rome London"Brussels APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Ruth D. Ohva, Chairwoman P.O.Box 1179 Gerard P. Goehringer Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone(631) 765-1809 Vincent Orlando ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 James Dinizio http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: February 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Request for Comments Presently, the Board of Appeals is reviewing the following application for a February 26, 2004 public hearing: NAME TAX# ZBA BD VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER & NOD DATE ZONE DATE/S OSPREY 75-1- 5450 8/26/03 SPECIAL 10/10/03 BOHLER DOMINION / 20.1 & 5452 12/16/03 EXCEPTION ENGINEERING, LIPA 20.2 FOR PUBLIC PC — TJ AC UTILITY USE FILAZZOLA ON 4.4 ACRE WINERY PARCEL & PUBLIC UTILITY FOR 2ND PRINCIPAL USE FOR 100' WIND TURBINE TOWER & 25' ANTENNA The Planning Board may be involved regarding a pre-submission review under the site plan regulations of the Zoning Code. Your comments regarding the following are requested: • Scenic byway Thank you. { LGIN G ISLAND RAIL ROAD , , DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 BLOCK 1 LOT 6 - REAM 001411 EST t of NUM 1103101111 L MR S48'43'4B"W FWD 00 511 527.21' 54T19'S01V IQ�D (DEED) DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 m 11 BLOCK 1 M k, LOT 20.2 ' 17)or mg Prim DKR LHR DomPNOPO u0 H CO Z N to DISTRICT 1000 U"' SECTION 75 BLOCK I r�LOT 17.2 S DISTRICT 1000 fi MOM O P. it i SECTION 75 LHP IDA.PG.122 o0.. _ BLOCK 2 - 'Opp� __)yr LOT 2 11 N CIPTEN - mmEE CIEP.TO DISTRICT 1000 2"3 N54'49'44' mow LEER 11151.PG.2u SECTION 75 343,00 BLOCK 1 z f .255&t (DEED) PPPMC LDC.N MOT OE N ' „ 11��/TFINP ED O Ito fl wdlA roulD MR 111315,WRY b�uSEE ENLARGED n 1 I W SITE PLAN (THIS SHEET) DISTRICT 1000 !.RS35'10'I?"•E DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 7. �1 220.00 SECTION 75 BLOCK 1 �► 538.34'10"E(DEED) OR LP 7 BLOCK I ,�1 EXIST. 2 STORY LOT 19,1 IIUMIIOowIoIE2 "PRODUCTION AREA" META MR IDp2E,PG I BUILDING (3.617 SF) DISTRICT 1000 IlifIJ546.11'08"W SECTION 75 / 340.1.1.5:10'W6(oEEo) se BLOCK 1 215' (DEED) • LOT 18,1 ilk 1 � �, 1� , _ 1 DISTRICT 1000 �, �� 1 STORY 'SALES AREA" SECTION 75 STUCCO BUILDING BLOCK 1 LOT IS 2,728 SF p 41011 DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 cot la BLOCK 2 Moo DK LOT I 10mp MIR S2r34'22"E DISTRICT 1000 E/►RFRlm win S43.29.513"9/ 546'14'08"W 229.85' SECTION 75 I STA, G. 99.93' 354.48' 529'58'20"E(DEED) BLOCK 1 S42'06'001V(DEED) 544'50'107W(DEED) LOT 21 11/F WPM OPER MAIN ROAD RDLTY ` �"' � "° • ■ - (NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 25) • OVERALL SITE PLAN . 1"= 300' ".0 .i u i �-‘ r I 1 . 2 ,N ,, , LNEE !Ir' IN 1,---1 EC, • •CIVIL & CONSULTING ENGINEERS• PROJECT MANAGERS•ENVIRONMENTAL & SITE PLANNERS•MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS GWYNEDD CORPORATE CENTER 201 NORTH SERVICE RD. • 1120 WELSH ROAD, SUITE 200 . SUITE 104 776 MOUNTAIN BLVD. NORTH WALES, PA 19454 WATCHUNG„NEW JERSEY 07069 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 (516) 872-2000 (908) 668-8300 (21393PA , TITLE: SHEET No: ill� .4. -,1,...�?� "is ' T.J. FILAOLA SITE PLAN iftii\ -SP- 1 gofr- e;� PROJECT: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY .,,,A 1r. • ! �_' ). _ 44075 MAIN ROAD (OSPREY DOMINION VINEYARD) ES'.* .. • IN �` PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER DISTRICT 1000; SECTION 75; BLOCK 1; LOTS 20.1 &20,2 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PECONIC, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY I '.N. NEW YORK LICENSE No. 59841• STATE OF NEW YORK JO/RJM MGC ''44 { gel: NEW JERSEY LICENSE NO. 39005 OFESSION CONNECTICUT UCENSE No, 18642 PROJECT No: CAD W. #: SCALE: DATE: REVISION No. FLORIDA LICENSE No. 51714 MASSACHUSETTS LICENSE No. 38853 N02482 N2482SS2 AS SHOWN 10/10/03 1 (AAvtda-S L, FORM NO. 3 ,3151) NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL s3 DATE: January 28, 2004 TO: Osprey Dominion Vinyards LTD. PO Box 198 Peconic,NY 11958 Please take notice that your application dated January 27,2004 -For permit for additions and alterations to an existing winery at Location of property: 44075 Main Road,Peconic,NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed cq/nstruction, on this conforming parcel in the AC District,requires site plan approval from the Soutiiold Town Plannin Board. r' s1 Authon ed igna ure Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Planning Board 1 .. JAN 2 R 2004 Southold Town . Planning Board � S� N14-16-2(9/95)-7c SEQR 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood thatthose who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition,many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly,comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site By identifying basic project.data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in'Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE — Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ® -Part 1 ® Part 2 0 Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supportinc information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and,therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required; therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. O C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment;therefore, a positive declaration will be declared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Suffolk County, Long Island. Name of Action Long Island Power Authority Name of Lead Agency Edward Grilli Chief of Staff Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer • Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible office.) Date =_ _ PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION `f" 1..j k `� ;i,J SEP 162003 1 ZONING BOARD °sz APPFAb s 4 Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE:This docum ent is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subjectto further verification and public review Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in the Town of Southold, New York. LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address,Municipality and County) Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Long Island Power Authority ( 516 )222-7700 ADDRESS 333 Earle Ovington Blvd. Suite 403 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Uniondale, - NY 11553 NAME OF OW NER(If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The Long Island PowerAuthority proposes to site,construct,and operate a wind turbine generatorto demonstrate both the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources,and expand green sources of electricity on Long Island.This document refers to one site selected for the wind turbine demonstration. Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban 0 Industrial 0 Commercial 0 Residential(suburban) 0 Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest ®Agriculture 0 Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 0.02* APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brush land (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 0.02 acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other(Indicate type) wind turbine energy source acres 0.02 acres demonstration 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven Loam a. Soil drainage: ® Well drained 100 % of site 0 Moderately well drained % of site 0 Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0.02 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? 0 Yes ® No a. What is depth to bedrock?** (in feet) *Project would be located on 0.02 acres of a 50-acre parcel of land. **Bedrock is not expected to be a significant issue for construction. 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ® 0-10% 100 % 0 10-15% Ts t n 0 15% or greater % SEP 1 6 2003 2 4 6. Is project substantially contiguous to,or contain a building,site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? D Yes ® No 7 Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks'? 0 Yes ® No 8. What is the depth of the water table'? 10 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal,or sole source aquifer'? ® Yes 0 No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 0 Yes ® No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑ Yes ® No According to field visits conducted byAllee King Rosen&Fleming,Inc.April 2002.The land is used for agricultural purposes Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) o Yes ® No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑ Yes to No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑ Yes ® No 15. Streams within orcontiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds,wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ® Yes ❑ No a) If Yes,does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ® Yes ❑ No b) If Yes,will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑ Yes ® No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ® Yes ❑ No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6172 o Yes ❑ No Site is located in a CEA. 20 Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes'? 0 Yes ® No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 0.02 acres b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 0 %. f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 4 (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately I. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed 125** height; 50 width; 10 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. ** The structure will be a 100-foot tower with a wind turbine at the top with 25-foot blades. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth,etc.)will be removed from the site? 294 cubic yards tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be;stookpiiled'foFryrerclama ion? ID Yes ® No I SEP 1 6 2003 3 ,miaan Prlaea,rird syr ilroPEAL,; c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑ Yes ® No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs,ground covers) will be removed from site? Negligible acres. 5 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old)or other locally important vegetation'be removed by this project? ❑ Yes ElNo 6. If single phase project:Anticipated period of construction By the end of 2003 months (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased:N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year(including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 0 Yes ❑ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ® No 9. Number of jobs-generated: during construction 10-20 ; after project is complete less than one 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ' 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes o No a. If yes, indicate type of Waste (sewage, industrial,etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ® No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ® No Explain ry 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ❑ Yes ® No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes,what is the amount per month tons • b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 0 Yes ❑ No e. If yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes,what is the anticipated rate of disposal? . tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑ Yes ® No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑ Yes El No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑ Yes ® No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑ Yes El No If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 0.0 gallons/day. . 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? o Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain The project is a demonstration project funded by Long Island Power Authority, a state public authority. 25. Approvals Required Type Submittal Date City,Town, Village Board- Yes ® No SEP 1 6 2003 4 361k e+1` APPEALS City,Town, Village Planning Board ® Yes ❑ No Discretionary-Site Plan Approval City,Town Zoning Board ® Yes D No Discretionary-Height Variance and possible Special Use Permit City, County Health Department ❑ Yes ® No Other Local Agencies ® Yes ❑ No Town of Southold Building August 2003 Permit(non-discretionary) Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes ® No State Agencies 0 Yes ® No Federal Agencies ❑ Yes ® No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision'? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑ zoning amendment to zoning variance 0 special use permit ❑ subdivision ® site plan ❑ new/revision of master plan ❑ resource management plan ® other possible special use permit 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? A-C Agricultural-Conservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? +120 percent coverage permitted in agricultural conservation zoning. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes are proposed 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? No zoning changes are proposed 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans'? ®Yes ❑ No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ' mile radius of proposed action? The prominent land use within 1/4 mile of the site is agricultural and the predominant zoning is agricultural. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a' mile? z Yes ❑ No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s)for the formation of sewer or water districts? 0 Yes o No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. W ill the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑ Yes ® No a If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑ Yes ❑ No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Date Signature Title If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. .r 7-11 SEp 1 6 2003 5 02/11/2004 14:50 FAX 212 715 8000 KRAMER LEVIN LLP 12 002 l /• KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 RICHARD G.LELANDPARIS PARTNER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEC (212)715-8087 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-7569 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 rleland@kramerievin.com February 9, 2004 BY FAX AND HAND Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chair,Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Ospreys Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic _ Dear Ms.Woodhouse: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above- referenced project(the"Project"),which is the subject of an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval and applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception use and a height variance. We have reviewed the January 19, 2004 report of the Planning Board's consultant, Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC ("NPV"),which contains NPV's comments on the Environmental Assessment("EA")prepared by LIPA's consultant,which was submitted to the Planning Board, as well as the ZBA,in October 2003. LIPA, which is acting as lead agency for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the Project as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"),will revise the EA to respond to NPV's comments as described below. Figures-LIPA will revise the EA to clarify the number and location of sites that were considered for the wind turbine demonstration project, of which this Project is a part. Section B Land Use,Zoning and Community Facilities -LIPA will revise the EA to address NPV's comments regarding the historical use of windmills and NPV's specific comments on pages 2-4 through 2-10 of the EA. tct3 237861A.5 A hare:Ruda Saute Morro Affiance:Perwrn Leighton Paisner Landon"Brussels 02/11/2004 14:51 FAX 212 715 8000 KRAMER LEVIN LLP [ ]003 • < KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn B.Woodhouse February 9, 2004 Page 2 Section C Historic and Archeolo 'cal Resources-The EA will be revised to include further discussion regarding the potential archeological impacts resulting from the small change in the proposed location of the Project. Section D Visual Resources-LIPA will revise the EA to provide additional information regarding its assessment of the Project's potential impacts on visual resources_ Section G Waterfront Revitalization- The EA will be revised to address NPV's comments regarding Policies 3 and 12 of the Town of Southold Waterfront Revitalization Plan. Section H Infrastructure-NPV has asked LIPA to provide information regarding the sanitary effluent of the winery,which is located on Block 1,Lot 20.2. As stated in the current EA,the Project,which will be located on Block 1,Lot 20.1,will create no additional sewage flow whatsoever. Accordingly,the sanitary effluent from the already existing winery is not relevant to the analysis of potential sewage impacts resulting from the construction of the wind turbine. The EA will be revised to clarify this fact. Section I Traffic-The EA will be revised to clarify that, once constructed,the Project will generate a maximum of 4 vehicle trips during weekly or biweekly facility checks or monthly or quarterly preventative maintenance visits. The Project will not generate traffic at any other time. Section K Noise Noise Prediction Methodology-The EA will be revised to provide additional information regarding the source of the predicted maximum sound power level and the details of the noise prediction methodology used. Additional information-NPV asserts that"mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA." It is our view that mitigation measures are not required to be included in an EA. SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Moreover, even if LIPA were to consider mitigation measures, several of the mitigation measures listed by NPV are impracticable or unnecessary. For example,the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested by NPV,as the wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. In addition, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process,which is described in the EA_ The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to NPV's comments regarding safety,the wind turbine will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly,no safety mitigation measures will be necessary, Miscellaneous Comments -LIPA will address NPV's miscellaneous comments in the revised EA. ?a KI3 2316614.1 02/11/2004 14:51 FAX 212 715 8000 FRAMER LEVIN LLP 1004 - KI AMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse February 9,2004 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Richard G. Leland cc: Mr.Bruno Semon, Southold Planning Board Ms.Linda Kowalski, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Mr.Mark Dougherty,LIPA Mr,Frederick Peritore,KeySpan Mr.James McAllister,AKRF Karen Mintzer,Esq. • x43.2316614 5 iii 0001,4. - /` _ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 0001,4° , JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE /4�: :,`: 1' COQ P.O. Box 1179 Chair �� „s>" ;- . �%l Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 € _ A:`-:-" , " Southold, New York 11971-0959 5_-lriu RICHARD CAGGIANO +"=4' 7,;;;,,,, ,�` Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ® O g 1 KENNETH L.EDWARDS ,�/ Fax(631) 765-3136 1 ` o����j MARTIN H.SIDOR C� ED .i :00 aryfuPA AePLANNING BOARD OFFICE LPI ° MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED FEB ® 3 2004 Date: February 3, 2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tb: Ms. Oliva, Chairwoman of Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Info. on the proposed site plan for the LIPA Windturbine at osprey Dominion 44074 Main Road, Peconic, N.Y. SCTM: 1000-75-1-20.1 & 20.2 In reference to the above site plan application, attached you will find a report ' prepared from Nelson Pope and Voorhis, LLC. dated January 19, 2004, which was received by our office on January 30, 2004 and reviewed at the work session February 2, 2004. Please keep us up to date on the advances of this project in your department. Thanking you in advance. Cc: file, pb, enc. FEB 0 3 2004 ,,zMING BOARD OF APPEALS NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING, CONSULTING 572 Walt Whitman Road FAX(631)427-5620 Melville,NY 11747 TO: Town of Southold Date: 28-Jan-04 Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Re: LIPA Wind Turbine P.O.Box 1179 Southold Southold,NY 11971 Job No. NP&V 03. 434 Attn: Jerilyn B.Woodhouse, Chair We are sending you X Under separate cover Herewith Pick Up By Messenger For Your Review&Comment J Approval X As requested X For your use Bid Submission FED EX Quantity Drawing Title Sheet No. Date 1 Original Environmental Assessment Review Comments Remarks: Very truly yours, JAN 3 0 2004 , NELSON,POPE&VOORHIS,LLC Southold Town By: Eric Arnesen,RPG Planning Board FEB 0 3 2004 111 NELSON, POPE a SLO -Illap IvENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING CONSULTING CHARLES J VOORHIS,CEP AICP•ARTHUR J KOERBER,P E •VICTOR BERT,P E JOSEPH R EPIFANIA,PE•ROBERT G NELSON,JR,PE PAUL M RACZ,P LS •THOMAS F LEMBO,P E January 19, 2002ECE0 VED Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179 _ JAN 3 0 2004 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse—Chair Southold Town Planning Board Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Comments NP&V# 03434 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold ()Planning Board) we have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above O/ferenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 6,NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(2)(i). Based on our review of the submitted EA and the SEQRA regulations we believe the document is insufficient as a decision-making tool. This document provides a point-by- point review of the items we recommend for revision in the EA as well as additional requested analysis: Figures In Chapter 1, Section D it is stated that five (5) sites in Suffolk County were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Figure 1-3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered one (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional site omitted from the total. Section B Land Use, Zoning and Community Facilities, Probable Impacts, Land Use,Project Site, page 2-4,¶1: It is stated that the proposed wind turbine would not conflict with the character of the general area immediately adjacent to or within the general area of the project site since historically,wind,turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. While it is recognized that windmills have been and are still located on the eastern end of Long Island their use has been partially or directly,related to the activities occurring on 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747 - 2155 (631)427-5665 FAX(631)427-5520 WWW NELSONPOPE COM LIPA Whits urbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review each farm which with they are associated. It is apparent that the placement,of a wind turbine at the subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Dominion Vineyards with the exception of an, annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) issued to the land owner. In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with windmills historically utilized on the east end of Long-Island. Several of these structures which still exist in villages and hamlets of Long Island (i.e. Sag Harbor, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer a much different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice tower wind turbine would not offer. As a result the proposed structure may present visual characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic normally associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sections which state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical use of wind mills on farms within Long Island. Page 2-4 through 2-10 Analysis of probable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a ne/v-type of windmill structure, different in-context, design, and function than hiskrical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions). • The setback to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual character, noise, safety and aesthetics. • The setback to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflicts. • The configuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and future use of the subject parcel. The statement on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surrounding the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned.", goes beyond 'a rationale conclusion based on the information presented. It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A-C zoned properties. The statement on page 2-7 referring to four (4) vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generation information on page 2-22. This information should be reconciled. With regard to the information presented in response to "Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation Page 2 • •' EIV PES LIPA Wind turbine Demonstration Projg t ` Environmental Assessment Revie jiv14,0 and expansion thereof", the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Statements on page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further support as indicated above. With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously indicated. Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located well within the boundaries of the property, ". . . which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Page 2-10 indicates that the facility is ". . . consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Town of Southold. 7 With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with architectural features of". . . the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood." Section C Historic and Archeological Resources, Archeological Resources, Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project, page 2-15,¶4 It is stated that the proposed location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P 1B investigation and that no archeological resources would be impacted by the proposed project since the tower still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil types. Upon inspection of the site it was observed that the proposed tower will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether this portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farming activities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find information from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage IB Archeological Assessment. It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage IB assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Page 3 EE 0 3 2004 LIPA ::rbine Demonstration '• s Environmental Assessment Reviet�-..t?� n oI Section D Visual Resources, Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project, page 2-16 Visual impact assessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar , facilities in the context of the'area and/or corridor subject to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the•view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, sensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area, but the exact height and location of this utility are not provided, and the zoning, surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different from a Police cell tower. Finally, the pre-existence of a Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape, particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural, A-C zoned location that may be different from other more intense use areas. The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings", does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figures 1-1, Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements at the end of the section, ". . . the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility", and "Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely affected" are not fully supported given the information requested above. It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent or similar to a flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the tower to be of a different character and larger than that to which it is being compared. Please provide additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind turbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Section G Waterfront Revitalization, Town of Southold LWRP, page 2-20 Insufficient information is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. With regard to Policy 12, please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Page 4 t LIPA Whit. i arbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Section H Infrastructure, Existing Conditions, Sanitary Sewage, page 2-22 It is stated that since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However, the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a visitors center which discharges some volume of sanitary effluent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site and method of disposal. Section I Traffic, page 2-22 It is stated that the turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that there would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Please provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. Section K Noise, Noise Prediction Methodology, page 2-27 and 2-28 The basis for the maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the source of this approximate sound power level, and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation. Noise monitoring station locations and receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aei,ial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information concerning methodology for decibel addition andel/support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exist, based on zoning. Additional Information Mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA. Mitigation to be considered would include the following: • Modified tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or provide more appropriate historical context. • Modified location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or, an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the facility within the parcel. Property configuration, receptors, wetlands areas and future potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Landscape screening at base of tower to "soften" mass of structure, screen fence and partially screen base of tower. • Conditions on balance of property within proximity to tower to maintain access control, and improve safety within "fall zone" and immediate area. Other mitigation which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary. Page 5 • LIPA Wi►:u.drbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Miscellaneous Comments Inspection of the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where occasional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at the winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discuss any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design or institutional controls to protect employees of and/or visitors to the winery. If the Planning Board is in agreement, we recommend that the Applicant make the necessary changes to the EA and submit sufficient copies of the revised EA to the planning Board office for further review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON, POPE&VOORHIS, LLC Eric Arnesen, RPG Pr••-c / s r 6171—e / harles J 1 oorhis, CEP, AICP /// Managing Partner Page 6 e 1/ Attachments Pagel of 1 . ARCHEOLOGY COMMENTS 03PR05065 Based on reported resources, there is an archeological site in or adjacent to your project area. Therefore the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) recommends that a Phase 1 archeological survey is warranted for all portions of the project to involve ground disturbance, unless substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented. If you consider the project area to be disturbed, documentation of the disturbance will need to be reviewed by OPRHP. Examples of disturbance include mining activities and multiple episodes of building construction and demolition. A Phase 1 survey is designed to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project's area of potential effect. The Phase 1 survey is divided into two progressive units of study including a Phase 1A sensitivity assessment and initial project area field inspection, and a Phase 1B subsurface testing program for the project area. The OPRHP can provide standards for conducting cultural resource investigations upon request. Cultural resource surveys and survey reports that meet these standards will be accepted and approved by the OPRHP. Our office does not conduct cultural resources surveys. A 36 CFR 61 qualified archeologist should be retained to conduct the Phase 1 survey. Many archeological consulting firms advertise their availability in the yellow pages. The services of qualified archeologists can also be obtained by contacting local, regional, or statewide professional archeological organizations. Phase 1 surveys can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-of-way or by the number of acres impacted. We encourage you to contact a number of consulting firms and compare examples of each firm's work to obtain the best product. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description of the disturbance with confirming evidence. Confirmation can include current photographs and/or older photographs of the project area which illustrate the disturbance (approximately keyed to a project area map), past maps or site plans that accurately record previous disturbances, or current soil borings that verify past disruptions to the land. Agricultural activity is not considered to be substantial ground disturbance and many sites have been identified in previously cultivated land. 2 If you have any questions concerningarcheology, / please contact Michael Schifferli at 518-237-8643. ext 3281 http://sphinx/PR/PMReadF orm.asp?iPrn=1&iFId=5 4 70&s SFil e=form4.htm 10/28/03 (- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK i;- X In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority- Osprey's Dominion #5432V and 543OSE SCTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY'S APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") in support of its applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("Board of Appeals") for a special exception pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-31(b)(6) (public utility structure) and a height variance pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-32. LIPA has also submitted an application for site plan approval to the Town of Southold Planning Board (the "Planning Board"). These approvals are necessary for LIPA to construct a 125 foot high wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, located at 44075 Main Road in Peconic (SCTM# 1000-75-1-20.1 and 20.2). The property, which is zoned Agricultural-Conservation, totals 50.84 acres. The proposed location of the wind turbine is on Block 1, Lot 20.1, which is 4.64 acres in size and is already improved with a winery. Two acres of that block and lot are available to be dedicated to the requested special exception public utility structure use. Proposed Project Purpose and Site Selection Process The proposed wind turbine is part of LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative program and is intended to demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources, and to expand green sources of electricity on Long KL3 2309049 2 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Island. It is LIPA's goal to operate several wind turbines on farmland in Suffolk County. LIPA is already operating one wind turbine on a farm in the town of Riverhead. In the fall of 2001, LIPA began working with the New York State Farm Bureau ("Farm Bureau") to identify suitable farmland sites in Suffolk County for the wind turbines. LIPA determined that farmland sites would be most suitable due to the fact that farmland is generally characterized as flat and windy terrain, presenting unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds necessary for wind turbine operations. LIPA and the Farm Bureau sent a joint letter to bureau members to determine interest in"hosting" a wind turbine. Forty farmers responded and expressed interest and identified a total of 45 locations on their farms available for wind turbine construction. LIPA personnel visited each proposed site to determine the feasibility of locating a wind turbine based on a number of factors, including whether the sites were-located on farms of at least 2 acres in size, were a minimum of 400 to 500 feet from the nearest residence, and had access to LIPA's existing power grid. Based on the relevant factors, LIPA developed a feasibility grade for each proposed farm site ranging from A (highest potential)to C (not feasible). Only sites with a B+rating(good potential) or higher were considered. Thereafter, a team of environmental specialists was dispatched to those sites to determine whether any of the' ' sites receiving a grade of B+or above had any significant environmental constraints. The Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property received a grade of B+ and was determined not to have - any significant environmental,constraints. LIPA, through its agent, KeySpan Electric Services L.L.C.,has entered into a 20- • year lease with the owner of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, whichpermitsLIPA to use an approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land necessary for the construction of the wind turbine., LIPA has also been granted an easement necessary to run the underground wiring from 2 KL3 2309049 2 , • KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS&.FRANKEL LLP the wind turbine to a nearby'distribution line. LIPA will construct and operate the wind turbine and be responsible for its maintenance during the term of the lease. SEQRA Review Conducted by LIPA LIPA, as the sponsor of the wind turbine demonstration project, is acting as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). LIPA notified the ZBA and Planning Board, as involved agencies, of its intention to act as lead agency by letter dated August 20, 2003. Neither the ZBA nor the Planning Board objected to LIPA's lead agency status. A full environmental assessment form ("EAF") accompanied LIPA's August 20, 2003 letter. Thereafter, an environmental assessment (`BA") with an attached revised EAF (including both parts 1 and 2)was submitted with LIPA's applications to the ZBA and the Planning Board on October 20, 2003. The EA analyzed the potential impacts of the wind-turbine on land,use, zoning and community facilities,,historical and archeological resources, visual resources,natural resources,hazardous materials, waterfront revitalization, infrastructure, traffic, air quality, noise and environmental justice, and analyzed potential construction and cumulative impacts. The EA reveals that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the wind turbine. On the contrary, the wind turbine will benefit the environment in that, over a 20-year period, it will eliminate the use of 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas and will eliminate the emission of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,6000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates. LIPA is satisfied that it has fully analyzed all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine as described in the EA. However, LIPA has not . yet issued its determination of significance, as it understands that the Planning Board'has 3 - KL3 2309049 2 - - 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & I-RANKEL LLP retained its own outside environmental consultant to review the EA. LIPA intends to cdnsider the comments of the Planning Board's environmental consultant, if any,prior to making its determination of significance. Accordingly, LIPA requests that the ZBA refrain from a final decision on its applications until such time as the SEQRA process is completed. The Proposed Project Meets the Applicable Requirements for Grant of a Special Exception and Height Variance Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-263, in order to grant a special exception, the ZBA must determine that: (a)the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in,adjacent use districts; (b)the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district in which the proposed use is to be located or in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health, welfare comfort convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use,and its location; (d)the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; (e)the use will be'compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general; and (f) all proposed structures are readily accessible for fire and police protection. In making such determinations, the ZBA must consider a number of factors set forth in Zoning Ordinance § 100-264, including the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the suitability of the district for the . location of the proposed use, and whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed use. , As discussed at length in the EA at pp. 2-4 through 2,-8, the proposed wind turbine site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and agricultural land uses dominate the land within 1/2 mile from the site. Windmills have historically been part of the farm, environment and the wind turbine constitutes a historically consistent structure that conforms to 4„ KL3 2309049.2 - 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP existing farm uses. The proposed site is suitable for the proposed use, as it flat and provides exposure to prevailing winds and is located at least 1/2 mile away from the closest community facilities. The wind turbine would create only a small number of vehicle trips on an occasional basis, would not create any sewage, refuse or effluent or necessitate the use of any water supply, would not create disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust light or vibration or give off . obnoxious gases, smoke or soot, would create no fire hazard, would not pose a risk of pollution and would create only minimal visual impacts and insignificant noise impacts. Based on these facts,more fully discussed in the EA, the erection of the wind turbine will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or specially permitted uses in adjacent zoning districts. Nor will the wind turbine interfere with existing uses or the development of adjacent properties or zoning districts. There will be no adverse effects on health and safety and, as the wind turbine is consistent with historical agricultural uses, the use will be in harmony with and promote the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the wind turbine meets the standards for granting a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance. The height variance requested by LIPA may be granted upon a determination by the ZBA that the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance was granted. In balancing the needs of the variance applicant against those of the community, Town Law § 267-b requires the ZBA to consider whether: (a) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; (b) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than the variance; (c) the requested variance is substantial; (d) the proposed variance will 5 KL3 2309049 2 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e)the alleged difficulty was self-created. As discussed in the EA.at pp. 2-8 to 2-9, and as,discussed above, the wind turbine is a structure historically consistent with the agricultural uses of the surrounding properties and, thus, would not produce a'change in character of the proposed site of nearby properties. The wind turbine will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. While the requested , 90-foot exceedence of the permitted maximum height is substantial, the 125 foot height of the wind turbine is necessary so that the facility is high enough to capture the wind required to generate electricity. Accordingly, the benefit to the applicant would not be outweighed by any detriment to health, safety and welfare and, therefore, it would be within.the ZBA's discretion to grant the requested height variance. - Dated: New York,New York December 18, 2003 Respectfully submitted, , KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &FRANKEL LLP Attorneys fo 'he Lon Island Power Authority By: Karen L. Mintzer 919 Third`Avenue -New York,New York 10022 (212) 715-9100 , 6 KL3 2309049 2 - - - ( t -kC .r Li pi4 .Lc',' [ o-,- K. ,ii-L, -�,�- ) ) -- PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �i�II®S��M& ® P.O. Box 1179 BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. 04 , F` �0 Chairman d �'Ffi`, '� -:;:11,, Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 N Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANOtre3 1 t e� `x , /� Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ` ® Fax,�1 Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS -\:11 i�N,- `N MARTIN H.SIDOR : �I 0 VI1.1 '.....-, PLANNING BOARD OFFICE _ -'` TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUMNOV 1 9 2003 �' Rt !; 14/ P Z-I3& �'/"- Date: November 19, 2003 Cif To: Ms. Oliva, Chairwoman of Zoning Board of Apip-als From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Review- Re: ZBA Appeal No. 5450&5432 comments for the LIPA Wind Turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zoned AC Status: Active Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in your Department for review. In reference to the memo request for information dated November 17, 2003. The Planning Board (PB) held a work session to discuss this application on November 17, 2003; the P.B. would like to offer the following comments and concerns. The P.B. reviewed this amended site plan for the New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the A-C Zone located at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. The P.B. reserves comments on the above until we receive the environmental planning review from NP & V the consultant. Thank you in advance. Cc: file`�°L3 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman P.O.Box 1179 Gerard P.Goehringer Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lydia A.Tortora Telephone(631)765-1809 George Horning ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Ruth Oliva, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairwoman DATE: November 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Osprey Dominion, LIPA, Keyspan —75-1-20.1 & 20.2 This memo is sent as a request for comments regarding the above reviews pending with Town Departments. Presently, The Board of Appeals is reviewing an Appeal of the Building Department's August 26, 2003 Notice of Disapproval for height variance relief, as well as a ZBA special exception for a wind turbine (copies attached). A ZBA public hearing is advertised for December 18, 2003. The plans submitted for review by the ZBA are dated 10-10-03, prepared by T.J. Filazzola, Engineer, and 6-28-02, by Gregory, S. Gallas, Surveyor. The Planning Board may be involved regarding a pre-sub ssion review under the site plan regulations of the Zoning Code. Your comments regar ing this pending application are requested. By way of a copy of this letter, the applicant's attorney is requested to submit the same plans to the Building Department for a review of any amendments (dated after the Building Department's review of the 6-28-02 and 10-10-03 plans), and current site plan data to your Department, if it hasn't already been submitted in a pre-submission review. Additional information may reviewed under ZBA Files #5450 & 5432. Thank you. Enclosures cc: Fredrick Peritore, Keyspan, fax 516 545-5248 Richard Leland, Esq. / Karen Minter, LIPA, fax 212 715 9291 ZBA staff 35—(Q- p'''' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ���\C) 'C• OG Southold Town Hall Lydia A.Tortora, Chairwoman Co 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer ; ti • P.O. Box 1179 George Horning 4,7 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva = l�lJ� ��0� ��� ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando _ *" �,,s Telephone(631)765-1809 '' ,' http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INCOMPLETE NOTICE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY Application No.3-1/3 o2- CTM 75-1-a 0. 1 4 apAcreage: t�/�ct Zone: 4/C Owner: OsrrC�1 j7o-- i n or, (t koej lei-, Prey.) Applicant: / ;Vet/sport 4-/P4 Initial Application: 06,h1- Varietrrd,p /00 -33 ,4 In reviewing the above-referenced application with site sketch dated P-D 3 , it is determined that other applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals will be necessary with respect to the following provisions of the Zoning Code for this property, located in the A —C- Zone District. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate our office staff representative assigned to your file at (631) 765- 1809. Zoning Code Provisions (seven sets of applications, below): / ( ) Section 100-31B(6): Special Exception application i°laa (vy Section 100-31(4) and 100-32, Bulk Area Schedule: additional minimum land area for second use as a public utility tower/use. Please clarify 80,000 sq.ft. of land for public utility usage, as well as 2 acres designated for winery and 10 acres for vineyard, on a map,with filing of variance `°1° f"t� application, if the entire property is less than 14 acres in size. fix kol y'— ( IA'Copies of lease or similar agreement,with description of land area for use by public utility. '°I1'v( /4 Site maps with elevation and size details related to tower base, supports, antennas. est_c Z ( V) When available, SEQRA coordination Letter or Notice by Lead Agency(to Involved Agencies with .01 Long Environmental Assessment Form with updated information). ( VS Other: c0.0.0, &fzeteof 1 / v 1-e-g lDl Dated: October 7, 2003 J By: t // diK-c ssigned Reviewer for ZBA 09/15/03 MON 12:21 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN QJ 002 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,NY 10022-3852 RICHARD G.LELAND PARTNER PARIS TEL (212)715-8087 47,AVENUE I'IOCHE 75008 FAX (212)715 7558 TEb (33-1)44 09 46 00 rIeland©kramerlevin Ccm FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 September 15,2003 By Facsimile Onjy Ms. Lydia A.Tortora Chair,Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall, Southold,New York 11971 Re: Application of Long island Power Authority Premises: 44075 Main Road,Peconic Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.1 Dear Ms. Tortora: I am writing to follow up on my September 9, 2003 letter and our conversation of that date. I have tried to reach you on the telephone,but have not been able to get through. Perhaps I wrote the number down incorrectly. Please call me at (212) 715-8087 at your convenience so that we can discuss this matter. Thank you for you attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Richard G. Leland cc: Mr.Frederick Peritore Mr. Mark Dougherty Stanley B. Klirnberg,Esq. Ki3:22V040.1 Affiliate Ceiees Alliance Offices Milan"Rome London'Brussels 09/09/03 TUE 15:12 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN Z002 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,NY 10022.3852 RICHARD 0,LELAND PARIS PARTNER 47,AVENUE HCCWE75005 TEL (212)715-6097 TEL (33.1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-7569 FAX(33.1)44 09 46 01 rleland@kramerlevin.com September 9,2003 Ms. Lydia A. Tortora -�- Chair,Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold $EP Town Hall, 9 2003 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Application of Long Island Power Authority Premises: 44075 Main Road,Peconic Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.1 Dear Ms. Tortora: We are counsel to the applicant,Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"),in connection with the above-referenced application for a height variance pursuant to § 100-271 of the Southold Town Code.The variance involves LIPA's construction of a wind turbine demonstration project at premises described above. Prior to filing its application,by letter dated August 22, 2003 and delivered to the Supervisor for distribution to all involved agencies on that date,LIPA declared its intention to serve as lead agency for this project in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. A Short Form Environmental Assessment Form accompanied the letter. Additional copies of the lead agency letter and the Short Form EAF are enclosed for your convenience.However, through inadvertence, when our client filed its variance application on September 5, 2003,it filed an additional short forru EAF on the ZBA's form and did not remind the ZBA of LIPA's prior declaration of its intention to serve as lead agency for the wind turbine project. Accordingly, we request that the inadvertently filed EAF be removed from the file and that the processing of our client's variance application proceed with LIPA as the lead agency under SEQRA and with the ZBA as an involved agency. K13.7.119277.1 Affiliate Offices� Rtlim�ce Vices Milan Horne London-Brussels 09/09/03 TUE 15:12 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN al 003 • KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS bt r=r'cANKEL LLP Ms. Lydia A, Tortora Southold,New York September 9,2003 Page 2 Should you or your counsel require any further information, or wish to discuss this matter,please do not hesitate to call mo at(212)715-8087 or my colleague,Karen L.Mintzer, Esq.at(212) 715-7775, Sincerely, 4.--- Richard G. Leland Enclsoures cc: Mr.Frederick Peritore Mr.Mark Dougherty Stanley B.Klimberg, Esq. K=02771 09/09/03 TUE 15:13 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN Z100I3 • 1 SEP - 9 2003 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review '_ = FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine,in an orderly manner,whether a protect or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently,there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable, It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge hi one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective date and information about a given project and its site, By identifying basic project data,it assists e reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3, Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible Impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact The form eleo identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large,then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact's actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAP] AGENO USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE --Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 D Part 2 Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate),and any other supporting information,and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact,it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 12 A The project will not result in any large and important impacts) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment,therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. I !B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.'* ElC. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment,therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. 'A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid fcr Unlisted Actions Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Suffolk County,Long Island Name of Action Long Island Power Authority Name of Lead Agency Edward Grilli Chief of Staff Print or Typo Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer Of different from responsible officer) Date "MEd Page 1 of 21 09/09/03 TUE 15:14 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEYIN 007 Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE:This document is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment.Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subjectto further verification and public review.Provide any additional Information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on Information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so Indicate and specify each instance. NAME Or ACTION — - — - Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator In the Town of Southold, New York. LOCATION OF ACTION(Inoude Sweat AddrETn.Wallow Illy end County) Osprey's Dominion Vineyards,44075 Main Road,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Long Island Power Authority (516 }222-7700 ADDRESS 333 Earle Qvington Slvd.Suite 403 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Uniondale, NY 11553 NAME OF OWNER(If different) — BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS CITY/PO I STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION _.., The Long Island PowerAuthorily proposes to site,construct,and operate a wind turbine generatorto demonstrate both the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources,and expand green sources of electricity on Long Island.This document refers to one site selected forthe wind turbine demonstration. _ Please Complete Each Question—indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical Setting of overall project,both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑ Industrial ❑Commercial p Residential(suburban) o Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest ®Agriculture El Other 2. Total acreage of project area. 0.021 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Erushland(Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards,cropland, pasture,etc.) 0.02 acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ._. acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other(Indicate type) wlhdturbine energy source acres 0.02 acres demonstratIon 3. What is predominant soiltype(s) on project site? Haven Loam a. Soli drainage: ® Well drained 100 %. of site ❑ Moderately well drained % of site 0 Poorly drained % of site h. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System'? 0.02 acres_(See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑ Yes ® No a What is depth to bedrock?" (in feet) "Project would be located on 0.02 acres of a 50-acre parcel of land. ""Bedrock Is not expected to be a significant Issue for construction. 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: o 0-10% 100 % ❑ 10-15% ❑ 15%or greater 2 SEP - 9 2003 Clj 09/09/03 TUE 15:14 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN L]008 • 6. Is project substantially contiguous to,or contain a building,site,or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? 0 Yes ® No 7 Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 0 Yes No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 10 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal,or sole source aquifer? ral Yes ❑ No 10. Do hunting,fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist In the project area? Q Yes ® No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? o Yes ® No Aocording to field visits conducted byAllee King Rosen&Fleming,Inc_Aprll 2002.The land Is used for agricultural purposes Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual lend forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ❑ Yes io No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑ Yes No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site Include scenic views known to be Important to the community? ❑ Yes ta No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it Is tributary 16. Lakes,ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name b. Size(In acres) _ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ® Yes ❑ No a)If Yes,does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? El Yes o No b) If Yes,will Improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑ Yes 2 No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ® Yes D No 19. Is the site located In or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article B of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? 12 Yes ❑ No Site is located In a CEA. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑ Yes r. No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate) a.Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 0.02 acres b.Project acreage to be developed; 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately. c Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles; (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, Indicate percent of expansion proposed 0 %. f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 4 (upon completion of project) h. if residential:Number and type of housing units:NIA One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately I. Dimensions (in feet)of largest proposed 125°° height: 50 width; 10 length. j.Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? a ft. "The structure will be a 10D-foot tower with a wind turbine at the top with 25-foot blades. 2. How much natural material(i.e.,rock, earth,etc.)will be removed from the site? 294 cubic yards tons/cublc yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A a. If yes,for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b.Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? o Yes No 3 SEP - 92003 09/09/03 TUE 15:15 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN IIZ 009 o.Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? p Yes s No 4. Now many acres of vegetation(trees,shrubs,ground covers)will be removed from site? Negligible _acres. 5. Will any mature forest(over 100 years old)or other locally Important vegetation be removed by this project's pYes sNo 6. If single phase project:Anticipated period of construction By the end of 2003 months (including demolition). 7. If multi•phased:N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (num ber). b.Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year(including demolition). 0.Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes s No 9. Number of Jobs generated:during construction 10-20 ;after project is complete less than one 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? p Yes s No If yes,explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? p Yes s No a. If yes, indicate type of waste(sewage,industrial,etc.)and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes s No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ® No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ID Yes z No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑ Yes No a.If yes,what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? D Yes D No c. If yes,give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑ Yes o No e. If yes, explain 17. WIII the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑ Yes ® No a. if yes,what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what Is the anticipated site Ife? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides?• ❑ Yes s No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑ Yes s No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? o Yes la No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑ Yes s No If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells,Indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 0.0 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain The project is a demonstration project funded by Long island Power Authority,a state public authority. 25.Approvals Required Type Submittal Date City,Town, Village Board ❑Yes ®No 4 SEP - 9 2003 00:00/03 TUE 15;15 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN VA 010 City,Town,Village Planning Board De Yes El No Discretionary-Site Plan Approval City,Town Zoning Board El Yes ❑ No DIacretIonary-Height Variance and possible special Use Permit City, County Health Department ❑Yes re No Other Local Agencies ®Yes ❑ No Town of Southold Building August 2003 Peiiillt(non-discretionary) Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ® No State Agencies ❑Yes EI No Federal Agencies ❑Yes el No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? tat Yes ❑ No If Yes, indicate decision required: in zoning amendment re1 zoning variance ❑ special use permit ❑ subdivision ® site plan ❑ new/revision of master plan p resource management plan lei other possible special use permit 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? A-C Agricultural-Conservation 3. What Is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 20 percent coverage permitted in agricultural Conservation zoning. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes ars proposed 5. W hat Is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? No zoning changes are proposed _ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted loeal land use plans'? ®Yes ❑ No 7. What are the predominant land use(s)and zoning classifications within a'/. mile radius of proposed action? The prominent land use within VA mile of the site Is agricultural and the predominant zoning is agricultural. a. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a%mile? ®Yes ❑ No g If the proposed action Is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a.What is the minimum lot size proposed? NII 1D. Will proposed action require any authorization(s)for the formation of sewer or water districts/ o Yes a No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services(recreation, education, police, fire protection)? 0 Yes ® No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? N/A ❑ Yes 0 No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑ Yes No a. If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑ Yes ❑ No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Date Signature Title It the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. s SEP - 9 2003 \ � 11 Atlantic Orient Corporation Wind Energy Systems;el the World Appendix D: Assembly Drawings for 30.5 m (100 ft) Tower SEP - 5 2003 1 TICE: Use of the material contained in this document is subject to the warning on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document. C012R01 AOC 15/50 User Manual May 2001 Appendix D-1 Assembly Details for 100 ft(30.5m) SSV Lattice Tower - _ • 117 "--7_,. TOWER DESIGN—W-LIQf� •-1 TONER H• • 100' 1 .� TOWER DESIGN BY ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. I--I- I/8 ROM PROVIDING TOWCR MATERIALS ONLY i • ' TOP SPREAD 0 , FOR CEMBRAL NOTES SEA'DWG. NO.: 07981895-I FOR BILL OF MATERIAL ME D . Ar.: 081885-1 0 ,,. OAxrolsl / i \ 11111s Cr( ,1721,72 N u:. O i•� sl W il C.) , TOWER ORIENTATION DETERMINED or OTHERS .s ♦ N.T.S. Pia .��1 Of° .441101111°' •ii 85 Nr IAF 1 'J SECTIONSI.444 u.x I SRO.1 - N..AN..r.r.ea..Pr.0 , •O...a P. Or A Q.4*A...MY IWOLAC, ••••••'42.11 IT pste 100' SRI TOWER ASSEMBLY !2•-IO' ars.. cur Ir/less FOR BASE SPREAD 0..44 541 I/4/SS ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. APIs w.. TS l s77o as."Lg. I Oa.'c.. C981895 .1 rer.er rile, 89B02TK oorr r a r Mev, • NOTICE: Use of the material contained in this document is subject to the warning on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document. D00012R01 AOC 15/50 User Manual May 2001 Appendix F-3 Notes and Dimensions for Standard Tower Foundation Drawing .. - , 128 RE CCIONR REV. OFSCRPTION DATE OIrID IPROOUCRON ETEEA EI P ' iiimilm„ . , mom_ _ _iiii_____ ._ masa. 4: fiumiumurti_ ___ mil_ _ _ tau. NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. �C9 {� 61) 2. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS MEETING THE "---7.07,46-ie L��6✓ T Q (�/ " REQUIREMENTS OF ASTMA615. GRADE 60. / 3. MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER ON REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE 3 INCHES. 2 I / > Z. I / x 6 .ber r" isl o 4. FOR ANCHOR BOLT LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS,SEE a SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWER BEING USED. /f �✓� �f (-5, CJ3u 5. FOR FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHOR BOLT TOLERANCES AND FOUNDATION VV j NOTES,SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWER BEING USED. ' B y 6. SPLICES IN REINFORCEMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WELDING OF ©'I e-/,'Ft -4- /i2 4 ON Svfl l I-' REINFORCING STEEL OR ANCHOR BOLTS IS NOT ALLOWED. 7. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL CODES AND TO THE �f / x 3 "� o "g'1 LATEST VERSION OFACI-318, 'BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR - 1 w ` REINFORCED CONCRETE. /AIcL(JABS �� 8. THE BASE OF THE FOUNDATION SHALL BE PLACED ON NATURAL UNDISTURBED SOIL. c p„.jI7tJ- 6e-"tamac, ) . 9. IN THE PLAN VIEW THE AXIS OF THE TOWER SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF THE FOUNDATION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE SITE ARE AT LEAST THE EQUIVALENT OF E.IA"NORMAL"SOIL (4000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE)AND THAT THE DEPTH OF THE FOUNDATION IS ADEQUATE FOR MAXIMUM FROST UNLESS OTHERWISE SPEWED CAD DRAWING DEPTHS AT THE SITE. TME DRAWING ON DRSAtlantic Orient Corporation PRINT AND MFORMA- DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE TION THEREWITH ARE TOLERANCES ARE: Dm. m. 0719101 A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC 11. CONTACT AOC BEFORE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR LATEST REV ORIENT CORP AND SHALL OM P O.BOX I097 NORWICH.VT 055065 DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS NOTR PAARTWUSED TTHOUT OLE a,d . WRITTEN CONSENT OF AL FOUNDATION DRAWING ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP A A-. FOR Et NSA FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL EO'.100' al• """ N/A malwPR.,n10249 ran'. NA D DO'IP."ou"L TMD ONj 15!50 SCALE 1:20 SHFET 2 OF 2 . . 1 . , [NOTICE: Use of the material contained in this document is subject to the warning on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document. D00012R01 AOC 15/50 User Manual May 2001 Electric R&D 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,NY 11801 g....,.. ':` PA 516-545-5720 Long legend Power Authority September 5, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Please be advised that Mr. Frederick S. Peritore, employee of KeySpan, acting as Agent for Long Island Power Authority, is hereby authorized to file an Application, and to act and attest in all matters associated with said Application, with the Southold Board of Appeals regarding a request for Variance pursuant to Notice of Disapproval issued by Southold Building Department and dated August 26, 2003. Said Application relates to the construction of a wind turbine on existing property located at 44075 Main Road, Peconic, NY. Authorized by: _ ...i.....j / / 4 f• • ' 40' D.,,v,,, (i Ar pi ".,.i,' 1 ^„r ,v 'z� F@7, h1 1. x�_�.,'"ism�: �'?' _�.a SEP - 52003 VALERIE SCOPAZ �1'ti' G�� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN PLANNER ti - P.O.Box 1179 _2 Souhold, New York 11971 Fax(516) 765-3136 y449 �������� Telephone(516) 765-1938 Ili soigt • OFFICE OF TRE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD101tr a - Jo,LJiAUS2 7 � r Date: August 26, 2003 ( ;7; �:yi1i ht or: • C To: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton Southold Town Board From: Valerie az ScoP AICP, Town Planner Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project I see no problem with the Long Island Power Authority establishing itself as lead agency in the SEQRA process for the above project. However, the proposed project(44075 Main Road) is located on SR 25,which is a New York State Scenic Byway, designated by New York State Legislation. Item#14 on the EAF should make reference to this fact. Further, the design and locating of this turbine should be reviewed to insure that the viewshed be minimally impacted by this project. cc:Neboysha Brashich, Transportation Commission SEP 1 6 2003 ° QA- 1 _ 333 Ea vin ton Boulevard it ar; ';,� •� �,�, Suite 403 NY 1553 �>:Al rif, fig[ h ,_ (516)Uniondale, 22-77001 Fax(516)222-9137 Long island Power Authority httpl/www lipower org August 20, 2003 Hon. Joshua Y. Horton Supervisor, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project Dear Supervisor Horton: The Long Island Power Authority (the "Authority") hereby proposes to designate itself as the Lead Agency for carrying out the State Environmental Quality Review process for a proposed wind turbine in Southold, New York (the "Project"), subject to a written request from an involved agency to be the Lead Agency within thirty(30) days of the date of this letter. As described in the accompanying Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 prepared by the Authority, the Project entails the construction and operation of a 50kW wind turbine. The Project site is a portion of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards located at 44075 Main Road in Southold, which would be leased to the Authority. The purpose of the Project is to demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbine technology as a reliable alternative energy source and the applicability of distributed energy sources in the Authority's service area, and to expand green sources of electricity on Long Island. The Authority has made a preliminary determination that the Project is an Unlisted action as described in 6 NYCRR § 617.2. If you consent to the Authority's designation of itself as Lead Agency for the Project, please indicate so by counter-signing the enclosed copy of this notice and returning it to the Authority's outside counsel, Richard G. Leland, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, at your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions or comments, please direct them to Mr. Leland as well, at 212- " 715-8087. THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY 01": , By: id/x2X.A0 Edwar. ' rilli Chi- 'of Staff nN=ri SEP 162003 --_ -, . -- :-.,, APPEALS t TOWN OF SOUTHOLD By: Hon. Joshua Y. Horton TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS By: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD By: Enclosure SEP162003 • 01- APPEALS KL3 2285390 2 ZBA Members site visit at Windmill in Calverton set for Sat. Jan. 24, 2004 9:30 a.m. Windmill Location is at the NW corner of Route 25 and Edwards Ave, Calverton Opposite Cross Roads Restaurant Meet at Windy Acres farmstand parking area on Route 25,west of Edwards Ave. (windmill is just west of farmstand). (All can go to windmill by a car on dirt road in one or two cars.) Hopefully there will be some wind,but not a snow storm. Fred Peritore, Keyspan/LIPA repr. 516-545-5720 (Office#) cell phone 516-857-9847 tel. with lk 1-13-04 11:30 am. /Pt- ' Lce i 1 y% Ceiys-c.. 4 eutt Com, 1l/0 ,Op��L ‘, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP {�1�` lJ \* 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE �� 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 \) R4Y TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 1 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com j �! VV f0/`�/,Jo y os December 1, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey Dominion Vineyard Property Dear Ms. Kowalski: We are in receipt of the Zoning Board of Appeals November 17, 2003 memorandum to the Planning Board, on which we were copied,requesting the submission of any updated plans for the proposed wind turbine. We have no updated plans and our proposed site plan has already been submitted to the Planning Board. We though it might be helpful at this time, however, to provide you with a copy of detailed drawings for the LIPA wind turbine facility that is currently operating in Riverhead,New York, for illustrative and informational purposes. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosure a.�•, cc: Mr. Bruno Semon (w/enclosure) Mr. Frederick Peritore(w/o enclosure) KL3 2305785 1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels Long Island Farm Bureau,Wind Turbine Generators and Towers At Six Sites - � I R&D Project No, S029 RBA Project 7897 • I August 15, 2002 Submitted to: Keyspan, as agent for ' Long Island Power Authority Electric R& D, OPSZ, 2nd Floor 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 TABLE OF CONTENTS Drawing Number Date Title Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10249, Sheet 1 Of 2 7/27/00 GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL, 100' Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10249, Sheet 2 Of 2 7/27/00 GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL, 100' _ j Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10267, Sheet 1 Of 2 9/29/00 ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION . _ Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10267, Sheet 2 Of 2 9/29/00 ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION ROHN_Drawing No. C981895, Rev 1 1/20/99 100' SSV TOWER ASSEMBLY for Atlantic Orient Corp. , _ ROHN Drawing No. CT981895-1, R2 8/12/02 GENERAL NOTES for Atlantic Orient Corp. ~'<,. - -, ROHN Drawing No.A920997 6/6/92 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 6N277 ,.-, ' ROHN Drawing No. A920998 6/6/92 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 7N499 ' ROHN Drawing No. A921513 10/28/92 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 8N377 6 - ' UNARCO-ROHN Drawing No. A840517 1/3/85 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 9N201 ROHN Drawing No.A983119 1/5/99 10N322 SSV SECTION ASSEMBLY . ROHN Drawing No. SK-720305, R5 4/20/87 BRACING, GROUTING, & DRAINAGE DATA FOR MODEL SSV TOWERS ROHN Drawing No. B-651264, R1 1/2/85 STEP BOLT INSTALLATION DETAIL UNARCO-ROHN Drawing No. A790135, R2 ' ` 8/4/92 BOLT ASSEMBLY INSTALLATION Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10245, Sheet 1 Of 1 TOWER BRACES (TYPICAL)- 6 , Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10242, Sheet 1 Of 2 • . TOWER LEG (TYPICAL) Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10242, Sheet 2 Of 2 - • - - TYPICAL TOWER LEG WITH CLIMBING CLIPS THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE"NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE. ,v'OF NE11, - ��P D.41 _° .ROGO,�,� , 6.t.,1, -.,..,.:1,, tp /,....frsc Ryan-Biggs Associates, P.C. i. _.4.1r- ildtall Troy, New York 12180 NCO �S 1 2 5 5Cf2Ud2-kill'i2a-Cf Ph. (518)272-6266 '�� �� ( � • FAX(518)272-4467 f- 6 ,..___:1.>----, I�,�l �IId oz (I)te-- I - • 1 _ _ _ ______ _ - _ _ . - _ ' I I I 4 3 2 REVISIONS I REV DESCRIPTION- - - - - ---..DATE APPROVED I D —-(PRODUCTION RELEASE)-___ _ _ _ -_ - _ _ ___ -' I I I G I II I I1 • 0 ' Ryan-Biggs Associates,P.C. \\ Troy,New York 12180 / j Ph.(518)272-6268 j FAX(518)272-4487 \ / TOWER AXIS C i / DETAIL A\ SCALE 1 8 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE B 30° : WITH THE"NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION TYP—" AND BUILDING CODE"IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. - ' PROJECT: _LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE ; \I - D GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN RBA PROJECT NO.7897 / \. TO TOWER AXIS ° B 120° TYP .10 _ _ 4- 01 1/2%6 X 40" ° ....10.) ANCHOR BOLTS I , j AAO- ., O-r x -,-,c.; • , A 11 c y 0 BOLT CIRCLE: H ROHN ANCHOR BOLT SETTING .'`.—O' I /EMPLATE, SEE TOWER SPECS '‘, 45.00° .iANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT ill N PLAN VIEW #8 BARS, 12 INCHES ON CENTER, o GROUND LINE v BOTH WAYS, TOP AND BOTTOM • sm♦ �� _� �iiiiHA �E DETAILS 1 h 0 0 ° ° ° ° ° 0 0 0 0 ° )0 ° ° SCALE 1 : 8 1 i E 3 (Typici4L 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a f--- --- -- -- - ---------------------- ----- ---- -- - -- ----- - ---- - - -- -- - THE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED CAD GENERATED DRAWING. Atlantic Orient Corporation - I-PRINT AND IN FORMAI- DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE I TION THEREWITH ARE TOLERANCES ARE: — — — -- A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC OWN AIM olaTi°° Cj ORIENT CORP AND SHALL ali P.O.BOX 1097 NORWICH.VT 05055 NOT BE USED IN WHOLE SIF ROHN DWG An°tl�aa ELEVATION VIEW OR CWITHOUT SENT OF FOUNDATION AND ANCHOR TOLERANCES I NSA — GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING A ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. FOR EIA NORMAL SOILS.100' _ v ice' N/A aZ( owc.No vurrND ...co D 10249 NA ___ - I Do NOT=All°"A'""c ; USED ON:15/50 SCALE 1:20 SHEET 1 OF 2 • -- --- -- - - -_--- - - - - -- - ' - - REVISIONS . REV__-- ---DESCRIPTION-- -- -- - - - DATE APPROVED 1 (PRODUCTION RELEASE) __—_— . ._—_ _ ____ _ — __ __-_ _ __ _ _ ._ % _ _ _ _ _ , TOWER DIMENSION A B C D E F G H - ((( -- . . 100 FT 12' 10" 11 ' - 1 5/16" 7'-4 7/8" 21 ' - 0" 6' - 0" 0' - 8" 7 1 /2" 10 1 /4" , NOTES: - FOUNDATION INFORMATION 1. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF - Tower Base Loads (Ibsf) Single Leg Loads (Ibsf) 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS,A MAXIMUM WATER-CEMENT RATIO OF 0.55,AND - ' 6 TO 8 PERCENT ENTRAINED AIR. Vertical Horizontal Overturning Vertical Loads Loads Moment Horizontal (weight) (thrust) (ft-lbs) Tension Compression 2. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS MEETING THE .D REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A615. GRADE 60. 100 ft. SSV 15,300 24,400 1,810,000 14,600 158,000 168,000 ' 3. CONCRETE COVER ON REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE 3 INCHES. Note: Loads calculated by spreadsheet at survival wind speed of 59.5 m/s(133 mph) -' 4. FOR ANCHOR BOLT LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, SEE -o-- 1 SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWER BEING USED. 5. FOR FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHOR BOLT TOLERANCES AND FOUNDATION NOTES, SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWER BEING USED. I. 6. SPLICES IN REINFORCEMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WELDING OF REINFORCING STEEL OR ANCHOR BOLTS IS NOT ALLOWED. I ' 1 i 7. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL CODES AND TO THE , LATEST VERSION OF ACI-318, "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR - REINFORCED CONCRETE. r ; 8. THE BASE OF THE FOUNDATION SHALL BE PLACED ON NATURAL UNDISTURBED SOIL. THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE 9. IN THE PLAN VIEW THE AXIS OF THE TOWER SHALL BE LOCATED AT WITH THE'NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION THE CENTER OF THE FOUNDATION. AND BUILDING CODE'IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. Ryan-8100s Associates,P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE ' 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE Troy,New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. SITE ARE AT LEAST THE EQUIVALENT OF E.1.A. "NORMAL"SOIL Ph.(518)272-8288 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN (4000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE)AND THAT THE FAX(518)272-4487 RBA PROJECT NO.7897 DEPTH OF THE FOUNDATION IS ADEQUATE FOR MAXIMUM FROST THE DRAWING ON THIS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED CAD GENERATED DRAWING, DEPTHS AT THE SITE. PRINT AND INFORMA- ; DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE Atlantic Orient Corporation I PION THEREWITH ARE A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC TOLERANCES ARE. ,ow" NIA 07/27/00 11. CONTACT AOC BEFORE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR LATEST REV IORIENT CORP AND SHALL ROT BE USED IHOLE CHOW X0 f 202 ,,,,,D P O BOX 1097 NORWICH.VT 05055 DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS I WRITTEN CONN WSENT OF i .xx 2 m MAMMAL GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. A : , N/A ; FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL fid,100' S,. ;11191` 922 DWG.NO PART NO---- • - I N/A ' D IDWG. 10249 NA I DO MOT scut DRAWING USED ON:15/50 SCALE 1 :20 SHEET 2 OF 2 s I I s 1 ' s ,( — -- I ' I i , H j - --8-- 7 6 — 5 4 3 --� - - - REVISIONS REVI DESCRIPTION --_ _— DATE REV BY' USE GALVANIZED END AT TOP ONLY - (PRELIMINARY RLS) • Di D 1 1/2" -6 X 40" ANCHOR BOLTS / "" CERTIFIED ASTM A193, GR B7I a 7z - 1 .000 TYP - GALVANIZED NUTS X 8 I 1 ri- T I ' = _ ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE (WITH 1/8" CENTER HOLE) 'II I C (z ;C FOUNDATION 1E1 _ L -A A ' ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE `l11 -�► (WITH LARGE CENTER HOLE) ma _ -' �� UNGALVANIZED NUTS X 8 NOTES: f— O.500 Ty P. . 1) SEE ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT OF EACH TOWER SITE FOR TEMPLATE PART NUMBER B AND ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION. Ryan-elan:Associates,P.C. B 2) LOCATE TEMPLATE SUCH THAT SCRIBED LINE j 3 Troy,New York 2180 Ph.(518)272-828888 PASSING THRU CENTER HOLE& 2 CENTER PUNCH FAX(518)272-4487 MARKS IS ON LINE TO TOWS AXIS THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE 3) CHECK ANCHOR BOLT SIZE, NO., SPACING, AND WITH THE-NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIREPREVENTION BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER (TOP AND BOTTOM) AGAINST AND BUILDING CODE'IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT BEFORE INSTALLATION — 4) IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE TO VERIFY THAT THE CORRECT ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE AND GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. , / FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON RESPECTIVE SITE DRAWINGS FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN ARE BEING USED. RBA PROJECT NO. 1 r "I1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED 1 CAD GENERATED DRAWING. ' PRINT AND INFORMA- ' ' THE DRAWING ON THIS DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES. I DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE I Atlantic Orient Corporations { I TOLERANCES ARE: iti)3e, WARNING: TION THEREWITH ARE ;DwN AM i 9/29/00 A PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC ,CHKR B A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY A ORIENT CORP AND SHALL AFTER ANCHOR BOLTSARE INSTALLED AND - NOT BE USED IN WHOLE 'AP"D PHP.o.aox1as7 NORWICH, 05055 CONCRETE HAS TAKEN ITS INITIAL SET, ANCHOR ' OR IN PART WITHOUT SEE SHEET 2MATERIAL N/A BOLTS MUST NOT BE MOVED, BENT OR REALIGNED I WRITTEN CONSENT OF IN ANY MANNER. A NUT OR LOCKING DEVICE MUST ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. • FINISH ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION BE INSTALLED ON ALL ANCHOR BOLTS! I N/A• SIZE 1 DWG.NO. PART NO. A 10267 20172 , DO NOT SCALE DRAWING USED ON ROHN TOWER . • I SHEET 1 OF 2 8 • I . ' 1 • 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 — —_ — REVISIONS — — — -- - — -- REV' DESCRIPTION DATE REV BY ---- - - -- -- Y 1' _ (PRELIMINARY RLS) Di D 'FOUNDATION AND ANCHOR TOLERANCES: THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE°NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE'IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. : FOUNDATIONS Ryan-Biggs Associates,P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy,New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. 1) ;CONCRETE DIMENSIONS ;± 1" Ph.(518)272-8288 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPANi FAX(518)272-4487 RBA PROJECT NO.7897 2) DEPTH OF FOUNDATION I+3 / -0 j I 3) DRILLED FOUNDATIONS OUT OF PLUM 1.0 DEG 4) REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT PER A.C.I. 301 ANCHOR BOLTS 5) PROJECTION OF EMBEDMENT ± 1/8" 6) VERTICAL EMBEDMENT OUT OF PLUM 1/2 DEG C IC ANCHOR BOLTS MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE OF 1/24 OF PIER I i PAL NUT 7) ANCHOR BOLTS TO CENTERLINE OF DIAMETER UP (MAY SUBSTITUTE LOCKWASHER) FOUNDATION TO A MAX OF 2" �,jH H 8) ANCHOR BOLT SPACING 1/16" 9) ANCHOR BOLT CIRCLE ORIENTATION 11/4 DEG 10) ANCHOR BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER ± 1/16" SELF SUPPORTING TOWER • GROUT B FACE SPREAD DIMENSION CENTER TO ± 1/16" OR 1/16" B i 1 i LEVELING NUTS 11) PER 20 FT OF CENTER OF ANCHOR BOLT CIRCLES FACE SPREAD 12) MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY TWO 1/2" FOUNDATION FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS DRAINAGE SLOT I UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ' CAD GENERATED DRAWING. I THE DRAWING ON THIS } ren} r pn} } n TOWER FOUNDATION ) I )1111j1(3/63 PRINT AND INFORMA- DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES, ' DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE Atlantic Orient Corporation1 �_ TION THEREWITH ARE TOLERANCES ARE AM . 9/29/00 /- A A. GROUT DETAIL PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC CHK ORIENT CORP AND SHALL OWN gJ A WIND_ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY I A NOT BE USED IN WHOLE "D PH P.O.BOX 1097 NORWICH.VT 05055 OR IN PART WITHOUT SEE SHEET 2 MATERIAL N/A r I , WRITTEN CONSENT OF I I ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. FlN6N N/A SIZE 1 DWG NO. PART NO. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING A i 10267 20172 USED ON ROHN TOWER 8 I 7 I 4 • SHEET 2 OF 2 1 -- — - TOWER DESIGN LOADING TOWER HT. = 100• TOWER DESIGN BY ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. 1 2'-9 PREA TOP SPREAD ROHN PROVIDING TOWER MATERIALS ONLY 1 I (-8- ____60 ni Z77 Pig FOR IMERAL NOTES SEE DWG. uj O LI Z zzN zEl) a ez 7N 4�Q o i .7,- N D W } III° / O W CD Z X 0IL ° DI- ° ♦ W cc I— WOW0 � � Q W — CO w B3 8N377 - > � W r0 � � ~ � < Z ° Ails , WSW 0 0 U) Z Z Z ~mew � � � cn _ cn �- O ZZ= ZZ \ ZWC7 OWOH \ D J (.9 J w WJ 1 gN2O1 - 0 ~ � W o_ NW TOWER ORIENTATION DETERMINED BY OTHERS - m a - - N.T.S. 1-- < a u. IX IIIIIIIIIA . a \91) Im� OV r- 1 c'iciHcDn/i8 Dt'Vl _ a Y1 322—. C) mmR/ IC7'1AM :..,ZTOP a SECTla�6 i/emsl Lcx 1 Slew I -Y� 1 N•.A Rwl•I•n 4•srlr►l.n �� t0 >' x ♦D•I• Roy Bre Gr•EC*AMS By 7NI5 di/rIM PS 1tF PYEKIY lN. i� re H LL TO L6 Cb�lm Qi IAAL�D M IS IOpT I o T T r �7w0 LIJ� IN PART.'ll)q/r �RITTFN LOI4 I ■ E 07 l/_l/ l/,rJ ���-�O� 6...•. By D"' 100' SSV TOILER ASSEMBLY BASF SPREAD Or••••• LLK /2,28/9/3 FOR L'' • SRI l/4/99 ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. 2 — — - • A... En... TS r EMI. rILE, h . Ao.. C981895 1• P.r.nr rrr..l 39602TJJ r I ar ► V. General Notes 1. See individual section assembly drawings for part numbers and section assembly details. 2. Step bolts are provided on one leg only. 3. Refer to the latest revisions of the drawings shown in the bill of materials. 4. Pal nuts are provided for all towering..bolts (see DWG. A790135),IIIIIIIIIIIMIMN Min Lock washers are provided for 1-1/2" anchor bolts. 5. The leg part number is stamped at the bottom of each leg of each section. 6. Work shall be in accordance with ANSI TIA/EIA-222-F, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures". 7. Tolerance on tower steel height is equal to plus 1% or minus 1/2%. 8. Purchaser shall verify the installation is in conformance with local, state, and federal requirements for obstruction marking and lighting. 9. Tower orientation to be determined by others. 10. Step bolts with ROHN-LOC safety device are provided for climbing the entire tower height. 11. The purchaser shall verify that actual site soil parameters meet or exceed EIA "normal" soil parameters. 12. Numbers shown in balloons denote item numbers in bill of material. 13. Tower grounding is to be provided by others, and shall meet all applicable codes. MATERIALS: 1) All materials shall be new and free from rust. 2) All Rolled Steel Plates, Shapes, and Bars shall be ASTM A 36. 3) All Steel Pipe shall be ASTM A 618, Grade III, meeting dimensions for Extra-Strong, Schedule 80 pipe. 4) All Bolts, Nuts, and Washers shall be High-Strength, ASTM A 325. 5) All Welding Electrodes shall be E70XX and in accordance with AWS. _. Revised 8/12/02, RBA, Added notes on Materials This drawing is the property of ROHN. It is not to be reproduced, copied, or traced in whole or in part without . our written consent. R OH ® N Scale: none By Date Title: General Notes Drawn: LLK 01/04/99 for Checked: s2 C/404/7 q ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. App. Eng.: //r/7 5 App. Sales: Eng. File: 39602TK Drawing No.: CT981895-1 R2 ,--,,,,7 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE U‘......__, WITH THE"NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 1.4.3 Ryan-Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 I --_ a BILL OF MATERIAL ITEM IO .I PART NO. 1 DESCRIPTION I DIIG. No. TOWER / 2 VG6 LEG PIPE 4 E.H I j<eic,— AXIS i 2 1 VG566_S STEP LEG PIPE 4 E.Ht . - 3 6 VB1122 DIAD. BRACE (L 2X1X3/l6) yz'i�-, rPLATE 4 6 VB 1123 DIAG. BRACE (L 2XZX3/16) : • ® — 5 6 VB1124 DIAG. BRACE (L 2X2X3/16) _ 6 6 VB 1 l25 DIAG. BRACE (L 2a2X3/16) .-.. - A.:: 5('2C�t 7 6 VB1126 DIAG. BRACE (L 2X2X3/16) ; •-..! : i —= — 8 75 210029GA r/r" X I I./2" BOLT ASSY (BRACES) I I . F # 9 12 2100 9GA I" X 4 I/4" BOLT ASSY (FLANGES) 770404 z 0 I 2x2x 3 Ilo 5-�p BOLTS zzo m I �- �� J > N � wj (TyP,c,�.� � CC � DIY Z t— c n MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION o o QQo TIO) FLANGE PLATE SPREAD woo ww ¢ q-" x-sTrz. F�1OFFSET ' Ira' ( BorT j wz 0° o w SIZE P/W I SIZE I P/N TOP BOTTOM 5 U F- cc ES/ler REV.I 31 3 9.a- s�o: 9. 992 95A 2'-9 ls" 4'9 1/8" z i¢ w o Q o F BRACES ARE PLA '� �-��a r w CO Z IN TOP TO BOTTOM m Y g 2O , ORDER GIVEN IN BILL u) oo u) ` � ti OF MATERIAL. NOTES = } o owo0 zzzz 1. LEG P/N IS STAAFED AT BOTTOM OF EACH LEG OF EACH SECTION. c7 w O O w O f- 2. PAL NUTS ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL TOWER BOLTS. 3 z E __4 (9 _10 w A .4 3. STEP BOLTS PVID Ont On+F LEG OULY. w 2 U pesos 4. FLAME BOLTS OF QCT�LL O� MATERIAL ARE FOR FLANGE � � w O AT m EE (1) pa -, a = rt Om 1 5. PLATES IS FOR BOTTOM FLANGE PLATES i ¢ w cr OM?' UNLESS OTl-ERWISE (TED. 4 y d No.A Revision Description ♦ Date A Rev By Ckd ByAAppd By cNcor- co un r- cD THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RO1�V. IT IS NOT N x T q TO BE REPRODUCED. COPIED OR TRACED IN Wf-CLE OR a o N co IN PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT. N N N 1 Li- Drawn:tNonce By Det. Title: ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR in `1:3)o,' CSR 5/14i92 SSV SEC ~ .--- CC ELEVATION2 Checked: U wivi ! 6/4/92 SECTION ,App. Eng. : c/ i 7-1_ VI 1�L 77 �, App. Sales: m4.) 6` 5:• -' ' - 11*?Awma- o. : A920997 �J' I i BILL OF MATERIAL + ITEMr A-11-1. PANT NO. DESCRIPTION I DWG. PC. -. I I TATOR 1 2 VG567 LEG PIPE 4 EIS .H / 2 I VC 67S STEP LEG PIPE 4 E.H .lie*, 3 6 X71 DIAG.GRACE. (L1-3/4 X 3/16") - 747.13 i* — FLANGE 4 6 X72 DIAG.BRACE(IL/-3/4 X 3/16) PLATE TE 6 X73 DIAG.BRAN (LI-3/4 X 3/16) SX 1 • PLAtd6 X74 DIAG.BRACE (L1-3/4 X 3/16) SI( A lill 1 Sp6 X75 DIAG.BRACE (L1-3/4 X 3/16) g 8 75 2IOIQ25Ca4 5/8" X I I/2" BOLT ASSY (BRACES) '�'�t• I P+ Vill I # 9 12 2100696A I" X 4 1/4" BOLT ASSY (FLANGE''') i�.,__.�' w O w z I 3 3 1(0 S11 p TS z z c, m _ _ w EI,}Al,fX ,t Wc., Ww .,,4I4! _,,,,,...4. o � � Z � I Uwe X P. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION o• MQ wQo SECTION FLANGE PLATE SPREAD • ° o mw ¢ LEG (TYP) TCF BOTTOM w z I— • o W "¢� T?.F3j OFFSET BEVEL I SIZE I P/N , SIZE 1 P/N TOP BOTTOM www o i --- --- s.5' 90- 95A D.Ss 99: 95A 4'9 1/8" 6'-9 lam' z Q IL w '�• CLa NOTE: x I-los x l-l/4wait zorti BRACES ARE PLACED - Q ¢ Q, IN TGIF TO BOTTOM CO CL wQ ti D OER GIVEN IN BILL Q o ❑- w 20 ' OF MATERIAL. P�7IERAL. /1b7E5 � � ° zwz °° 1. LEG P/N IS STAAFED AT BOTTOM (F EACH LEG QF EAC1-I SECTION. z Z Z -J C9 OJ U 2. PAL NUTS ARE Pf OVID D PQR ALL TOMER BOLTS. § ' o w G 4 D.o S 3. STS BOLTS ARE PROVIDED ON ONE LEG ONLY. a 0 F 4. FLAT aE BOLTS ( ) GIVEN IN BILL MATERIAL ARE FOR FLANGEp I- m W s PLATES AT BOTTOM OF SECTION. w = ❑ O I ti No.A Revision DescriptionoNcoco P Dote Rev By Ckd ByAAppd By h � co � THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHN. IT IS NOT } 7 TO BE ?COPIED C TRACED IN Wr1OLE OR ROHAT Of CI3 (N C 3 -am I IN PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CO1VSENT. I Scale: None By Date Title: CO Tvx ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR a o i _ Drawn: CSR 5/14/92 �� CCi—au_ ELEVATION Checked: U WAIN 6/4/92 _ SSV SECTION V - 2 App. Eng. : G 4 . 2 7N499 App. S®I.s: At 6, .1. • G• 7 DRAWIIIIG NO. : / •1,4", + BILL OF MATERIAL 1 + ITEM OUAN.I PART Np. I DESCRIPTION I MG. NO. TOWER 1 2 VG584 LEG (4 EH PIPE) 1261 I AXIS -- 2 1 VG584S STEP LEG (4 El•1 PIPE) 1 3 6 X61 DIAG. BRACE (L 1-3/4 X .3/16) - i' •• I. \ FLANGE 4 6 X82 DIAG. BRACE (L 1-3/4 X 3/16) I SK •. • Ck — ® PLATE 5 6 _ X83 DIAG. BRAC' (L 1-3/4 X 3/16) - PLAN 6 6 X84 DIAG. BRACE (L 1-3/4 X 3/16) • Sp rz EPSD 7 60 21 O029rA 5/B X 1-1/2 BOLT ASSY •Aii •. 8 12 2/0069GA I X 4-1/2 BOLT ASSY • • ' /11 (Co SSP iBoLTS w 0 w zz 3 ) 3Li x3 • Qwo m CC uj L a. w LI/ (r14 �FICA(..) 2 X r Q ° w ; zx � MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ° 2 D ¢ Qo 0.4 SECTION FLANGE PLATE SPREAD ° o ? ,w < Q LEG (TYP) Lt„ )C- Te. OFFSET BEVEL raw BOTTOM TOP I BOTTau > D w 2 o P sr 1 P/N I P/N wu. a Z o NOTE: N/A XI.259.5X9.5 X/.25 .5 9513 6. 9-I/8" 6'-IO' w z z z r` BRACES ARE PLACED m � iu JI- _3co NOTES IN TOP TO BOTTOM cnoo � Qrlti ct ORDER GIVEN IN BILL _ } o zzzoz 20 0 4 OF MATERIAL. 1. LEG° P/N IS STA�lAOED AT BOTTOM QF EAC 1 LEG QF EACH SECTION. Z z z O w 2. PAL. NUTS ARE PROVICED FQI� ALL TOWER BOLTS. § ' o w 0,0518 3. STEP BOLTS ARE PROVIDED ON CPE LEG O LY. g = = v 0 _ 4. FLANGE BQL T5 (#) GIVEN IN BILL QF MATERIAL Alm FQR FLANCaE o F- m w PLATES AT BOTTOM OF SECTION. cn -� � a _ � O dQ �.' F-- � Q CL OLCC , 1 i c3m ra coO a) c43 No.A Revision Description A Date A. Rev By Ckd ByaAppd By N ,- N THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHN. IT IS NOT in a 0 N TO BE , COPIED OR TRACED IN WHOLE OR R 0 3�.- IN PART WIT-IOKJT OCA WRITTEN CONSENT. _ m z i/ '/f See Non• By Date TI tle: 'c° 2 z< ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR CCF- ELLL Drawn: JOM /0-27-92 SSV SECTION %)''' ELEVATION Checked: G/ tuget /0-2814_ 8N377 .))7g 2 App. Eng. : / -28-9Z App. Sales: , /40-2;-477. DRAWING NO. : A921513 i C` I 3 Ok8V alep ix . '.:'u,dad iaqumN 6u�Aaei® Sa 5_4 (Q/0^ ale° / &ilia •=p4naddy X d � + tC1 l u� NO/.L 73s .moo AY 0-.C.109 16'' S3117d �, �0� •• -, 3.�Nd7_-1 a'oa' _gap, 7b72'316'/'Y .�O 77/P N/ N34/2 ( )S17O9 9.9i/0'7d 'f• N N *'a cn .S'7�ry1� i{74�/6/�.�'.S' ale° Aq uMetQ if7/Y� .7�7 .ANO NO ��Oaifod .72(t•'1S'l/IN 70, �71/d 49 •Z' A N y : • .gNO1. �je� NO/1,2 r /Y.2t'?dO 2.97 //71 dO IN 0.1_10g 1t ' CZYZI Vd1S S7 /Wad .9.77 i S�1ON 7dd7N722 o a; • 'out •Saulsnpul obteun Jo uois,ni° • • • 9 • Ulf®.-®.J.U(� �� CO • . . illill ' ffO 13 Z * 2 AB, oleo I - uogduosa° uoisiAaa I 'oN \ \ � � `m ,co • . _ ` hi • )lSo'O rifet 4 .Nai�k;a '-aV7x5i36 -� 71'�5 n� p /Y2L10g> <d0L� 76•72:"-ZLiV ° Dom' gymoo . `1Yall4g d0[ -. N// • 401 7-74...7g .1.7.512'.40p ..e® 777..9 /Y/ iy3/1i.' 3T/ -FFE › m m d30� f/011P L dQl oo �zT � O6�dds' �1b � �ON7N/ ?.FJd74/ .a'b� S9Jd�A omm 0cr. : mowK 0.&/Y� .,S /V - • \mo -1Zr"co 0m - . ED i Dz . C • \ l/ 111 m D O -IC 0 m 0 • 57wz Tmp al9.-is,Xcp„s "' (;164-L) .277 NO/1.79Smmc m . mt° z 51as d.�1s - OJ . „ :, ,,,, ,..,:, ,.,,,:„„,_.„)...),, zmN --I ---- - - - yWd41) ,, . 1— I 1 ( y . ) H -f--., S"- - .71 d7d 39NY7- ` --r- , „. �.. ��L'- ?cam �c�l<-j��._t�1 SL�-1N Z I �`n 'ON :2,,f7 /NO/1d/�S�® 'ONLLa y Iwr,/20;/IGL7 crte, z���ol 0 0 1VI2:13IVIN JO 11I . q i i 'I I •1 , BILL OF MATERIAL /4' � ITEM DUAN. PART NO. DESCRIPTION DWG. NO. iROWERIS 1 2 VG666 BASE LEG (P 5 EH) =982667 2 I VG666S STEP BASE LEG (P 5 EH) , -826- A 3 .6 V8122 DIAG. BRACE (L2.50 X . 19") Ti FB 1 . FLANGE 4 6 VB 123 DIAG. BRACE (L2.50 X . 19") SK 22B . — 4* PLATE 5 6 V8124 DIAG. BRACE (L2.50 X . 19") SK7 2B 6 45 210029GA BRACE BOLT ASS'Y (.63 X 1 .50'') C 0 4 PLAN 7 12 250031 LOCK WASHER (1-1/2") N/A B . 16 5/BSTEP STEP BOLTS =65126 j01O 11 9 O F- w / 1, 3 N ,� -22xZZXI� 1O a > N Qww _(TmLC.i -L 0- W � Y � wcn OXcn H MISCELLANEOUS I NFORbIA T ION ° CC � < < 2 IIIII 14111 - SECTION FLANGE PLATE SPREAD w 0 Z m w IS LEG (TYP) TOP BOTTOM wZO 2! 11 5 x-5-r . Pipe OFFSET BEVEL SIZE I P/N SIZE I P/N TOP BOTTOM Www o . P )1 w Q O cr H LI- Cl_ NOTE: I 3.3� STD xi 5 95C X l.5 VG665I lO'-!O" l2'-lO" w Z z z ,� ' BRACES ARE PLACED mew g : - o IN TOP TO BOTTOM cn0a u) CD • 2O OF MATERIAL. IN BILL GENERAL NOTES = } z0 z z z • � � ZZz � 1 . LEG P/N IS STAMPED AT BOTTOM OF EACH LEG OF EACH SECTION. Z Z z O U 2. PAL NUTS ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL TOWER BOLTS. : mil :03 wO.OS3. STEPPS/ BOLTSAREPROVIDEDONONELEGONLY. U¢ THE SECTION IS USED AS w L a PI! . SECTION.SEE THE TOWER ASSEMBLY DRAWING OR ANCHOR z ~ z cc O CC m ii il I BOLT LAYOUT FOR CORRECT SIZE AND oUANTI TY OF ANCHOR BOLTS. ~ ¢ 0- w CL I1 5. BEVEL FOR FLANGE PLATES IS FOR BOTTOM FLANGE PLATES ONLY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. c6 a a A O O C'J COco No .♦ Revision Description A Date A Rev By Ckd ByAAppd By . N YNv , Q CO N THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHN. I T IS NOT or} ti c i TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR TRACED IN WHOLE OR ] O �IN PART WI THOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT. f-I m z in co T"X 1 Scale NONE By Date �F �� 10N322 ' Drawn : L L K 12/28/98 ELEVA T IONChecked: -ON - 0//011/9y SSV SECTION ASSEMBLY App. Eng.. : • f/.5-" DWG. NO. : A983119 2 Parent File : • SHEET I OF I REV. • ,_1('Vtiri\WVf S �/y�r� v�+ '•':°e` .3� .. VS7NO� L7JS H.7OCSdO-716 1.79NYI1.1S)J7 do is OZ'S/L Vld'IE '9J7:li trza en7 a 1 - rr ... Mr'rr +�w {/.� JVOI f 77 NS °!$C 7A /V/- Son•A''.'AEEN W V .- ^' R�7 7 1-o v t-rN .- Y 91)►' Iry wS%' arm f��v •fig c»' 8Y ice' - arsaroa rau.rr rno a..o.aau y - i�< /UV/rl 110 7708411 MI XVII/110'0f./07'07].00..": Q •� `' D..Iva t•w ACM u u rror io•/0140011011 a.rmrvre ura _ • OJ ® <11.: - 616 OW + ` `' � �� �� V. V. `�� I ` ' Sef-74191 As.3-.zwryy an. X ?., 2 eiror_OW/Yerk f9N/1/7 e '1•/Jm�d�� 11: -e1 para �T�i � A.. �. t t.. �' A. I� _I. j !-- 771I1 �Ld LtJJY i .pa,.,/,, -14 a�� �r�� ��0�s'. -m (ZD to grE,=> .......... Qf L? �1'N .��I1z 1//• x "ow FS.v f'r,v 6•lN //-Fv ex-' F3.v 1i1n' 6,414" /?Ar 1 ,5 N H OK3M1X/t1MMM o 8 - L.7 ..cAs v - z,02 S/-kN 1YJ6?7r/! 0 N - y s.o,s.w.. ®� O L2 !!1'A/ .0/t 6e /-1N I fit rA r. CO -jig,se 47-02v O) N O u 18400 r0.a..rassaJY ow �, zfsv 1 Tf IN I S.N/d 3�db1B o °: 1/T7 ,.. 7 t L-xr►..rt�.''a/r�b.r0/.4:,077sy odritJa' .d -4t ? //-f ' INN //-tN war:94roAv/dJJZ'Jat d3CJ2' m .Y 0 JR.v l7Aliti:r• -O.t0O®' 1L'9/d'di'irAfOArfr•/►e'S si H • iNtem__ mud •I W0/0W 03 IA3W S O/�i/Y p�i�/4,1# % ►�1 N� l,JJJ'1i!':!/I'idJ'NS'�NI T7/' S7//1J0 JDYN/I'cYQ 9N/�!Olif !� 6-ON I�'�' �" �! a'Ol.t'7/d'1J179r4'/Js'ir.IT1OA/ in .ij,.91z •ars' 'EMI r-I.v ' H /Ha' d' J' A ' •• d' ,fT/6l�tT 9n�/Jv .A :a\. oh\ _A .0. :.� .w� .gam .. ."917 ..1-.9•V 1 - 7t L.w,v N— O OJ7BMY91'Sd • c ' �l%/1-.? S'.210/ /VS-f/ d ®J1°..T9'd'LYf 1r m0 Z � 2 ; ; H •Q Q = (/� ���� �MovltMr�MNo]sa S? #.N , .1/711 f-►N , Xj m C ..b ' ��iW a srmnlaevwdlJOlsA�wiv7�Y S' El'N �9U2 Et PN / 1r, O (� _ _ -r �r:t to 0x/wort ops onote mer3 j _ /�We At•dsc7/ sr/o .7,SJ z3IV /z z-ON c_ -� r m D 1/!M 7rd :" oAutar Naao�f act J m7rr3.s revs svd 9f•bZ' /--FIV .i,4/r � ' 8 t3 e k Na .S' NY, +o SOCIA N,b' 037 * /y ONlmd • -i O m O L7 m Q S�Vo/la7�dlsSDst7 O\ y�y d AV ay .1-/W PAW -r-Ar L-,,V 6-Ave i.-.w sf s.«,w 6�.w /1�®r � �_ p gaEll _ 1a Jg '�..� s sieo/1J3S` /y - - - `. 'V' `'" `" =� yr r tiCADcn 0Ow �J ' 0 1 , % : , , , , ‘ , % 1 ‘ , % , , , , ' , , \ ' , \ , , ' \ , .. ' 1 co M X � � p D = gym sAnvr�x/r�r�n �m � 4�C) A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. _. . A.. z z ZCOm �lJ.>7J.1c47,7J/ C) D O D Z 1S/fir'_MNA7i'i57 9J7 d3•i/a! IIP.P.' 1 . t/.� tar r-w' Qs r #- av►r zf.V satyr 9�wa 6Y A4, a • - O m m m a— /'V I .rY�Ir/r -� m mow � Zm ��� c m C Z0 0 m 7/e'1�7p O,17JF1 vO7 J.716'dg.17.2742,-"At, `.1707-awl AV-71.1 � 7Q iyor '4q7 3.,62•67 �.z3io._o w1'l sng-r v� 715'.7/d..! NO/1J.7Nn�,J.,.�va�g.x.27/f..W7'!x�` 7 ToJau,1 -� m D X 0 OraLe0e - = D D CS. Q- ' t VLt0i9 6P- 7N N/dd77 H1/M4W0.1..(0.17&_7770,,N/b'1K OJ7gitjrcr 8,wv"awaAe.!hW J®h3s-se O CQ 71 .779OVJSS '. S! 'M7N1S7!/Y9_77dJMQ! i . -W.PAX4f7d11'/!/P9_77 d'2MQ1 . .f 7dlt/70V 0_77 VJMQ1 -- 5. z CDmo \ 4 .9 ''�� .� '� r. � mC Nm � lio1111)1. 1•11lio J6� �' ��''Zi "iry _ U) - Xi omD a '''Ys�r • z m 5 m . � F yr N 1111* t 1LI9f dK2! re dC71A3Obbiiiiii..... 416. TN/ld� qr § JSY7`Sd/7J • N31N/1N trillir-,e,rie ..pSzu dif LiNii41, T -4,:. dam,. ......,. ..t ' 4' ...... ta ..,..z, . ,k fi 01 "', .0.- 1.j'3J'Arii'3.tzYJS/!Sd/.i70A5r1i' -- -- -- _ ,1y7ll'AJaVeZ1 t211f' '1W JXrif'3t/!'SberVOW.F1/' •oeat iY/OJ7,02M• • •at •.2N0l.Se&4'a(417 dJt7/.IGEN. 'SJJIW"7/dtif'. . --- -- - ----- --- ---- - ---____ -- ------- --------- - -- ---------- -- -------- -- --- ------- - --- I ' % . i �J I ,.1!1111. — 1 I ' Q w z Z N < z z o m 0- J > N D uj } W a_ W ,r, I— 1— Y I I J7 ,D BOLTS MUST BE TURNED/N UNTIL FRONT v u' c~n z x I EDGEOFBOLT TOUCHES S/DEOff'TOYERLEG.STEP ,� j in p pci 0WQ Wim ~ �OlY�'R LEG BOLTS ARE sRIPPLIED-'OR CCNS7RUCTION PURPOSES Ni) ARE NDZ ° 0 X ujm INIEM ED FOR USE BY LA q AL.IFIm PERSOMEL A DE1/IATION FROM PERFECT W z I- 0 W ALIGNMENT IS ACCEPTABLE. IF YOU OR YOUR CUSTOMER THIN('STEP BOLTS > D U 2 F- �� WILL PRESENT SAFETY PROBLEMS TO ANY PERSOMEL, DO NOT INSTALL THE W W 1L Q Z 0 STEP BOLTS. FOR PROPER SAFETY UNR-ROHM REC0MIDDS A LADDER AND Q LL u' Q n- S CLII12Lt G DEVICE. W Cl) Z Z Z • mY _ Qog � Co O Q cnQ cn I = }o O W O0 zzzz zwO OWO1- • ZZ 0 RI ADDED NOTE _ I;2435 - _ Q w p NO. DESCRIPTION DATE iii4111: W o F=-- 5 U rt a_ I REVISIONS ,_ p o D_' Q ROHM � � ¢ � �I _� MANUFACTURING ( TT:..I1T1 ',2P!1IIi_ emsor of <wrt 71 V a: TITLE y cb 5TEPBOLT7NST.9LLAT/ONDETA/L 0 CVCO I N CO V THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHM.IT IS NOT TO SE FILE NO. Q (D N- I I REPRODUCED. COPIED. OR TRACED IN WHOLE OR IN PART u } ti WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT. N 0 3 5,114 aj I M�ILi �• N/1Tt�ll� MINN .IT, m Z Ia l 17) U.3 oo,e.72)/r I"4/6-74 "CM L OTMIIIWIK SNIP Ilt0.WMI ONS NNE COWS IN T `•L Qx DWG.NO. CCF- CL U_.. T-s �.,>�X7'74 ,OIJ4.Rm . - all-17"AAnom rue. ...,. B-65/264 ...A .„ .... M„<_17-7,_ F I OAPs O-250 2-72 451D1 s 2 PRINTED W U.S A. ASSEMBLY DOLT INSTALLATION; . _. ALL TOWER ASSEMBLY.BOLTS ARE TO BE INSERTED OUT AND/OR UP (I.E. WITH NUTS AND PAL NUTS ON OUTSIDE OF TOWER FACE AND/OR ON TOP OF FLANGE PLATES) UNLESS PROHIBITED BY LACK OF CLEARANCE ' ALL ASSEMBLY AND ANCHOR BOLTS ARE TO BE TIGHTENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/EIA-222-E SECTION 1.1.3.2 - (WHERE HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS ARE USED FOR BEARING-TYPE CONNECTIONS,AS A MINIMUM,THE BOLTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED TO A " SNUG TIGHT" CONDITION AS DEFINED IN THE NOVEMBER 13,1985, AISC, "SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING ASTM A325 OR A49O BOLTS".) .FLAT WASHERS ARE TO BE INSTALLED WITH BOLTS OVER SLOTTED HOLES. - CAUTION: DO NOT OVER-TORQUE! GALVANIZING ON BOLTS,NUTS, AND S'i i±L PARTS MAY ACT AS A LUBRICANT,THUS OVER-TIGHTENING MAY OCCUR AND MAY CAUSE BOLTS TO CRACK AND SNAP OFF. PAL NUT INSTALLATION PAL NUTS ARE TO BE , INSTALLED AFTER NUTS ARE TIGHT AND WITHEDGE LIP OUT. (SEE ,PICTURE) PAL NUTS NOT REQUIRED WHEN1 .4iff‘ SELF-LOCKING NUTS 1111::11111dtall ARE PROVIDED. f ,fz UPGRIME .AOR .E, 1. /7, REVE • . -4-9 _RI... UPGRADE FOR . EIA REV. 0 . ._.____ .. I2-29-8TiFHT4HD4 No. • Revision Description A Date •By • Unarco-Rohn Division of Unarco Industries, Inc. TOM ,4®L T. AssEzy//vsrtMr/ow Scale _ A'� Unless otherwise specified, dimensions are given in inches. ,V ,v/E.. Tolerances Drawn by Date Decimals Fractions Angles • P:/V 7579 . t .�. ± • • Checked by •Dale - Material Finish Weight • Approved by EngineeringDate This drawing is the property of Unarco-Rohn.It is not to be • 71-�--Engineering , q reproduced, copied or traced In whole or in part without our • i written consent. Approved by Production Date File Number • - - • Approved by Sales .Date -- Drawing Number A:. 79O/ 5J. . ... ' G • :" � ;Y l: R"w .. ., •r• ,. ,, -e Yrs.t .�T• .� , .�,� ;R..y.+t aL�y'f.�.-'r 'q.. ,�,4�t!!r.'. r _•:��ti:•'� -_ _- THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE \..:..'Nz. . WITH THE"NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION ‘1----- AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 psRyan-Blggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12160 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266-446 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX(518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 , 11 •N [di[iJ.b. 1 nooLc+a.women i 0• / (-1- pi cAG� �0o.so(TrP►cQC� `: i _ 4. .....,-\-- - -y j 7 9,4 � _ • / (TypicA15 IF SZJE VIEW O PLAN VIEW Z O 0 H Z Q ZZo m 0- .1 > N W EL W ETY �CrYPI aL2 On u' u,~ F= � o � U W z X H • TOP VIEW � cc D § cno LL O . DEQ w � 0 - 1D_ • X = X w0 � CL •. NOTE: al C° pix 1 1 . !:Yi. VIC': 1i1 ►�: 1 1.. 11111011f'��1j'�ii:iL+�. :i1 • I) BREAK MI SHARP CORNERS AND EDGES_ 5 W Q 0 O 1 Iti Ikr.>�1s'i�d1'i'�iiaE•��: -ic�R/' _Ik Z) AL� r4oLEss0 1'/r D) % - Q u Z o_ Z F- 'L o0 I :. I IT •'. X I x . : • 1' r V 't. W U) Z Z � Z � co A . - TOl05 2.0 0 x _1875 63.72 ' - .5 32.20 cc Y Eil J F-• J ago - 1 1•. X '�. [:fl-•�:i: :f: 1.: iI : 2 O (� W C7 O 1 1 X _ 1.: U z W Z z 1 ZWZ 0070I- !•a— 1 1. - X_ _ X - : �' a1_N 1.: • _ 1 - Lu _ _� F O cc I I - D X . X . : :<-: : 1.. •k_ • 0 m W adahs cfl•�_ o_ FF-- � Q a. OW CL LSOME3RIC VIEW 1 - X . • 1 :�: 4_: y-lC c? a I T 114 ' I. /• 1.75 x .1875 ii0'h :�`: • - :_ ' y Im 1 . X X . : . AV - �• • `° � T011$ 2.5 x 2.5 x .1$75 ... .If J. :-, o c-- co� y r Co co N y N 1 ;"� Z'��•'j'�iE:�b�EtL�•:�Rr1•� .' . iwa�n++oor+na unarm a.ne3a+�seor+co,caooa+a��eooa...c Atlantic Otian#Cot arc[on Q o co N r peva ANI3 P4PO '- DrOa1o.e A4 rH res 1 oo mar w••omo woes m r, �7 ♦ I� • CNI r�rQTJir to A7lA.a= TO![lA.m Are ..� ... •, A Wa�r0 8I G7 SMEARS COJ.V ANY Qom' 3 N • o NI ILEO A D 70.441. �. . r ►A WM i07.S�fCI i Mini m m ' 1s a Z in I w�a�ie+oo o• - -'•. AVVIAAlaAI &E towet BRACES plcx1L' c -L�- AIWdOCo•plRm� A •. , >, o . Q GALVAM IXf. e 1 f total-1nj ii ' w e•ate•- .. •� .r:• • • . 1 1 12 _ . lo �m on-A a . D•aia,r� JI i 130 te I� D 4.-73 !ss ,�' ' .S �25 NOTES_ _ �.�.,o 134 • .-'� rn B 1I ALL OIMESIONS FOR SECTION ARE • - IP6; .\_ MEASURED FROM BOTTOM FLANGE PLATE. � �p� 4asaamu •�s DATUM A- v . ) el% �� (TYp,r�L IJ N.4) Tn ,� Z) PART NUMBERS MUST BE STAMPED ONTO o,_ur►�z 1m+ mt_tanwalz• SIDE OF BOTTOM RANGE PLATE_ TYP►r .FLANGE SHALL BE CENTERED ABOUT PIPE I AFF-S� FLANGE PLATE Ty P I CAL FLANGE PLATE AXIS. 5zect°QS FI>26=�'_H4(9Nzo►)4 BS-(IDN322) 4)5EE D4,610242, S►+EET 2..+2, For?.. leCAT)ON •Da I .471 IMO A _ er.STS CLJp5 0,4 srep LEG-75. - MEI Z O 4 I.,1 . 1 )_C-_sem. ,.6 cTyrvc„go s X-s-ie jai 54 (61N20i) $ B.S. (1oN322) - z z N z 1 IN cT3 0- ¢ > N LO X6 >- l J J rear !>la7e, 0_ a 5 `� 7 8 I (11;--(1;161els. (T7P.) ID (Typ IcL) ° g ¢ ¢ ° A.�1 DcrQ WIY ~ • P. WOW ZZ W Q • I WEU � w �i � .4. LL QZO 240.so" (TypicAL� , X41.29,!e 11,- Ca w W w a CL 41 i " wCnZ LLJ Z � Zr` COIXiu JF- � CE) . QOp to < cnrs- W 3M3SES = SOU ZZZZ •„ mss I ADT? Z W O O W O 11I- WIXOM Z Z w Ess/ to p 1- m W fx CL �- ' • IIP% AO .0a 1-- S. Q d OW CO • FLANGE PLATE DETAIL 60.0eISOMETRIC DETAIL ECTI SON A� iP FOR CLARIFICATION a • BRACE CUP WELD DETAIL H DETAIL. - DESCRIP liON i OTT- IRA 1E_R1AL I CD R A �Z)TT+D FLA�h i?t PLATE i 'I A36 1 ilk' FLAT PLATE Fa U .- 1_ O 04 FCOCO Er TOP FLANGE PLATE 1 A36 1 1/4' FEAT PLA ft: i co ' C S It GAP 16 A 36 114”-FLATPLA FE 1e voLa.weaoo~D. Ul/Mil 0r149M41114 i i otOGt3fE/1/f1:004•••4.. Atiznt5c Orient Corporation } N n^m'!o�m 4/043.44 n��a cmwer4,.s.s w..ca DO PEN..uw.ur oro.a A WINO ENERGY 3TStC)ult COWAN( oI 3 co Dt3 ■ � A38-17-4" a r � rearelrs+c0:34fnowaA,t o rA pm MS/.be.�rn®6a m Z v BRACE CUP— VARIES A38 I I V^ FL�T PLA-1E-LATE Tio.,,OMMT 1.0.AHJ*but A� a.� M. row. Tao �� If'C C. &R um,'N.►MQ! Al.. . r .� t— T -- -F - --- mme� - . - >a.oM 1OwerEEG. (T7P1cAL� 2 - - A1U+1r.cDeer•CDor, '• • .--••• Arm AI= 2 ... ...a^ rile LE 1-0_ u_ t .rt @ GALVAYO woman 7,1-1— 10247 tf PR ..o.e..a or... IMO OI•UM ,CW[ 1:.1 TT,0t1 1 , . r i • , T • , i 7 i , Isj} - UC-P'j P;P) \j r' 1 - . wcaa D • .r, • a,II - 0 z 0 N 0) ' A CO - (71 A 8 — 1 1 Z L� - w 0 w Z 1 ; 1 J > N IXUS � I I r ` aW ❑ w }}�Y.. ' t oWl- ZXI- ismzISPLC B X D § Fr),E ' 7-10 y scnmAr:As s„oswq— 0 0 D 1-•O I • • ❑ EtQ WEtI- • w O Z X w Q LI- O X +- 5 J 0 2 1- -I MHw ¢ Z° QLL- LLQa. in IN2A: wZ � Z ZOZ1` ams I} co J �- go. � w o' r;I.ca� 2} ALL DIMESIOPLS FOR SECTION ONEQ O 0 O �' IY — C ��� ops F �� MEASURED FROM Borrow FLANGEPLATE U o z Z 0 (71 j 17111 ._ - - 3} CLIMBI- DATUM NG CIL1P ALTERNATIONS MUST BEGIN _ Z zZO C7 OJ w_ FROM POSMON SHOWN RELATIVE TO OTHER § ' oQ w _t HN i 1 LO Se E "I0242- gHEFF I cg2 Fa2 k=L4KC ❑ I— m W aI-► PUITE A•NO E 44-E CLI _pE7P�ILS._ CO iE ❑ a f Q 0-1 [ I - — -- -- - ' cn �• -► i , CJ 1 SECTION S-8 -a- BRACE/5TFP CLIP WELD DETAIL _ H ` u N...i" ON (O (O N CO v- vr MD=�ar •ad>'� oasis'dBasi'mono GD ? - r ��� r �tC� '�s�ua Q O c0 N ma/•.O WOW&- Da+SBO•a ARC N MOWS DO wQ MW117 MDV11 N } 01 h- ti N I TION 1114rnAMwRf 7t»>wC>3, f-- A YVWD SGT SYSTEMS COMPANY _C�i 3 __NO ADAM= N own COR?NCO>�i; ad ►Dacm W97 YO4M-.lVT Mali a7 op 03 ISOMETRIC DETAIL ma DI sDNens= -•• �• ,..,-Q , 07 Z - FOR CLAR1HCA11ON 'r". m"'"O0`yt W A. • ' �E so++ �P. 1D"I� `— m "x j•-I NCIH Q$- I G.CIPS p AnA.+•C OR+�Drt CAA ••-•ASIDAt A123 as lbw a ` L Q t •re GAIL/0At =VAX�1 D 1Q1Q IWDI ►R CCI- n. it_ t M S War a+a trnale ]CMI 1 15 • t 1' 4 , ‘,/0/ • - _, iavtdvo.3 /0.4-,--1,- -i-C , . • ":‘'.;! '',--; -; , - - :: • '' ..''''''. ` ' ' ".," ' '''' , . ,• , . , • at..1ess;Ithan.,T55:feet,--;at,,,;05 -,Coverevin.-,v1c.cessei.di2,Q?4111 - f,t,54WfaiiiiCant.0.0i.0,,,i'l a Anglers 1,,-.goo,,-.),.,;,01 .0.0xt-; te•otot-41.fao?-are.:46-. 104.9,-• --,itafla,10.0.1,0**g.tk#49,%44.4, 7C• el-f36j7..1.4,- .,,,-,,,,' 1, 4 --,,,,•;fit_.-;',.7,;-.. .-Ione_stead,:_:VV,a ;'-,:greviipogt;:-,-..t .gig h.. e'l ,io.ntet:fivaggaiig AW--,,,-.,,,,,-id-VORGE,A: ,_Pard0K0904,0 ,,V,1,:- •;,-,„-,,A-7/5.-J., -,40.4-ro.'kes.:Prgt6b,02:0:494 K:A:P-A,§-gA-K;I:s. #4 4421,0,1. ,•7.,11ii.oki2S:MT,13:-:'4E-Stt'gdotTN, -all-1414.gclp,-,--_- i1, 04.09-‘-- zit; if. • .4s...ppliapp rqp0itSiSaripil..* ,AN,13-:,i4F. ,..DUBOIS---#,5A4.F.- -Isisapbt-oxali4,45i,W9mni-i-a5,pkit• under 5eCtiOn.-,'410P__,=.44,i)340,i1.:$1,11, , 4'Pillicants.-Iretinest,...-„Xarja.pcsAl-,, inciNcli'l,c1,WAIL1011,10o.44.10§, thes„)3:ligaliAg;..„-,p9pit-ino..i:t 404606,40i iiitoro04,--o4,bn .44-91i-g.go*-priA:d4x740"- :_#.1, 'Sellt.4-be,i;,..T5:;;,g,00V-1`.1SAqq--;',9:: : 11i.9.4'134i1(till`gl_iit'150Wt13194NY, :.,4.20,-A•f*,140. Marion P1§.-aPliFiYal 0 90-119.9inilaa..,,,i.114 '' October-2, ' ?.-00 ' N213.AreicCif e garPeft-20:4,Z4:_l_ _.:-).•A l= _f-Jii loscatioh=ot*prippo.se:4-4Wejling, pirnopr:qyalfficOc.et*Ingtlii ,,:-,p.,-2,0,4,i gMyfOuivi48-,.:,coN,, it:Jessi than 4Q.feet fr„Orn;'Oie ,clenfolition‘..LI.,91,7.3*. exating .:IllaC-Tclip0,- ,:t4.,. -.4/.',Fi#,siy0Ki f(61418f--',Iiiq„:*ta.„Ks'. than 41.17,014,„',$0,,„„ds,E.091. 4,t,'"i;pny, - „LIR Vv:0,46.9*Itik,s'ri,N;9,:ys.,0Ps. fdet friiiiithotear.,Ibtlin0,*.g4 -Aw,41iii.g,1*;'.F.k0,444'.-,--,3 ,-,rFA - 'N,g9R36,13,0,T ,,4*-i(PAtistx'IPE., (00., - ?iiVP,;..,l'E'iSt:7;144 -.9,11;• from the.i-4934:,16(fine-thidile§,§-'- 'IP,1111.4.s,-!(11,,g.'3PNi'10941.40,11 P areel J00042-243.',2.,::1,-_-''.„;:,,,;;;-,-'' '',than;,;,351_:i.cee,;fie.in:;the `fear,4% -‘,..'94cFirilrjg‘ i§..4,piikeatitcilifkia pix;\0 '.1000;;ANI-;„,,,TERRY7-.CATOZ- line at . 5,„..)3ary;[-AVentip,, ±,J.:44.,,::*aeV.,, r.tel-g.p§ti_94,,,,A.09i 2-n_t--;A:r0-40.,..,..--1';fiT,004.g .PO,A1190'ihg*:4-'10)"4Mi ,..,..*- 0 ,,,i,.,b.3ti based 'ill4..i'ii0.13,i 1/4146 g, requeit ,a-''.;yailance.:1„,tindef''„ ii5;,,,,c,',-:-,..,,;„i-.- -i—,.:?2.J, pj,.',-i -v'r-; - .4)1941714.1B'ttePtitili4t141'" Septitfiii,;*-7214;`,.=.1.4s-f8,',fe'llit-- lilt) AM. .,44111.-,.,,,..1.ANI3-, -,'itilA iiii,;pfAiateppt.sky,,-V,A§ B-iiddiAgefPASe126:11 017 S....Ai** °Nik_IqCY''..;12'.0DIE:CiSS04.50.:3'; ,,,-inipi-herge'lancla4osAtefErd/A",-go: -4:,-',2003'Ndtice,,2of-9tia:proval„,.. '4'-iilielif;s;10446-#:_V:VI-lance ,,,a.,n4.-i!„..,2,0.5::,.,,,,..v,A.,•x§itcgi .-..4a,c1:, ,kii,4";d*rlijiigfitlie',-_a7)5,thit!lo'atiOn',, -Ittficw,',,$'60,1jz!..iy.q.- .12xcxa - ,,iqsitgol-iy.,0,t04,40101.p -OtariVVielcisiiIii6felVatleSsjhan.,- '-'4:0,0`4441;-jliag'olgiikkAlle,#iiigiiii,-...-vujilia, _ ,x,., fligkifa.41);(4,4tihiu.' ' 3 Te.-61.from the front lOi'lli1V at ' ''DePaildien'f''S-Aliguit',20.'2003 ,, on Cl 61=d2.:45,;'"',..,,,Cmita4ungi4 1090-' --Soiind -,,. kvenue, ---ii-btftec6f0Sapppy:A1.;..f9rpT9F‘,-,s1,9,1900giqa4pt.91-1.9.Tic-,,AT ft.,•,u' - 0 Matqtn,c1c--„Pa,,T,c1,-.):99,c01.4.?„..,1--, .-iPeda"lieati.8iisr,:41'ileV-a40:: 1110gqc1"P40-144.-iti4"§;?,S1i°9 11'.!_fi,;`4.' ..:;,,Ci:-`,-,...f.':---L--;-:,--,:r.2_,', .:_'.' ' '-*Alt-id,ssUgliWkft_44.31;4.'-0-2:: 'Vow,wix'ao-,a't-4 p614."-Af . ro:i9,0-0AlyttiEllzABETE:16'7,itelz-slildgag. .i-f-32 -0:1;idk 4,-1,8,.;.900;4.,1. `e,*'w,91,4,1,-=, 81k0Peti#54'4f-g);,,!„;'413tivaile,.-.xckfgaltitirck;',.,a&i.qq00.i. -"-:.14-!'.7.-','13-•••?..----,52'-';-•..T.,--7, •-'.°2't-':-.•'-, ' :Mb 2W. ,r ,1*!1,10,1"ilerti ? rn , fe-cjos-fg,:l'?Iyaii4ntes-•) -,:iiiiifiKi--_-,':17626=f 11. :11'J'''''ff-' "., 1 ,';_ , ', ,..,-kne.,, Board-,9f,-fp,vaisi.will Seotidif,'10:61,JI6i713'ased---613.'ktt '..•:_iIi:26-AM.!PARI3Y--,Mddlif.--, teeSifYgfib431brAlitOff',"`4, ', • ., l'iiii.tEg',15?PraiKent'17'.A.ligiigt -W542c-f:VAPPlib'alie,!reWgi-Sta:-.'VentatN?,Virtilla)--;:**0:' . . —.7-...,-,-...-.-. -,-,--, 3:•3'i•f'"'"',L- 04',.r I - '-'25I-1'003'•Ioti-de''-'6fDig'kifireVa'). --Vailiate'!:-iiiiiier„SeCtrO,n-'-`.00.-;-.. ,af each liegIng„-_-hndhor,desiV4 ..„. _66‘koetiiiiififfer4-4bliiii-totin' it'itYk-.114ge•-d"i5ii'itifit'?8iiiiighi- . Vi..ill8iiiitA.%litkir srikaiiidillA •,, - -, --- , . ,..--,---,---- ,_:._ ...,.....,_-., .„.. ,,,2..:4-1 ,ii.'110 ' ' '''''''XI.FT.41.':'81''91'.1 " • 'of a'''Shedrp9,s9cacces 9Ti.,41,,,..049/?%tqw,115st gpmasr.iggi,,Z4;4,p,qa,IFT04491i4 on,or,e 14,01-'%Oiise•,Sthiltt_iirt,'"lag&16.1- ''''2,003.,,-665,F,t,..,:..or DiS'apprOg,--TWaragit!,•Eaelk'flie40.44., ,J.fitat, li!Sgalt!&PPalf,le-g's"Iiiails. 0-fe6i -:,,C6ifeemifiegi9R6A6eaddifi6-,4,: ,•idff:Eatlieit4fifiail .'x'clpslinaee'd from AltePriatqcli Liiiiel'-41',.,6', and''alterations-',at:-leSs:Ahli.NO-:- litiga:41IiVWs.114a13-Wifif , -BrOokS.-46irit-',46ad---thriyate..---1-feet'fie,bitliefrontiotiineaf-5' 0T-',---,rev,i-e .daring7rega1aetfa.alOss:-.:- road),,Oishers' .11and-, ,,-pAr,9:c1h1,404:k.gisact,14071 .31gfp,115.-mc,kriaiittom-ii,;: v: 7:...;-o.:ha#i questions.- roo-oistlsyg-t,,:,„, - ,. .",,,._., .-.._' f.o60417i2-1..-,-.. ,: .-',-,.-, ';'.4:.:,'--, .-.1-pleals9).,do not hesitate to call ----10:20---AM--EltERETP405- q!i:r(169:iNe,-g6A?Yof-AE14),P.:(6., \,1055,11,80§7".:7i--, MELISSA.,,-CORWIN-#5445. -, AND ;,DoROTITY, UI RICH: .'..`,11:)Utet.'NO,VeniVera,-.20,03?,4,:-,0' .. ..._ 4RplicanisT.:,tianeSt Variances-Tilt #5?.160--.•-•,,;,;Applie.iirs f-..4...e?.:ii.*stisa.: V"ii,-4,.'011--to:f9iNiA,GttmR4/1. Under-,SeCtiOnTO0-244i:pasek,i Variance0 ,J,uncl ,§ 4inii,;,,i00;:,ii, -L.,,,y6.i2, ; ,.,2, ifiti,,,a2,;.:,,WPAWE,-/- • Ornq'the-ilAiiildiiieDepariniee.'S„ ,2,-42;,--s WI': io'i..n.i.ithr14Le.4 Building BO IF-NtAlqPA,.t-i,5,-f Sptehbr 5Aaop3 NOiie 6fDeiiil6i1,U6tibei736:tboYr13 Liid , walil „ 3ba isaPPicYl kCncet4g4tlt : 98tleppfaiSapprOV7concern- teTk"., . - - .proposed ..location 2 of,k ailinewd ;ing al profloseilldeiMerpadditien,•filz--;:,,,biiiv-- 1\ 12/4,03 •, psitchiaclihtion'4e=less';'than 35 „at-less than.F50.feet frolithetrear b?- --- -- -- ' ' - --i- .' ----•' ' . ;: vireet'filit-itlielfoliffiotAine;AcaS '„ Ibtline,:.a.142345,Iill:ieek,:, :•-tham-Agr.cdt;v.-6ifga. single id :Vii .-§Ziiiilijo1dr,4laia4 44J0 . . y4ictales,..$:!,i11.4--,2 .1feet total sick. .--71-.;2,6_,.1,39 -. .,1-1-1:-::?,-1.--i ,'J w.-....iJ,..,_tii,-. f'•, , • , ,. ._,yards,„„aigle.,c,oxerage eteeecl-,,.! :i?,OR05,P14,115ONALII,o-Rin-.•=.r--) : mg-'20°A.:*if itie;"'Aifil lot giie,-at -145,441'."-Aftikcant.,..tegnotsc14 '••706';l31-11Wii"-Street,. dreenppr.t;,, ),,arianCe;ciil.n.de(.Seetwn:,A136-;-,., Paree1110004822. --,..',.;,, , SIAS bAsiroi-i;iii-eAgiaiiii- r-4 023 0•-/p,04,-:-J011:1•1 B. HENItsr-l' 'bei-M.LAelit!g'„nificat'V, "-",'4.',:-2003"):' 436, 4,-0.1.j.. 431t.1,,,requests-Jr..-a i'frIlatibi!VPDIS`atifreVaIl'fancerB127 VSfialice, -iin.g4 ,Sectioni-,,49944-:, iii`g*proffoge51,5heyselihira eirAl. 7'14-4,-,-,151g8d,,fa•the BniTcling,,,7:4-67.,acke;fet,-instead.,ot the- .:ziospecte-e•S`,2,August 1.4:;,--'10037",,cocle,;fequirPcr 1,0 acres, 'after ,i;ainerfcledA.-1;igm,,.1>Ictice "''''''''• -bf--'' ,'diii5fyii*ii'vfe.t5)j•acres ef-tillz- • Disaci4Vali,c:9erning,f,'42,'pro,==.1'2''f;fable..laild'for Iffe-'existing,farin .. OsedcltiitiOA4fless' than-35`,L.,:s stand use. at t 22745;C.R. 4$, feet'Tibiii'the-rear lot linVi4eass,..T.,;.Cntaliogti Je;:_.,Par cel 1000-84-1- than-t25-'feet•roit a single':,side'''. '25;2., ,..,,., ,, .„,' 1 r. , • yaril;l'and'exceesling the 20 20 "' ',I,'.20'1E"V1-,4A*-tbAllBRO- • • . , Pgyefagc-1ipi4ation.Location dfi>1-1KERAG:E.i' q-N-e':':-.1, , #,-447.,,,, Property: 23.60 Yillage....-..-Lane; ;Applic-arintegutSts;t'a Variance LEPAL Mi-00-'''' '.0hent';Tk-det1040-26-•-lii15:•kt ',r,-,Rincler Sectiortla0,7t2;2 baTed4if-,'-:-.1-' . s015,ffidtb,,I,08*No. _•,.•,;,- .10:40'AM-14:01.1N=SrIAIDEL-,,,.. _the'„Building c.,..pepartip,:ent,•.'4,71: .., BOARD or.AttEusy;,,,:p ,MANgi,,AND;„-.-..-JEANVETTE",',:-Oetolief-'-1.5.c.. 2031=I Afrielidt.`iPin n1Uitsrt-4-tozetlyistR,,,..,:_For,..-ElvIA: T\.1,-:#5,4X7. 11115 is L'N'otioe'6i.Di-ObitOVAI ocaajigr. -18',2003,R1J1314W- ' . ...re:qh.0 :.-fOr',11\70,,iver., wider -..ing'a prolioseclaniiiine:griewA 'fieas,:-, '-' '--;-:.3 Section -1.:00-*f:to. inimoge,.4.0-,,,,:rotp:Varehoiii.71odatedOvic:i:: _ ,-;:iard .ittafew cof if 10;402, c11,ig:P ;,;,,Ithan.,-,,,35:feet-It:A*11'QIII 10040S: NO,TIC E. IS HEREBY GIV-E, l'itiiiifsilatftlft;:'g'efCtiortor:-.-ite*:1-20.1)2,,t,,St4rs Road5 East ', at:61205.kauk-Riia-CISO4thpid 2671-f,ofi-the: ff.oviivt,-*Amitand,,i-;-..M.,4Fi ...,,;:-.(S013:;c1qrest 'Wthidi',4"'Ll'iParbetili:361Y-5i6.-j4,14 Chapter-100,-(Zo.ning),-;,C-o:cie,of-1,.`',Seetioi_1.=-4-30,x,,.:CTM.1000422- i'd.t1,-: 11:30 41IW,OSttittira-DOMIK-7-1 hfe tOivii OrSOIAthoW-iigTol,'•:1-4apY,:t.:B4ipft',613.. the Building 101.1 AND`tipkitiKERspANi! lowing imblic;licaiiigf i'lliilf lid-.7.-,11•131-ogrtb -i*ifil July 17,;•.'2Qq3 it.J rl#543Vii*1-34-losE:-L441-fohi- hkat by „lhoh..,:iso-up:ootp.,2A'Nptige'..1.010,$approl,;,1-ii''..I,Ii_.,), .,..of Property 4-4015, 1aikied-A. frowN4Bo'j.iiipice.Apj*4ys;;I,:Are0.,:ineg.4:0004A.,Seett4i1.190=':'''1-,13e&iiiiiPPAreer.000.7541.'7'2,0,,,;1;,,-: at..,theTown 41611, 53995 Main f..2$,Xii,ritff...an,'ipptoved 4read:Of-)0.1,-Aie-,,Ity(I,'::-.)vAligiZsailt.0-,-.1,1-T6.', RoA4-;-rx14ixe.111q;soiiiiizifis;:---' 21$13,s4aVeleet'referrectto..as.:d ilieciutsthylWocVar4a:iicel'iliirVer, Keiti,b-viiii, fri-011,400',T,cpiiriT 4980)`Stai§ Rod; Soup.stereit.-i1 s_cofi901-.10-1-3.-Ac,ciacOnlifitt, 2003 ,,,`,AVO,MS1.-.4,1",44SiTlvI 10CPt-:3'2'74M1:!0P9'se„c,theIght;6f.,-.1ew..45,2.5 at the times noted below (or as 19. ---, ,',...e.*:-; - ,-._;,--,(•, , • • - ' ,- " 1.iitility,:iriria:*bindialit-'' "a so on,ther:eaftert,;as4)-' ossifile);i,..;_,, ,-1.,.. •1P:-S Q.1: 44-" ')DEME-TRACstiiiicti10:!eiebektfili'rthet•felV"&!..k :11/4".fARtfisf-IAND':)..--•"-F1`-.A714-6P--(iV`1,9 ' "It.: '4 9. --height th*tatiiiiikTf8 fe4-piii4 CLORMDIV11ARTMANK . , ,,A,.,Applicant,,requests Vamaticps ,-,,1_,I-SpgcialE2(ceptiiiii-for aliailihe *5426.. Applicants reeinVaf,ii,;,-.:101e.riiAe--t,,,ticlOs,;7490-2414 31:14,,,-AtWty,,wpisttfttet:*;39n'thig`44-*: Y,0.0i0.01S?cundti...,40cti6it-i:,100,; -t-:;,1,99,53tV4,;'i!ta,Aea:::-„og.,t1.1-, P ,131,1,1.1411*-" acre site ,,r,;:,.-..,,,_.„•;,,„:-t.9.*:„,,, 244,''"baSeel: oii:tty:e,....f0iiicliiigo 4..“..e..Pg._inFiriac,t'i7,-,,Fi*ivier-,,,,-29,',,''''.'"''f•Ati PM ''',UNL'-'&NIALON -Departinenes, J.J.iiie;;;.4,;.;:,2003::'-.20,03q:NliAlee.''ccpy Disapproval i(/-3#55$55(Ciiiititiiied-fiear.ht:6*,1 N'Ofie'&1.4f1)NaPpf6Yalf,t6Aceifi--; -Jpohtthiiiiridion:1660.0.4i-?.41-4 -,r,te`riting:tWarianeesv,;at 132:45.11 iiig=.0 i',','151'60'st-di.addition to',c1:grOpb§"ddl:.acrditjcili 44,:iial*,-,-,4--.Mai41.43.04kr4t911Rkile-r.-40:0: dWelling,witha-5000 ade,ya*,,i0.0:11.§.-aat,.Avt,than, 35;feetlOr .., )1)00727-5 45): it les' than 10 leeit',*(trear yard.,. total ,1.0:--yatds, .and With9-lot -: "',21:(xf'ci3M-,.ppd.* 4:406 r ,- r •. NOT iE OF HEARING A public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Appeals Board at Town Hall , 53095 Main Road , Southold , concerning this property APPLICANT: OSPREY DOMINION 5432 I 5450 TAX MAP # : 75- 1 -20. 7 & 20 .2 APPEAL: HEIGHT & PUBLIC UTILITY PROJECT: WIND TURBINE TOWER DATE / TIME : THURS. DEC. 18 - 1 :30 PM If you are interested in this project, you may review the Town file(s) prior to- the hearing during normal business days between the hours of 8am and 3pm . ZflF ! I ' ( BARD •Tn'^'ro nF SnUTHnLD • 631 -765- 1809 ij(W � 1l— n C9- KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 TONI L.FINGER PARIS ASSOCIATE ` 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-9239 V D TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 tfinger@kramerlevin.com ECE April 5,2004 APR ® 6 2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS !� BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mark Wolfgang New York State Department of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge,New York 11788 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Wolfgang: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Town of Southold Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic (the "Project") and Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. LIPA, through its agent Keyspan Electrical Services, LLC ("Keyspan"), has leased a portion of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard for this purpose. LIPA is acting as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). LIPA's environmental consultant,AKRF, Inc. prepared an environmental assessment(`BA"), analyzing the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine in October 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised the EA in March 2004. At the request of the Planning Board,we are forwarding a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your records. On March 15, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non- significance,which was provided to the involved agencies on March 15, 2004, is also enclosed for your records. KL3 2331448 I Affiliate.Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan *Rome London *Brussels • KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Mr. Mark Wolfgang April 5, 2004 Page 2 Please do not hesitate to contact me or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (212) 715-8087, if you have any questions or require further documentation. Very truly yours, it t�• Toni L. Fhng6r Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon (by FedEx w/o encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/o encl.) ✓� KL3 2331448 1 ` , PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Please include with Z.B.A. Application) Applicant(s): / RA�2/eta .S', /1"e/1/•reW CGec -Y,!'e 4-N "8-an!% - ' - �.��,�✓� fie- - r I. If building is existing and alterations/additions/renovations are proposed A. Please give the dimensions and overall square footage of extensions beyond existing building: Dimensions/size: Square footage: B. Please give the dimensions and square footage of new proposed foundation areas which do not extend beyond the existing building: Dimensions/size: Square footage: II. If land is vacant: Please give dimensions and overall square footage of new construction: Dimension/size: (2.-1 ;Z `z 6 Ael'7/4) 0017G1-LL ZI Square footage: Height: /00 r foQJ i. — 64.44 - Z-3- 111. --V III. Purpose and use of new construction requested in this application: _ i knrb 7-0:R-8 .(v�Rc1°-1 sr()¢J.2 e Pa-mow S 77e,q 7ro n) IV. Additional information about the surrounding contours or nearby buildings that relate to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): eleoP 0S CA - PC-r 6-i-I r C7 & erc-'.4/i Gi)/.✓.. c Ve—r--J' V. Please submit seven(7)photos/sets after staking corners of the proposed new construction. 7/02 SEP - 5 2003 Please note:Further changes, after submitting the above information, must be placed in writing and may require a new Notice of Disapproval to show changes to the initial plans. If additional time is needed, please contact our office, or please check with Building Department(765-1802) or Appeals Department (765-1809) if you are not sure, Thank you. 4 • w QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? ❑Yes XNo B. Are there an proposals to change or alter land contours? ❑Yes No C. 1)Are there any areas that contain wetland grasses? /0® 2)Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? 3)Is the property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4)If your property contains wetlands or pond areas,have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? (Vie (If not applicable, state"n/a") E. Are there any patios, concrete barriers,bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? AJI a of e- (If none exist, please state "none") F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? !u 0 If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none,please state. G. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? % If yes,please explain where or submit copies of deeds. 5-140,,,,) 0,4 si,AA,r -6-D sae,,6-y ,,,,,In PS H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel 09-6-2icd 1...-tri f2,*1— and proposed use . , ..,, z-0- ---., --,-"-'>_..)2-c, 976-X:3 Authorized Signature an Date ,/� c) cfZ- J.': /0.6.-- /7-0, 6--- J SEP - 5 2003 . APPLICANT • TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: fe tc . � 2r !&; Lo4&-/Se-44 Po-am At171-/bg Cry (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company If so, indicate the other person or company name.) - NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance , Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other If"Other", name the activity: Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO If you answered"YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate en (when the applicant is not a corporation); 1:67 t`= '; =;:' ' i C)an officer, director,partner, or employee of the applicant; or D)the actual applicant. SEP ® 5 2003 DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ,zoPa€NO BC,e-rp, cr Submitted this 3 day Signature: Print Name: ewe c/4 �,S'. ,PgAi fl,j2 PROJECT I D NUMBER SEAR • 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I-Project Information(To be complete by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1.Applicant/Sponsor 2 Project Name [s'L, Po ogg Alerigefirrr 1 1057;1-c i ) OF Ma ,-TcGei°m,z 3.Project location: Municipality County 41Cl'o7j /11fl1,1/ 2e,,-A', PEZOtin c -rico-v:.) of S ou77-tor-9 ..(cJ/ Lcc. c utt/ r- ( `( 4.Precise location(Street address and road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.or provide map) LI4j07- ,4l At m CV a e P) 5.Is proposed action: (VNEW ( )EXPANSION ( )MODIFICATION/ALTERATION • 6.Describe project briefly: C 04)..S 7 -C.' A-dV D o f e247�0& p c 1 Ji AI1� !`SJR S'i�1/t e✓aZ79-75 R. 7 tD oevs ,e_4-YL- -ALvdm try ii4.40 --ri'Ae,4)j c ,'=,Q✓2 j007t '7zel-7 c7/1/ //A'D /9", fCRBti.fry ©f Par/46 J4 -f E x,' 6-Aft-xi aniegof f v/ccr df 6zert7xcary oN 7.Amount of land affected: Initially. acres; _Ultimately: acres 0. pa__ s 8.Will proposed action comply with existing or other existing land use restrictions:( )YES (D()NO If No,describe briefly: • ft 1f(ee—S XO.41-/Af6,- V/4-,e,411.1cC. /2E 'c' -'76fiei7gic77O/), 9.What Is present land use in vicinity of project:(describe): ( )Residential ( )Industrial ( )Commercial )(Agricultural ( )Park/Forest/Open Space ( )Other 10. Does action involve a permit approval or funding,now or ultimatelyfrom anyother Governmental a enc Federal State or Local)? PP 9 Y.� ) (X)YES ( )NO If Yes,list agency(s)and pemiit/approvals• 1 Or et 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? I fes g_;, ( )YES ('J')NO If Yes,list agency(s)and permit/approvals: t SEP m5 2003 ZONING ?0414,,,E, eAr. n 12.As a result of proposed action,will existing permit/approval require modification? ( )YES (X)NO If Yes,list agency(s)and permit/approvals: 1 certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge Applicant/Sponsor Name: , erfUCIC C, A -,Q,7o2 Date: T7%..s" Signature; If the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessrra 05/06/04 THU 15:15 FAX 2127158000 IRAMER LEVIN I]002 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 TONI L FINGERPARIS ASSOCIATE �'� - ` 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-9239 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 mx (212)715.8235 �n g�V ZQ0 r Fax (33.1)44 09 46 01 tfinger@kramerlevin.COm �HtlF�9 BOAR() APPEALS ZONING BOAR May 6, 2004 BY FACSIMILE Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: Per our conversation this afternoon,this is to confirm that if the Zoning Board of Appeals is unable to vote on the Long Island Power Authority's above-referenced application at the meeting scheduled for May 20, 2004,LIPA agrees to extend the Zoning Board's time to vote on the application until June 3,2004. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Very truly yours, cflOtaI Toni L. Finger cc: Mr. Mark Dougherty, LIPA Mr.Frederick Peritore,KeySpan Richard G. Leland, Esq. KL3 2778275 l Af hate,Siudrn Sonia Marta Alliance•Liermn Leighton hasher Milan*Rome London*2n,sscls 5— / Z6 A- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK / — q/a404 a aux) � Po` 70 N mt r. STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS ISLES, AICP DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING APR 1 9 2DIRECTOR OF PLANNING April 14, 2004 004 Town of Southold oNg ® s® r OF APPEALS Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s)submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) Osprey Dominion/LIPA 5432 Osprey Dominion/LIPA 5450 Very truly yours, Thomas Isles Director of Planning S/s Gerald G.Newman - Chief Planner GGN:cc G\CCHORNY\ZONING\ZONING\WORKING1LD2004\APR\SD5432 APR LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H LEE DENNISON BLDG -4T1-1 FLOOR ■ P 0 BOX 61 00 ■ (5 16) 853-5 190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 1 1 788-0099 TELECOPIER(5 1 6)853-4044 • �'t p Q11 ti Original Message From: Kowalski, Linda Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:03 AM r�To: Semon, Brno *III+. �-8 , Subject: LIPA Osprey Dominion PB Memo Hi Bruno, Happy Friday to you. Just wanted to let you know that the ZBA at the Special Meeting last night reviewed the PB memo with attachments. After discussion about the site elements, code procedures and time frames, the Board consensus was that no additional information would be added at this time, and therefore no written reply is available. Thank you, Linda • r 11/7/03 Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 09/16/03 Receipt#: 2740 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $400.00 Check#: 2740 Total Paid: $400.00 Name: Keyspan, Inc 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801 Clerk ID: LYNDAB Internal ID:82077 " �FFOLit itki OVP C \ ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE 4 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK k CO • \ P.O.Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER G 1t Fax(631) 765-6145 ��� RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER - � Telephone(631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER �a• southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: September 16, 2003 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5432 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5432 - Keyspan -Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance. Also included is ZBA questionnaire, SEQR form,project description, applicant transactional disclosure form,notice of disapproval,building permit application, appendix D, letter from LIPA, and site plan. I TOWN OF SOUTHOLDBUILDING RMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT44 Do have or need the following,before applying? TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 3 sets of Building Plans TEL: (631) 765-1802 Planning Board approval FAX: (631) 765-9502 Survey www. northfork.net/Southold/ PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form N.Y:S.D.E.C. Trustees Examined ,20 Contact: Approved Mail to: -it S`, ,&-kra fr 7.'r - - Ow 2D Disapproved a/c m v` Phone: n(p- Expiration ,20 Building Inspector _t`c. 2 2 , \APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DISAPPROVAL Date i.-... _ s —, S 20 d L �K.„- _�� INSTRUCTIONS a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale.Fee according to schedule. b.Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d.Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e.No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f.Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize. in writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances,building code,housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature of applicant or name,if a corporatio ) /75— �`i o c (V 617ic.t-f j 4- « 'V C-Cr /V V /! ro i /«-Y -7 (Mailing 6ddress of applicant) PAN CoRPoIZ*4- eN State whether applicant is owner, lessee, gen , 4 chitect, engineer, general contractor, electrician,plumber or builder /46-5/ S'p/iA) F2 Lo416- /est,4nlb GottJAWAI-O&M TY Name of owner of premises O S PREY M 11.0 Co . (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: ie House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Block I Lot 0 J - Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot --- (Name) r 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupauL,:Y of proposed construction: • a. Existing use and occupancy fiG-,e r c b. Intended use and occupancy_ 4/44 0 AJE 6_y D id ,--"QA) 3. Nature of work(check which applicable): New Building Addition Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work ocJcr2 OA) Allt0*-770 Al (Description) 4. Estimated Cost jam® Fee '3 (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units NVQ} Number of dwelling units on each floor /V//f- If garage, number of cars ,v/A- 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. i//,9- 7. Dimensions of existingstructures, if any: Front N/4- Rear ,�li9- Depth N/A-.Height /f/4- Number of Stories nl�7q Dimensions of same.§trture with alterations or additions: Front /VA- Rear N/A- Depth /�//9 Height /09- Number of Stories ,N/,4- 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front /O Rear /0 Depth -s 0 Height 4` /7 S' Number of Stories v., Iwo/ 'Tr.j/a W/TF1 w' kvi-ra 9. Size of lot: Front Rear Depth 10. Date of Purchase Name of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ,4—cf Foie t C.o c,T ) i A-L — donts Ea 164-77e N (Z4-0 12. Does proposed construction violate anyzoninglaw, ordinance or regulation? YES NO �+�tAtG.- Pam"; ee 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES NO X Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES NO 14. Names of Owner of premises fls�'RdY Y `�� �" CAddress Phone No. Name of Architect Address Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO X * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES &D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF ) �2 vc��Pl C/c J ���/ TXe.r.-- being duly sworn, deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant _ -_- - - (Name of individual signing contract) above named, - (S)He is the G TT� (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perfonni or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me thi oTR day of - . (,Q1 200 3 ,� � r Notary P blic Signature of Applicant ro Notary 2StatSe� NInrnTeraoiS.„oyir2os5 �e•S - om York ork emer31, i Ook Y � ' t. 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 knnintzer@kramerlevin.com /-2/9/03 December 8, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey Dominion Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: Per your instructions regarding public notices in connection with the December 18, 2003 ZBA hearing regarding the above-referenced project, enclosed is an affidavit of mailing. The affidavit of mailing shows that all owners of land surrounding the site of the proposed wind turbine were notified of the public hearing by certified mail/return receipt requested. We also enclose a copy of the map that accompanied the notice letters. Signature cards will be forwarded to you when we receive them. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures e.°-. s cc: Mr. Frederick Peritore KL3 2307278 1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels ' S i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority- Osprey Dominion #5432V and 543OSE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) I, Lourdes E. Morales, residing at Yonkers,NY,being duly sworn, depose and say that; On the 4th day of December, 2003, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in New York,New York,by CERTIFIED MAIL,RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the Assessors Office for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property, as listed on the attachment hereto. • ' JP . - Signature Sworn to before me this 4th day of December, 2003 Notary Public KAREN L MITZER NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York No.31-02LE6010758 Qualifled in New York County Commission Expires September 13,2006 KL3 2306628 1 p: 09_3 U:S.Pos ervic— C IFIED I I _ *E. E • fomes lc Tar • • ,c) nsu a ce o r- - Provided CI M 0 F F II C 0 A [L U S LT' Postage ''''*''-' S� M 0 Certified Fee A . O' a Return Receipt FeeMIIMI �/�Pom e a�k 1-4 (Endorsement Required) { HG • MI i= Restricted Delivery Fee \ `c007 � O (Endorsement Required) _ Ci Total Postage&Fees $ L06\\ 'f 1v >18(31' .A .n- Sent To• CI III ilyyl ra UCkt�1�`iCLIIL ru Street,Apt.No.;, 0 orpoBox No. pD Skunk Lain o N City,State,++4 A D'u N 11935 .rm :10 Januar-1'2s I• .See Reverse fo i" (roil: uI1Ei1i 1 In L.n MR A:11111.1111MIUM(Domestic Mail Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided . r. - . . .n- - WI OFCL USE rn = Postage $ .ab,0 ex-- mi i I. stAi'LL'INIrb in - Certified Fee (-7-7 .., ,q.. ___ 9 ci in . Retum Receipt Fee .., .. i•-•‘ ...Ctp• . ',4 (Endorsement Required) (77 , -•, V & Here' -II 61. ED Restricted Delivery Fee ; r.3®', t II (Endorsement Required) ' : 111 Total Postage&Fees $ ILK 0 E3 04 ci Sent To ,., r- MT-A --- L 1 R P., Street,Apt.No.;— or PO Box No. a nia co 54-ct fi 0-1,1 City,State,ZIP+- a ialCa iv iiti c ps Fcirio$$.06 A:ril 2092 e „;- - - f.r.ip riv.— U.S.Postal Service CERTIFIED,MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided=- 'N U , Q' E / V^ k Postage $ , L 0 L m ^� raCertified Fee to.3 0 <, �/� 7 ( ' _e ra Return Receipt Fee i r S CG ere n ,� (Endorsement Required) _ Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) / ' jfil OA � = Total Postage&Fees $ , 5 ..El «<JJJ = Sent To .a John A-V. WICk5 ru Street,Apt.No.; D or PO Box No. 30'op Nor-i-h batU Clry,State,ZIP+4 e n IC N 1I/y�(i PS'Form 3800;Janda' 2001 1 --`�. - - . In ion- • IgIOAUWEIa*1412 - •.mestic Mail OnI • No Insurance Coverage Provided OFFC : A L LiS E -IT' Postage $ , 112,0 ,;Kt.rel- (L{ (17f2e1' m Certified Fee Drg l , �5 postmardso ReturnReceipt Fee er (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee \' ''' l® = (Endorsement Required) j Total Postage&Fees o�l �p�GO®� \�� = Sent To JL e►'/ L LLQ /�J �U ,,j Street,Apt.No.; l �/], O or PO Box No.5TA 'JICjc/e. oo+, Ncity,State, dr-4- S-�rer5on N 1177 11.1,-. .. e�:rtee; q,T.c . F nirglimiTire- •.mestic Mail Onl •No Insurance Coverage Provr.e r1 o :) � F C i' L US c 11" Postage $ , Le (2) �Q'�tV� k*2e.`r Certified Fee , 3 b 14 �oark Return Receipt Fee I c ')/ PHere ra (Endorsement Required) ` y O Restricted Delivery Fee (`.�Oep (Endorsement Required) ,y ;.O Total Postage&Fees $ /s 5 -I,%. );,:il ..0 I �.r = Sent To ----, f� 0 aCq�p c/1 e� G' 6 0.Ll.2h� ruoStreet,Apt.No.; D /� ,^ n �� 084 •orrPO Box No. 11J U 6 CI City,State,ZIPf -H1 vl d_ 1L) I 11 7 PS Form 3800,January 2001 See Reverse for instructions U.S.Posta.service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Prov 1V 1 -m ) _ fl C.:-.C:?- 1 � .v�s kc Se-f- MPostage $ ,(J ` .f-1 Certified Fee f2 . t /,, n (�'�bstmark Return Receipt Fee1 `t L. (Endorsement Required)CI ' ��1 ,�, ea..)) Here Here�C O Restricted Delivery Fee \ //'. w� CI (Endorsement Required) N,' -:;('-'0)\ CI Total Postage&Fees $ .& • W ,.....,-1 _._,,, -0 . - Sent To o 0UC Plea_14V nj ci or PO Box No. Street,Apt.N. 37(p r u )-on5k►'e e-t- M1 Clty,State,ZIP+4 Farm I da NV ) 37 S U.S Poservice CERTIFIED MAIL.RECEIPT (Dm oestic Mail Only Na Insurance Coverage Pro vii 1=1CEJ AI!1-', E 1:1" Postage $ -171 1-9 Certified Fee p2 • 30 tmark r Retum Receipt Fee ��se D (Endorsement Required) I / 77 C 1 co `� P Restricted Delivery Fee �l- f\ D (Endorsement Required) nt $ Total Postage&Fees • g toe-) Sent To l—rt7nk C ichanDw/CZ rl.l Street,APLL n i n Ko nnd_#-/ Dor PO Box Noo,. /I Lt U gt, City,State,ZlP+4 eco ic N 119 58 PS Form 3800,Janua 2001 See Re - • In rrns I RE (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided t�7 OFF ,) -t1 - e_ S1 Postage $ �P S Certified Fee 07. 0.st � Return Receipt Fee �� 0 C� � (Endorsement Required) 4 ® r*/) MI •Restricted Delivery Fee D (Endorsement Required) 11 0 ,.' I= Total Postage&Fees $ .A SetTo ki-1- He Bea r J R'-µn : /4 c i rLL Pres e r) ru Street,Apt.No.; /1 im or PO Box No. 6 U5 Third 4v0 aut._ City,State,ZIP+4 New Ork /`0/S"gS` PS.Form 3800,°Janua 2001 • q See Rever - f. tr (MR; t 1NO'5.13R1E7de IK= tsi ; Uj iaiL' MI11;1 .IAl2- (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided IL — Q' Postage $ e K EJ r9Certified Fee � ` '' °� Return Receipt FeeMg= LI" C4/ d� P ) m (Endorsement Required) Oere CI y �› Restricted Delivery Fee Ali �� O (Endorsement Required) )1610)\ m Total Postage&Fees .A =' Sent To 5hn 57Lankew,c, r1J Street,Apt.No.; /n�/l E or PD Box No. l U g p y cQO.3 oCity,State,ZIP+4 , eco 1' '58 PS Form 3800 Janua 2001 ee •everse or nstruc -oil; U.S.Postal Service,- .... CERTIFIED-MAIL RECEIP ,;, AIL -- (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided Er Neait L ‘fil . f •onik z ix Er' Postage $ e LO c/, ‘)‘ -4-61°m �o Certified Fee CI ri Return Receipt FeeaillneM D�� trri Here k (Endorsement Required) -11/ i Restricted Delivery Fee )180)'s O (Endorsement Required) Cl Total Postage&Fees DIZIMI .=-' Sent To rno-/h C-�-r! Street,nj No.; ci PD rn I f � or PO Boxox No. 11(� Ro qd___ COQ- City,State,ZIP+45 0Ur_h D/�/ • 7 F PS Form 3800,.Janua 2001 (,� ' ` ee •evers- o ritirintrAw mumairsmimpirg - Kogthjd1gaJI►e\mrdx (Domestic Mail Only; No nsurance overage.•rovrde. .A N 0 i- 0 C 0�' EL u_s E Postage $ , Le 1e �/, `' ri rn 1m =El ' e).7 Certified Fee C ark 1-9 Q Return Receipt FeeEMI ' CD62,4 ���- (Endorsement Required) NY ',ere / -O Restricted Delivery Fee q/1 eiC.)., ll (Endorsement Required) mi Total Postage$Fees ." Sent To hp Pia r-1-In & Lou Ise Markt els rl.l Street,Apt.No.; Q n or PO Box No. cR( IRU+e 5Ji [ City,State,ZIP+4 1^In d 1 n• , ive,r 1179- - PS Form 3800 Janua 2001 1 °See'Reverse for,lnstru M U.S.Post.I aii[.I 'lIt ►�a 4.lX�l�li (D.u- i e .' •.1y• ►i:IIP ITXT.i:TX•i.TITF.TTLITI. .1M/ CI 0 FC DIA U S Postage CI 0 Certified Fee MOM /l Retum Receipt Fee 14, 0 (Endorsement Required) 0 Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) ,� Lm Total Postage&Fees $ , 623 (� 6 0� O Sent To tY Car 14-or) i.er3 ka-Iham ru Street Apt.No.; _ rm or PO Box No. ��/ S/eepj J-EollouJ ka-ne✓ City,State,ZIP+4600 hOld !J' 119'1 PS Form 3800.Janua 2001 ° -- . - . . , +m:r lULl - ' ' MAIL RE 4112- (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided- .11 MI .0 F 1 A L U S . In Postage $ _t �' M' Q. 1-9 Certified Fee . 7 0 4Q��,,.(moi >.-/p Psi c D ReturnReceipt Fee1.111=1 z' ,`_, co (Endorsement Required) 5 •1) �c' 0 Restncted Delivery Fee d O (Endorsement Required) Li q� O Total Postage&Fees $ b6 ',131 / ..tl = Sent T ` L RAJ.e,YN 7a.cob5 -O Street,rPO N. (� I?o v 5 Q. or PO Box No. I✓ /` City,State,ZiP UTI ` e [1935--U50? PS Form 3800,Januar 2001 ee •everse or nstru .rry U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No.Insurance Coverage Provided). .--- L 43 11 0 c F I C t U Ccs 443 a- Postage $ , (Q 0 / (a' A— ,I_ i'i zer- Sd rl Certified Fee a , 3vb r q Return Receipt Fee ) f—/571:3-. ar ,E=1 (Endorsement Required) l / J (co I ere CIRestricted Delivery Fee \CC. en ,, `m (Endorsement Required) ,, tt E3 Total Postage&Fees $ /� ( 5 '"AN-c\10 4 N ��''/ 1 lY� -- CI Sent To C r ofIoI Cou imili IL Street,Apt. 3O C Y 1l�/Itn ri U n O or POO Box No.o. .JlC- Clty,State,ZIP+4 9 luurhend_, NY 11901 PS Form 3800 Janua 200 ee •everse or n tru on: 1 , Attachment 75-6-6.1 Little Bear Realty, Inc do Davidif&Malito LLP Att: Howard B. Present 1 605 Third Ave &4th Ave New York,NY 10158 75-6-6.2 John Stankewicz, Jr. Main Rd P.O. Box 203 Peconic,NY 11958 75-6-7.5 Timothy Coffey 44900 Main Rd Southold,NY 69-4-1.1 Martin&Louise J. Mangels 1\-\( 266 Route 25a �C Wading River,NY 11792 69-4-1.4 Carlton Terry Latham 925 Sleepy Hollow La -� Southold,NY 11971 69-4-2.4 Beverly Jacobs P.O. Box 522 Cutchogue,NY 11935-0522 69-4-4 Suffolk County 330 Center Dr Riverhead,NY 11901 10 75-1-21 Bud Realty 376 Fulton St Farmingdale,NY 11735 k KI3 2306628 1 P. a? 613 75-1-17.1 Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic,NY 11958 75-1-17.2 Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic, NY 11958 75-1-6: William Buckingham,EST do William Midgley, Jr. 200 Skunk La Cutchogue, NY 11935 75-1-2.1 MTA-LIRR Jamaica Station Jamaica, NY 11435 75-1-1.1 John A.V. Wicks 34800 North Rd Peconic, NY 11958 75-2-1 Jacqueline G. Bauer P.O. Box 1084 Southold,NY 11971 75-2-2 (Please note this number was changed to : 75-2-2.1 per assessor's office) Merlot LLC 591A Bicycle Path Port Jefferson,NY 11776 2 KL3 2306628 I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Little Bear Realty, Inc c/o Davidif&Malito LLP Att: Howard B. Present 605 Third Avenue New York,NY 10158 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Present: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, -? Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 I Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4,2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED John Stankewicz, Jr. Main Road P.O. Box 203 Peconic,NY 11958 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road, Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Stankewicz: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels • KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Timothy Coffey 44900 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road, Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Coffey: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the • enclosed notice describing the applications, which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Martin&Louise J. Mangels 266 Route 25a Wading River,NY 11792 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mangels: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18,2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures RL3 2306385 1 Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Carlton Terry Latham 925 Sleepy Hollow Lane Southold,NY 11971 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road, Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Latham: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP _ 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmIntzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Beverly Jacobs P.O. Box 522 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0522 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York Dear Ms. Jacobs: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18,2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 I , KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4,2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Suffolk County 330 Center Drive Riverhead,NY 11901 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York To Whom It May Concern: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Z-Tl(..'"-----__:, ,,.4_.--'' ,... Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures K13 2306385 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Bud Realty 376 Fulton Street Farmingdale,NY 11735 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York To Whom It May Concern: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, _, ___(:///A11--- Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic,NY 11958 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Cichanowicz: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- _ referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures 1(13 2306385 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED William Buckingham, EST, do William Midgley, Jr. 200 Skunk Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Buckingham: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications, which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18,2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. truly yours, V , ___,___: --,_,_ Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 PARIS KAREN L.MINTZER 47,AVENUE HoCHE 75008 ASSOCIATE TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 TEL (212)715-7000 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 FAX (212)715-8000 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED MTA-LIRR Jamaica station Jamaica,NY 11435 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York To Whom It May Concern: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18,2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very7 ly yours, 7 6:' /i—r' Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAx(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com • December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED John A.V. Wicks 34800 North Road Peconic,NY 11958 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road, Peconic,New York Dear Mr. Wicks: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, - /:/k—j---- t Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Jacqueline G. Bauer P.O.Box 1084 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York Dear Ms. Bauer: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, /:: ( ,i - Karen 4-- L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 1 i ,l KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AvENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintrer@kramerlevin.com December 4, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Merlot LLC 591A Bicycle Path Port Jefferson,NY 11776 Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road,Peconic,New York To Whom It May Concern: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority in connection with the above- referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the enclosed notice describing the applications,which are scheduled for a hearing before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18,2003 at 1:30 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is also enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3 2306385 1 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY,DECEMBER 18,2003 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall. 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on Thursday, December 18, 2003, at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter as possible): 1:30 PM OSPREY DOMINION AND LIPA, KEYSPAN #5432V and 5430SE. Location of Property: 44075 Main Road, Peconic; Parcel 1000,75.1.20.1 and 20,2. Applicants are requesting a Variance under Section 100-33A concerning the proposed height of new public utility wind turbine/antenna structure exceeding the code's height limitation of 18 feet; and a Special Exception for a public utility use/structure on this 4.4+acre site. _ The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours, If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call(631)765.1809. Dated: November 21,2003. RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN BOARD OF APPEALS By Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk _ r KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com RECEIVED January 29, 2004 JAN 3 0 2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BY FEDERAL EXPRESS m -d Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: You have advised us that Pindar Associates or an affiliate thereof has recently become the owner of SCTM 1000 Section 75, Block 1, Lots 17.1 and 17.2. According to the Town Assessor's office, Frank Cichanowicz III is still the record owner of those lots. Nevertheless,we have notified Pindar Associates regarding LIPA's pending applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with the above-referenced project. We enclose an affidavit of mailing for your files, as well as a copy of the notice letter and the certified mail receipt. We will send you the signature card when we receive it. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Mr. Frederick Peritore 'T(/efirst,-nt,liov did viic is xis 2317050 i Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance.Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels RECEIVE I- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAN ® 2004 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK X ri ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority- Osprey Dominion #5432V and 543OSE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) I, Lourdes E. Morales, residing at Yonkers,NY, being duly sworn, depose and say that; On the 27th day of January, 2004, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in New York,New York,by CERTIFIED MAIL,RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in a prepaid envelope addressed to Pindar Associates, 591 Bicycle Path, Suite A, Port Jefferson Station,New York,NY 11776. 40, ignature Sworn to before me this 27th day of January, 2004 Notary Public KAREN L MITZER NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York No.31-031. 6010758 Qualified in New York County Commission Expires September 13,2008 KL3 2316571 1 - c - KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022—3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com January 27, 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pindar Associates 591 Bicycle Path, Suite A Port Jefferson Station,New York 11776 Attention: Kathy Re: Applications of the Long Island Power Authority to the Town of Southold Board of Appeals for a proposed wind turbine at 44075 Main Road, Peconic,New York Dear Kathy: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above-referenced applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). We have been advised by the ZBA that Pindar Associates or an entity related thereto has recently become the owner of property more specifically described as SCTM 1000 Section 75, Block 1, Lots 17.1 and 17.2 in the Town of Southold. The enclosed notice describing the applications submitted by LIPA was sent to the previous owner of the property,Frank Cichanowicz III, on December 4,2003. That notice advised that LIPA's applications were scheduled for a hearing before the ZBA on December 18, 2003. LIPA's applications were discussed at that hearing,however, the hearing was continued and the applications will be discussed again at the ZBA's February 26, 2004 hearing at 1:00 p.m. A map showing the proposed location of the wind turbine is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding LIPA's applications. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures K13-2316541.1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels --7, U.S.Postal Service I " CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT . 1RI (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage provided) P- • .. . . , . Frl 0 F V i C ' i A L . = Postage 1111,11011r4, 7.'st-, , ' A P. Kayeli tUinfzein ._ 1 CI Certified Fee 1 postmark Hem '—' (Endorsement Required) ,ff _...;,,' ' cEl Restricted Delivery Fee ion ce5...:1 0 :77 I (Endorsement Required) um,' 11 , ,,..4— opp,o,b t) 1 RI Total POStilge \ 0 Sent'To e---) V‘n YY' Street,Apt.N.;— -,-, ................... r‘.. -- --------;27 7----- r NO. -AI 40( cie.,-NAiti................................. City,State, ........3F. , V 0 'PS Ford.)3800,."Apri)2.0'9'2' -. , See.Ra'v'erse idr InstrUaroos " — ' . . , . . . , . . .. , , . . R'g0F11. _91 JAN 3 0 2004 APPEALS . , • ZONING 90ARD , . , . . ' , . . i- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS __ Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Ruth D. Oliva,Chairwoman P.O.Box 1179 Gerard P. Goehringer Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lydia A.Tortora Telephone(631)765-1809 Vincent Orlando ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 James Dinizio http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 6, 2004 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning P. O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Newman: Please find enclosed the following applications, surveys, tax maps, building disapprovals, and related information for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code; within 500 feet of: R— STATE OR COUNTY ROAD W —WATERWAY (BAY, SOUND, OR ESTUARY) B — BOUNDARY OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL LAND ZBA NAME ACTION REQUESTED /VARIANCE R W B_ 5450 OSPREY SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PUBLIC UTILITY X DOMINION / LIPA USE ON 4.4 ACRE WINERY PARCEL 5432 OSPREY HEIGHT - 100' WIND TURBINE-TOWER WITH X DOMINION / LIPA 25' ANTENNAS If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, Jess Boger. Enc. cc: ZBA Staff Yui• I ':COMPLETE THIS SECTION ', 'COMPLETE THIS SE •N•ND • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signat - item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 0 Agent O Print your name and address on the reverse ■ Addres ee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Pralt�d Nems) C Date ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. C) ' ,i D. Is delivery address different from item 1? Vi e• 1 Article Addressed to. If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No MM . S co+-1- k n,t .31c1gD Nor-4-h` RoaL- Pecon Ic Ny I `C15? 3. Service Type I ified Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number ! 7002 0460 0001 1039 8139 (Transfer frorh serviea\l©bei , , . , , ; • , ' f PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-0381 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 11 11 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • lot.re n L. NAtn-�ze►r- �ra Len) n 15 & Franke I of I q -Third Jen,ue� NEW Yori:., N/ ooaZ I1, IIft,,,Ii,,a„til„I,I,.Ii11 l„ll,t„.I.II,!„l1t,,,dI KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HoCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@krannerlevin.com December 22, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: Enclosed please find the return receipt for LIPA's notice to Mr. Scott Kruk regarding the ZBA hearing for the above-referenced project. Very truly yours, /4—vA-- Karen L. Mintzer • Enclosure • xLs 2310680 l Affiliate•Studio Santa Marta Alliance•Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels • y • 4 • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - -TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAV G-/1,4 /<'rYf/'fK OF SIGN (Name f Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1 1000- 7f— -/- ®. /cid ®e �2, (g&-LA-nvr T .5ZV3.2 V i-. I S ','3o s/ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, / 2a- `tt-cx. P iro,C esiding at ,?eD won'e:cJcj _ LAS &—, S%1—>21-t1 , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: • On the /'O day of par,0 , 2003, I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon ply property, located ten (10)feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) -facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;*and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearin date was shown to be /g; .2.0453 (Signature) Sworn to before me this /r/v4 day of freou ,-, 200.3. LINDA J.MINERVIN! Notary Public„State of Nsw Vbik No. 4878232 Qualified In Suffolk Cov ( , tary Public) Commission Expires Nov.24,20gs. *near the entrance or driveway entrance of Ray property, as the area most visible to passersby. L' © 60.- of /ro L1'1075-- /L1.4r4✓ (e-far44-1?- c0et)Q-e-- • •I • Cov,mr-”."4p reblo-m C)- iiart. Curati.k vp• ipzir01 L1.1-_-'11 c? 04 Peiviit ANt • 1, 411li.' '''-- 0 OFFICIAL USE ONLY OSPREY-DOMINION-/L•IPA 54324 5450-GG - WIND TURBINE-HEIGHT&SE-P. U. USE ,_�- 44075 MAIN RD, PECONIC 75-1-20.1 &20.2 _ Checklist for new projects: / CALL APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE FOR AVAILIBILITY LABEL: (4) INCLUDE NAME, AGENT, TM#, ZBA#, ZONE, MBR'S INITIALS, /PROJECT, VARIANCE, ADDRESS —top/front fldr, checklist sheet, 1st pg. appl CTY TAX MAP 8 CPES —2 W/NEIGHBORS CIRCLED AND #'S WRITTEN (1 FOR APPL & 1 FOR FILE TO BE STAPLED TO RT INSIDE FOLDER) MAILINGS: INCLUDE COVER LTR, SIGN, AFFS SIGN PSTG & MLG, CHAP C, 58, LEGAL NOTICE - COPY OF ALL BUT AFFS & 58 IN FLDR RT ASSESSORS CARD PULL NOD FROM BD - 7 CPES — 1 ON FLDR RT SIDE / INDEX CARD — MAKE NEW OR ATTACH /ADD ON TO OLD IF PRIOR ES OF DEC (1 k V' PRIORSINDEX R RT SIDE FLDR) CPE INDEX CARD, STAPLETO INSIDE RT( SIDE IN FLDR `•A SOIL &WATER LTR: PARCELS ON LI SOUND — Mail ASAP 05 PB COORDINATION MEMO: ANY COMMERCIAL/SUBDIVISION PROJECTS �\ �� include: ZBA app, NOD, & BD app (S drive ZBA, memos)— interoffice ASAP INSPECTION PACKET: NOD, ZBA APPL, SURVEY, BD APPL, ASSESS CARD, CTM, ALL OTHER CORRESPONDENCE COUNTY PLANNING LTR: for parcels located within 500' of.RT 25, CR 48 or bay, sound, or estuary. Enclose ZBA app, decision, survey/map & NOD UPDATED: NEW INFORMATION: ( --4-03 a A \I11% z- . pcLc.(Z(-K rntsSi M) pleilo3 JO'A)1( geo &La., ' ,641. 1 OeLLr,-w--16- -13_96 0 cf.5 "?)./ 4/7/p z° /11 , - 4/#‘1691 .tsld hs7ai& i,"J 1P1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE 45 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com December 16, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA -Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: In connection with the December 18, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing regarding the above-referenced project,we enclose an additional affidavit of mailing. We were advised by the former owner of property specifically described as SCTM 1000 Section 75,Block 1, Lot 1.1 that the current owner of such property is Scott Kruk. Accordingly, we sent a notice of the hearing and proposed site plan to Mr. Kruk by certified mail on Monday, December 15, 2003. Also enclosed are green signature cards for all of the landowners surrounding the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property except for Mr. Kruk. We will provide Mr. Kruk's signature card to you when we receive it. An affidavit of posting will be submitted to the ZBA at the December 18, 2003 hearing. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Mr. Frederick Peritore(w/o encl.) KL3 2309266 1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan *Rome London*Brussels DEC-;17' 03 (WED) 15: 17 RESEARCH & nWVFLOP. 516 545 52 P. 002 I ., is mi • • • , • ••1.:-.) • ZONING BOARD FAPPS ;IA K TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:N � YOR i --�� • In the Matter of th Application of i Al;FItaA, TG• •I Ke � OF SIGN' • • (Name f AID' licant) POSTING: ; Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as • 1000- 7..c--/-4020, / 0 .7-- O't vre— Ts�sa V g-1 .�Y. o ' --x COUNTY OFSt)F O(K)— , STATE OF NEW ORK) • I, rg (E-'•aa. .,S's F ciro,Cefesiding at yo WO - r r --,,,e- styfroccr , Neto York, being duly sworn, depose and say that; On the / ay of Pi , 2003, I personally placed the Town's official Poster,with the date of hearing and nature of my application ' noted thereon, se-Or ly upon kyr property, located ten(10)feet or doter fr1' ,� the street or right-of-way(driveway entrance) -facing the street or facing eil 1:-.. -,) . street or right-of- ay entrance;*and that I hereby , firm that the Poster has remained in place for seven day prior to the date o-the subject hearing date, which hearin date was shown io b= ; , . . 7 .0en /8; 3 • (Signature) I , • Sworn to before ais • • • ' //114 day of tie f, 200 . ,' LINDA J.MINE`fltlinM Nary Public,State of New Volk , ; L.--; � No. WOW .L6, / Qualified In Suffolk tl ' ( ■tary Public) Conurdoslcn Expires 24,2S' *near the entrapor driveway entrance of +y property, as the area most .ibl- ; '! to passersby. a 4,.�„ ef,.ae I , ; i • • . ! II !1 I -y <5 i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority- Osprey Dominion #5432V and 543OSE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CTM Parcel#1000 - 75 -1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) I, Lourdes E. Morales, residing at Yonkers,NY, being duly sworn, depose and say that; On the 15th day of December, 2003, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in New York,New York,by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in a prepaid envelope addressed to Scott Kruk at 34990 North Road, Peconic, New York 11958. ignature Sworn to before me this 15th day of December, 2003 Notary Public KAREN L MITZER NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York No.31-02LE60107S8 Qualified in New York County Commissign Expires September 13,2008 KL3 2306628 I �i;<K.�r►t� r�r:!r,�yx.�rc.�.�rOliril4r41arf:y4-01rrrc.RI1Vnuaff • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. r•, 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse XC\ ...cl_o_n_n- allgoi ddressee so that we can return the card to you. gr ve b Printed Name) C. a= r,e ery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. I D. Is delivery address different from item 1? • Yes 1. Article Addressed to: if YES,enter delivery address below: �o William Buckingham,EST (_ do William Midgley,Jr. 200 Skunk Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number -,� (Transfer from service label) 70 0� Duk 0 Q®p/ CO3 9 d(�U3® PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVO . First-Class Mail < _ -Postage,&Fees Paid n`" „ { -USPS'-' �._ ' Permit'No.G-10 • Sender: Please ntigtaame,address;-and-Z[A+4airi thisi ox=,•.u Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 }lEllEtIEi�1?lltl }}}Iillllili�F1i11!IIIA} �EII�FTlf3#i3ii� 4•ti liwIngel;.i•7ed. .(•g9Xtd(aTT- COMPLETE THIS SECTIO�'! • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. i� El Agent N Print your name and address on the reverse X ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you B Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to. If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No IATA - LlRK Jr 3 on Q.f'}1Q.l CIS NY 1114-35- -3. Servlce-Type I ❑CCertified Mail ❑ Express Mail El Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) El Yes 2 Article Number /�Q (Transfer from service label) 700C*_ V U (Q O DDD 4 3904 —7'/ c PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-0381 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid • USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kiamer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 46 i!!!1I1IiathJs m ild!!Itl!!Ii!1!I!!111!!!!1!I1!!!!1!i!!!!{J!( 1-4;•1614: W••r�rlal►aral IMIXe foRrer>lMnia:r ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete )k. Signature • - item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. / ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse ,6(, .. A.,,,,i ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. eived by(Pnnte ' at C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address diff t4.a.item 1? 0 Yes if YES,enter del ya.. _ . be • ❑ No Jacqueline G.Bauer J '� P O.Box 1084 6:D1 ) 1 Southold,NY 11971 ._+' 3. Service Type ct:,, oa'/ ❑Certified Mail ,•'-z fess ❑ Registered • •e m"Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number c (Transfer from service label) 70 0a_ O��Q COO) /O3 0 o f PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 1 11111 Postage&Fees Paid • USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue .,New York,New York 10022 _ I111Yyl 2l.%i;lllltil611llillilIthiti 11111111,liIllutl1111Ii,l - 'I ': COMPL HIS S • tKelh1:144rMr:I1xy •Ircna[.lM.»w1 ' ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sig -ture item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. /�!!', / / n l ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X " eau: e •� lXJ /' i Addressee so that we can return the card to you. Received by(Punted Name) C. Date offelivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Jr- IV or on the front if space permits. •lr ' ■ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? • Yes 1. Article Addressed to: if YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No John A.V. Wicks 34800 North Road Peconic,NY 11958 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number �1 / (� / (Transfer from service label) 760 R Q LlL6 D 6001 10 39 J g 01 7 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRl-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 I„,9111 taill„,,,l,i:,9,l„i1,1,1„il a n,1,11,9„l,l,,,,li,i yl►Ulf:iiireTaMMILVtagi--14611tK.htIMI*rpt gAluxotrei msegaPAAm • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete - -r - - item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. �� _- • Agent I• Print your name and address on the reverse 4 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. -= eived by Printed Name) C.-Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. A-5 - 1 '� 2 -- 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different item 1? • Yes if YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No Merlot LLC { 591A Bicycle Path Port Jefferson,NY 11776 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D: 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2: Article Number / :700 O/6:O oDO/ ./03:9 PS Form 3811,August 2001 • Domestic Return Receipt' - 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ,ND , , First-Class Mail -. c•,\''"' •;',. ',',/: f-/-,), -ppstaqgifpes Paid ..2 co PM --. t('7 ,,, Perrnit No:,-,Grl 0 tf :•,'(.. L7,-; ..,` ir.p,,,z) ),,,...-` r-,,it-,.. • Sender: Please prin o4boam ,address,abd ZIP0F4)in thistpx:11s-f,i vice? Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue York.New York 10022 iiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiitisialilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii r' r U.S.Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only No Insurance Coverage Provided)' • 710FFOC . gAL - USE Postage $ „ ,O ��Q►�' T rn Certified Fee .3 0 .° 4 a Retum Receipt Fee Ng�► • ' (Endorsement Required) + �( O Restricted Delivery Feer • p (Endorsement Required) 4�v.., ®>, Total Postage&Fees $ I 06" Sent To Mr. Sco-+ Kru.k ru orreet,POBox tNo.�3(gq•gqo N)or4-h 2oao� CIry,State,ZIP+4 ✓ January 2001 •See'Rever se for Instructions ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signatur� item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. C Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X - ❑Addr= ee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Pnnted Name) C. Date 1liv-ry ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. C,b- 'i_- I,/ 0 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? web if YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No Little Bear Realty,Inc do Davidif&Malito LLP An-Howard B.Present 605 Third Avenue New York,NY 10158 3. Serv' ype Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise _ ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D; , 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article ` (Transit, t; tit ii tiii 11i1 ii i11 ti !; ii ti it :i I [ + Ii I i. PS Form ?R1-I3-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • ' Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP : ' 919 Third Avenue . New York,New York 10022 46 Jririiiiiii Iiii;,I,dillirillilrIiiIim iriilliirrirlisirtil{ y4►U14:1WelMMUFtWild Y�Yx6/f•/tKeh472A4'1M IPLI*611,1ffeM7 RlYM:1- • ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature • item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • / 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X �� .� 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 1377-ecenred by(Printed Name) C.-Date f De w ry or on the front if space permits. 4011 h ��a for,yip ` Q,(01,7 D. Is delivery address different from item 1?`/'-' ' s 1. Article Addressed to: 0 No if YES,enter delivery address below: John Stankewicz,Jr. Main Road P.O.Box 203 Peconic,NY 11958 — — ' 3. Service Type • ertrfied Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number 97�(Transfer fromsefvice;label) ;; 0.00—L. ,462Q i0 00/t;,( oJ;9 1 , PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 1 11 11 1 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 Illl1Illt941 %,%, 1111th ttillF,Ill1tff,tlltillI111119111111I I : COMPLETE THIS SECTION u• • • eallL l' • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signat item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X / 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. ,y(Pn ted Name C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. ,=� S 1. Article Addressed to: D. I dehve� e•,• •eft= = r•r item ? ❑Yes if Y�•S,, ter•elivery address below: ❑No Timothy Coffey 44900 Main Road Southold,NY 11'111 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7 0 O�(® oDc I 029 7989 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail I II II I Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 1.1.1111.1111111I 1111I 1111IITIIIIIII011111111111111111111IIII 11II11,,,l1„,,,I,l„I,I„6111,1„IIo,,,,1,Ilif„1,4,,,,11,6 I ) 14►1974 KUuliliaratra4FYX t r hirmar r.-ikawxyrrr amraffi rx•ww ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. •na G; / - item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X e 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse j i//�lay�����' 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B received by(print' l� C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, f�_(a or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Ivory addr ifferent from item 1? 0 Yes if YES,ent delle ry address belo : 0 No Martin&Louise J.Mangels 266 Route 25a Wading River,NY 11792 3. 'DB Type - - — 0 Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label), 70u4-/(00 ODoi I -gg//T PS Form 3811',August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid i - USPS Permit No.GAO • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 itt,iiiii„iiiit,iitltiitit,it,isit,ifttRnitiiti,eitit,ttiitl -ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION •u• • ON DEL V •' • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si ature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X / ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse L� 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed N. e) C. Dalaiof Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, �����P`r W1410141 -1or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes if YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No Carlton Terry Latham 925 Sleepy Hollow Lane Southold,NY 11971 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number , C (Transfer from,service label) ,, 70 6 c2 O 4/p,D, .000 1 . 1039. 01 0 09 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-CUSPS lass Mail 1 11111 Postage&Fees Paid Permit No.G10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • Karen L.Mintzer Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,New York 10022 ieeeiiiieeeiirrerririreh ieriieiiirrii 1 lieieeirireriiie4 Attachment 75-6-6.1 Little Bear Realty, Inc do Davidif&Malito LLP Att: Howard B. Present 605 Third Ave &4th Ave New York,NY 10158 75-6-6.2 John Stankewicz, Jr. Main Rd P.O. Box 203 Peconic,NY 11958 75-6-7.5 �jTimothy Coffey 44900 Main Rd Southold,NY 69-4-1.1 ✓Martin&Louise J. Mangels 266 Route 25a Wading River,NY 11792 9-4-1.4 Carlton Terry Latham 925 Sleepy Hollow La Southold,NY 11971 69-4-2.4 ,/Beverly Jacobs P.O. Box 522 Cutchogue,NY 11935-0522 69-4-4 ,/Suffolk County 330 Center Dr Riverhead,NY 11901 75-1-21 !And Realty 376 Fulton St Farmingdale, NY 11735 KL3 2306628 I 75-1-17.1 —Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic,NY 11958 75-1-17.2 Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic,NY 11958 75-1-6: William Buckingham, EST do William Midgley, Jr. 200 Skunk La Cutchogue, NY 11935 75-1-2.1 MTA-LIRR Jamaica Station Jamaica,NY 11435 75=1-1.1 / John A.V. Wicks 34800 North Rd Peconic,NY 11958 75-2-1 /Jacqueline G. Bauer P.O. Box 1084 Southold,NY 11971 75-2-2 (Please note this number was changed to : 75-2-2.1 per assessor's office) Merlot LLC 591A Bicycle Path Port Jefferson,NY 11776 2 KL3 2306628 1 B RD OF APPEALS C.9 aouthold Town Hall BOARD OF APPEALS P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Rodd SNOT Southold, NY 11971 5i4-7 � ■ ■■■®■■ ■ iq Ill 1111111111111111111111111111111111 1- (AAA ivk(ciAtu '''Ti,,,,-, -0-°v`- TO: LM a0 CRy �s 76 B5 ES S .L it Rq_l ( C fc,‘o r N y ( ( 135 BOARD OF APPEALS St a BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall YS(S P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 _5(t(06 II 111111111111111111111111 TO:III sQ�� LIPP' �3� s D ( 1 s em# O � � 9 �d SOS hLM N Y ((97( t ;6,v t Nu ( FO ( NY BOARD OF APPEALS BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 �3ys Shy( 11011111111111111111.11111111111 ■�� SW • 111111.11.111.11111111111 (c"*5(Vv. . 4-&axn 3cu- -- MfoCIV_ 1 Es. 8 SocLAN,9 Nq (007( Q fV ( ( 9 7 ( OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 November 21, 2003 Re: Chapter 58 — Public Notice for Thursday, December18, 2003 Hearing(s) Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Long Island Traveler-Watchman newspaper. 1) Before December 5th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, with both a letter including your telephone number and contact person, and a copy of your map filed with this application which shows the new construction area, to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street, railroad tracks, or right-of-way that borders your property (please see revised Town Code Ch. 58 enclosed). Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall (765-1937) and the County Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability and to confirm this in either a written statement, or at the hearing, with the returned letter. 2) By December 11th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed poster on a sign board such as plywood or similar material, posting it at your property for seven (7) days; the sign should remain up until the day of the hearing. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard.) If you need a replacement poster, please contact us. 3) Before December 12th, please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers noted for each, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. (Also, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing.) If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing and return it when available. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. Please also file your Affidavit of Posting with our department to show proof that the sign will have been posted for at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Enclosures Zoning Appeals Board and Staff • APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS - -- Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Southold, New York 11971-0959 George Horning Telephone(631) 765-1809 Vincent Orlando ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 http:/lsoutholdtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Copy attached for your information. Thank you. ZBA office staff (040-3 LA-4-J / (A/ t- FL-A-42-e- 4ffy / 6 1117/ CJS'Q V�^"'_ J DN -"( LI V P � G U!ARD MEMBERS ��il' ���� _, YN B.WOODHOUSE ►� ,��� o��� P.O.Box 1179 Chair ►�� 0 # Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 �,� / y Southold, New York 11971-0959 V RICHARD CAGGIANO v� 'r Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ®� ) Fax (631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS MARTIN H.SIDOR : l411 `p►►a���� MEMORANDUM ® E ( l 0 V E PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Date: March 31, 2004 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR 6 2004 -2) To: Agency Referral Request / Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals/ Southold Town Southold Town Building Department Planning Boar' Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Josh Horton, Southold Town Supervisor VED Southold Town Board of Trustees � �L Southold Town Engineer MAR 3 1 2004 Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook U.S. ArmyCorpof Engineers ��''S New York State Department of Transportation - VED Suffolk County Water Authority APR 0 7 2004 *S- ffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works z®NING BOARD OF APPEALS From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer ___ Re: Proposed Amended Site Pla for Osprey Dominion Conservatory 44074 Main Road, Peconic SCTM# 1000-75-1-20.1 & 20.2`��``' ------_._�_- Dear Reviewer: Status: New Active Site Plan. The above listed action and site plan is referred to your agency for review, comments, concerns, permits requirements and jurisdiction. Attached is a copy of the site plan application information for your review. This site plan is for an alteration and addition of the existing conservatory building of 1,357 sq. ft. to include a first floor addition of 1,350 sq.ft and a new second floor storage area of 731 sq.ft. which includes a site plan change in parking from 31 spaces required to a 36 spaces provided on 4.46 acres parcel in the AC Zone located at 44075 NYS Road 25 (Main Road) in Peconic. SCTM#(s) 1000-75.-1-201 & 20.2 Please respond on your agencies position of the above action. Thank you in advance. cc: File *Maps are enclosed for your review , (PdA- - freit-- 7 /a -/7-a 3 sp- ' PLANNING BOAI EllI.L. s • //l10iFFOL - • BENNET`I'ORLw b1C.I,SR. ,�i QN) eet P.( . Box 117 . Chairman 4 ����aa' Yy % . Town Hall, 63096 State Route Southold, New York 11971-09 RICHARD CAGGIANO Tele WILLIAM J.CREMERS ��1, phori(631) 765-3136) 765-1938 KENNETH L.EDWARDS Fax MARTIN H.SIDOR `'-y�Q1 � ,#1a®����1 _ Date Received • - "" Date Completed PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Filing Fee TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . D E C E 11 V E IR APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A —d LAN MAR 1 8 2004 . ig • 1 i New Change of Use Southold Town Re-use --/ Plarmilgfioa'd • Extension ' Revision of Approved Slte Plan • Name of Business or Site: OStI gyS POM X11 on V LN E ,4ltI k )4i7. SCTM#: 1000- iS 0! 62...Q . f 4.,_ g.n rp, Location: /*'O7c /'iI4ih/ % b i Address: PgCC H,e , I yr, Name of Applicant: PI p R /C/L .k/ Uo a 4 L L--- Address of Applicant: ,..<"7$ off.D _ 14it$a it PP hEku_ s 0 40L[ • Telephone: 4,6''" 6fe r • Owner of Land: OS PftAy s ?o Ali l /ON- V,1 }yOut.P S Agent or Person responsible for application: - PRE0fftiCR 'Jtag0IF/ ` Address:• ; : .y -',W7,5— �A//: P Peco.)41C `.-. Telephone: ;;e 5 _ • , • Site plans prepared by: • ' 0 h -- 6.14 ;x'. ji .4 C ARi.�4 e- e4) ,1 License No. C 2. 11 1•'f. Address: S .19 fuAlm(-57. FI J,., ,i '_ 1/73$_ Telephone; ets5 �/ T1s , Page 3 Planning Board Site Plan Applk.amm - - o .trU Total Land Area of Site (acres or square feet) Zoning District • Existing Use of Site F/Agin A PRdcE0/Nb ieEPIIt- StF� Prolsosed Uses on Site.Show all uses proposed ancreXistrg. Indicate which building Will have which use. If more than one use Is proposed per building, Indicate square footage of floor area that will be reserved per use. Pict PZ B4- 6 - 1 - 4173 je s ,.Es osS I c e 3.1) - z 602 PRo tivc.-fi S TO R A C f,V Eg FARM g J-D5 -,3 - gr eve Erfaign r- STOR,A•�J� • 1 -1-147 ross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) • L frf et Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) ,6 7 Percent of Lot Coverage by Bullding(s) 15;117 ?Z,241 091 x40`= •61 Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where applicable) Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by PENP64,C, Board of Appeals- Case#&date wig? -1-t kgpuE (LI M Na Board of Trustees- Case # &date PR,oTL` ,rvo ' NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # &date Ma Suffolk County Department Health Services- Case # & date _ Case Number Name of Applicant / Date of De,Zlsion Expiratior`Date Other f71ESCL t POP 611)05 Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? - ties re so, have proper permits been obtained? Name of Issuing agency StAfFo&K cry DePraF Hake-T/1 "Kices' Number and date of permit issued. •F>1-.c r(--i 7'J tD 1 0 _ .7721 b ON �`3 Ol0 176 ' c IDE 57r 6— L/Ty f.JA?ea rep 4-.1,p ` ,a/O 7'ErD ON sPape-s PERMIT NO ACTION(EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION)MAYBE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN BY PLANNING BOARD. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION. • r � • • • 1 v_ Page Planning Board Site PIanAppiicatlsn • • APPUCANTS AFFIDAVIT • STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK fraPfR1 Ul- ) f/)-I. L being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at 3.7S OLD- /4,4 RSo9t - 1 D - I$'. oScS'a Lk- 119.57 in the State of New York, and that he is the owner of the above property, or that he is the • PRR5 i,Dff of the CS PREys - DON )1I0J4— WIRY/4t-BS CTd7 (Title) • (Specify whether Partnership or Corp.) which Is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, has been clearly established and Is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan Infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the fil'•ng of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed In any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance With the plans submitted. Signed �A :/ ' (Owner) • ) 1 Signed - ; ,�:�� � . � *>'.�.� _ r •artner or Corporate 0 Icer and Tltl: Sworn to me this • � c20.0z-/ /0 day of /•mob rua/v 49- geathba ofau - .. (Notary Public) . 'Ws r. ' BARBARA LAURMAN Natty Public,State Of New'Ycrk No. 01 LA6084233 Qualified In Suffolk County * " vo nmissioo Expires pec,2,20/1.(e. • • • c �A f_,A) aid_la -p a,•-fi , c_ 5 c o. , 5 o3 i PLANNING BOARD U EMBERS - ��oil�W� Fal& - BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. �� ..9 `'`"'*` ®:\ P.O. Box 1179 Chairman ,�� `As"_' µ'`: t=--; l# Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 ..t e,. tom= ® ,_ ,< •J. i. Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO % ;:: . ;s, Q, ,t Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS KENNETH L.EDWARDS `..,.:60, �1� ���' Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN H.SIDOR ®�l ED �C 0. R fi `�E�,_� tib J� PLANNING BOARD OFFICEN®V ® � 203 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM ��R'ii�3�; c�r,t� OF APPEALS Date: November 5, 2003 To: Ms. Oliva, Chairwoman of Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Amended Site Plan Approval and comments for the LIPA Wind Turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zoned AC Status: Active Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in your Department for review. Required Return Date: ASAP , This amended site plan is for New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the A- C Zone located at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. In reference to the above, attached you will find a site plan. The Site Plan reflects the current proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments or concerns. The Planning Board will not be lead agency on the SEQRA review and request comments or concerns at this time. Please compare the enclosed with your Departments records verify any inconsistencies or changes from your file. Site Plan Enclosed and booklet is for your records and does not need to be returned to the Planning Board. Thank you in advance. Cc: file Enc.: 1 Site plan prepared by Bohler Engineering, PC, dated 10/10/03 and the EIS Booklet. 05/06/04 THU 15:15 FAX 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN I]002 xf\ KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP rJ 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 TONT L FINGERRECEIVEPARIS 47,AVENUE HOCH@ 75008 ASSOCIATE TEL (212)715-9239 TEL (03-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715.8235 MAX 6 2004 Pax(33.1)44 09 46 01 tfinger@kr1 merleVin.Com P11111 zOtdfiel� B4A�'® OF APS LS May 6,2004 BY FACSIMILE Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Pcconic Dear Ms. Kowalski: Per our conversation this afternoon,this is to confirm that if the Zoning Board of Appeals is unable to vote on the Long Island Power Authority's above-referenced application at the meeting scheduled for May 20,2004,LIPA agrees to extend the Zoning Board's time to vote on the application until June 3,2004. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Very truly yours, �it Toni L. Finge cc: Mr.Mark Dougherty, LIPA Mr.Frederick Peritore,KeySpan Richard G.Leland, Esq. KL3:2338275,I 4ffiiliate,Studio Santa Maria Alliance:llerwin Leighton Pointer Milan*Rome London*Brussels / e (08 nn 06`- KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP • 919 THIRD AVENUE 611kI Grr v,0� NEW YORK, N.Y 10022-3852 PARIS TON ASS L.FINGER 47,AvENUE HOCHE 75008 ASS47,TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 TEL (212)715-8000 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 FAX (212)715-8000 tfinger@kramerlevin.com old March 24, 2004 t BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department H. Lee Dennison Building, 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 1600 Hauppague,NY 11788-0099' Re: Long Island Power Authority- Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Newman: We represent the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Town of Southold Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic (the "Project") and Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency status and directed its consultant,AKRF, Inc.,to prepare an Environmental Assessment("EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. We understand that the EA was provided to you by the Planning Board in November 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson,Pope &Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your records. These documents were circulated to the involved agencies on March 5, 2004. On March 15, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore,will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non- KL3 2329034 1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels a a KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS ... . RANKEL LLP Mr. Gerald Newman March 24, 2004 Page 2 significance, which was provided to the involved agencies on March 15, 2004, is also enclosed for your records. Please do-not hesitate to contact me or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (212) 715-8087, if you have any questions or require further documentation. Very truly yours, v r i, S- (--/;;,0 Toni L. Finger `J Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon (by FedEx w/o encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/o encl.) KL3 2329034 1 2 % • 00 OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ) (Y\\ 53095 Main Road 1)3 Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski(a7Town.Southold.ny.us 4 o . http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax(631) 765-9064 4/07--u s---F-02.9 I COVER SHEET FOR TRANSMITTAL ATTN: R. daa.vwi 6-7.2 4/0 gi,,„li(a DATE: 3/ 023/2004 SUBJECT: 6r / aa.) MESSAGE: Please find attached copies for your information. ail g fie 3/.2.1 4s 0 G ux, Ean 6.e4) didaza:ado-)e / / Please call us at 765-1809 if you did not receive all sheets. Thank you. �� Pages attached: r . ii d R Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals _ In the Matter of the Application of MAR 2 2 2004 Long Island Power Authority, LesseeZONING BOARD PrraL /o:/0 , SCTM No.: 1000-75-1-20.1 44075 Main Road, Peconic MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION iI Scott DeSimone, Esq. 41780 Route 25 Peconic, New York 11958 (631) 765-3535 1 BACKROUND LIPA,by its authorized agent, Keyspan Electric Services LLC, alleges to have leased a portion of property owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, LTD., for the construction and operation of an energy producing wind turbine that is 100 hundred feet high with three 25 foot blades. APPLICATION Applicant filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 5, 2003. Applicant requires a special exception for the location of a utility structure and an area variance for height. The maximum height for an accessory structure in the Town of Southold is 18 feet. The project description describes a 100 foot tower with three 25 foot blades. Accordingly, the applicant requires a height variance with the blade at its highest peak of 107 feet or 594% relaxation of the maximum height requirement. The application appears to have two different page 2's completed by different people, dated differently, and each claiming different reasons for the grant of an area variance. LIPA has declared themselves as lead agency and has issued negative declaration of significance in connection with the EAF it has submitted. The hearing in this matter was opened December18, 2003 and was adjourned until February 26, 2004. It was continued on March 18, 2004. The hearing has been left open for written submissions. THIS APPLICATION REQUIRES REFERRAL TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The subject property adjoins a New York State highway and therefore the instant application must be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to section 239-m of the General Municipal Law. I am not certain whether this matter has been referred but remind the board that absent referral, a variance granted by the board in this case would render the board's determination void. 2 SEQRA REVIEW I urge the board to scrutinize the EAF closely as it is always suspect when the applicant declares itself lead agency status under SEQRA to perform the environmental review of its own project. Under no circumstances should an applicant proposing development be able to declare themselves lead agency when it is required to seek relief before another agency. This is akin to letting the wolf Sheppard the sheep. The law should not permit this in this situation nor should you. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Height Variance Applicant seeks a height variance to permit a structure that will be 125 feet tall or variance of 107 from the maximum permissible height feet or a 594%relaxation from that maximum height requirement. In order to grant the requested relief, the zoning board must perform a balancing test that weighs the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community. The board must consider five statutory factors when conducting this balancing test. The five factors are 1) will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will it cause a detriment to nearby properties, and 2) can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance, and 3) is the relief requested substantial and 4) will the variance have an'adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and 5) is the alleged difficulty self created. Any area variance relief granted must be supported by substantial evidence. li I have reviewed the application,the memorandum in support submitted by applicant's counsel, and the transcript of testimony offered at the hearing on December 18, 2003. I attended the March 18, 2004 hearing. As of this date, there is insufficient evidence to support the grant of a height variance as requested. The first factor and fourth factor to be considered by the board is whether there will an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will it cause a detriment to nearby properties and will the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Applicant states that"the wind turbine is a structure historically consistent with the agricultural uses of the surrounding properties and would not produce a change in character of the proposed site or nearby properties". This statement is conclusory and unsupported in the record. I am unaware of any operating windmills 3 11110 on the North Fork associated with an ongoing agricultural use. Older windmills can be seen here and there but are left over from another time when no electricity was available and there was no zoning. In any case, I have never seen any older windmills that come close to the height sought here. Contrary to applicant's position on visual impacts and noise, the proposed wind turbine will undoubtedly add to,an already undesirable skyline in the hamlet of Peconic. I maintain my residence and office on the Main Road directly across the street from the police station. I, as well as every other passerby, already have to stare at two cell towers in excess of 100 feet. A third structure of comparable height will be prominently visible to passersby on the Main Road as well as those residences east of me and those along Peconic Lane. The turbine is to be constructed directly behind the winery building. That building is not set back from the Main Road any great distance and the wind turbine at 125 feet will be an imposing site from the Main Road. The applicant has provided a simulated photo depicting the proposed turbine. The photograph provides no assistance to the board in determining what the visual impact will be from the Main Road or any adjoining properties. Quite frankly, it is difficult to discern from where and at what angle the photo is from. Relative to the potential for noise, the applicant has offered no scientific evidence of the noise levels associated with the turbine in operation. While they have made general statements as to the anticipated noise levels,they could have easily retained an audiologist to conduct noise testing at the Calverton site. They did not. I can only imagine the potential noise it could generate when the winds are at 40 or 45 knots, a wind speed just below the automatic trip. If the trip is set at 50 Knots, it must be loud at 50 knots. I do not need to remind you how many days this year the winds reached 40-45 knots. On summer weekend days, Osprey Dominion often has live music which I can hear from my yard which means that those residing immediately to the east and along Peconic Lane can hear it also. How much more noise do we need to hear?The Board should also remain mindful of the Suffolk Times article this week discussing the town's interest in purchasing the Peconic Lane School. It was indicated that the town seeks to redevelop this site in conjunction with the adjoining recreation center as a town pool and park. This property directly adjoins the Osprey Dominion property and would not only have an unobstructed view of the turbine but be in close proximity to the turbine as well. Do we want a Town pool where town residents sitting poolside have to look at and listen to this turbine for the next 20 years. 4 The second factor to consider is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance and that the relief requested is the minimum relief necessary to achieve its objectives. The applicant barely addresses these factors. The applicant owns waterfront property all along the north shore of Suffolk County. They currently have operating power plants directly overlooking the Long Island Sound in Northport and Port Jefferson. They own other property that had been slated for power plants in Shoreham and Riverhead. While the 500 acre parcel in Riverhead was just sold for preservation,the applicant retained 5 acres for the construction of a power substation. The applicant makes no reference to the suitability of these sites, sites they own and which would mitigate the placement of these experimental turbines in residential areas. As a matter of fact,the applicant's site search criteria does not even consider these locations. Additionally,the applicant when preparing its site search criteria was looking for privately owned land and knew it would need a substantial height variance. The site search criteria address mitigation of visual impacts by considering"adequate setbacks from neighbors". The applicant however does not define"adequate" or even consider distance to main thoroughfares. Furthermore, the applicant has generically stated that it requires the height as proposed. The applicant however has not submitted any scientific evidence or otherwise demonstrated with any reliable information or data that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to achieve its goals. When asked by the board about a smaller turbine, the response was that the applicant had already bought it and that's how it comes. Finally, the board should remember that the applicant's proposed project is experiment and therefore denial of the variance as it relates to this particular property would not cause any hardship to the owner or applicant. The only hardship they can argue is economic as a result of their investment in the project. This hardship cannot be considered by the board as they assumed these risks prior to application to the ZBA. The third factor to be considered is whether the relief requested is substantial. It is obviously substantial. So substantial that the relief requested is a height slightly seven times the permitted height and a relaxation of the current maximum height standard of nearly 600%. We are talking about a structure with a height equivalent to a twelve and one half story building. This board has never before granted relief of this magnitude. The potential problem of granting this variance is not necessarily that the decision would be a precedent for the board. The problem is that if the board were to deny another similarly situated applicant who submitted a similar application that 5 �\ I did not meet the statutory criteria necessary to grant the variance,that applicant could argue that the board was acting in an arbitrarily and capricious manner because it was not treating all applications the same way. I have no doubt that based upon this record,that should this board grant the variance requested,this decision will come back to haunt them. The fifth factor to consider is whether the hardship is self created. Quite frankly,the applicant has not even demonstrated a hardship,nor can it. In any event, any hardship that the applicant creatively conjures up would have to be deemed self created. The applicant put an experimental project together which included identifying and purchasing particular turbines and going out and leasing land long before it had ever even considered that it might be before this board seeking such a substantial height variance. Special Exception In order for the board to grant a special exception, the board must determine, amongst other things,that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of properties in adjacent use districts, that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted uses in adjacent use districts,that the health, safety,welfare, comfort and convenience of the of the town will not be adversely affected,that the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, and that the proposed use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a structure that will be 125 feet tall. Unlike the applicant for a cell tower, who could argue that a tower is necessary to provide growing essential telecommunications services,the applicant herein is seeking to conduct an experiment to generate power. A power generation facility is not in harmony with, nor will it promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance or use district in which it is located or those of adjoining use districts. Clearly, with the recent expansion of adjoining.residential uses nearby and the town's espoused intention to develop a town pool directly adjacent to the site, clearly the proposed use is likely to adversely affect the reasonable use of permitted uses in adjacent use districts, and the welfare, comfort and convenience of the of the residents of the town. The proposed project is certain to cause a visual blight and interfere with important scenic vistas as 6 4011) the Main Road is the major east-west thoroughfare in town. These reasons alone should be cause for this board to review this application with close scrutiny and deny it. For many of the reasons expressed above regarding the application for an area variance, there is just no benefit to the community. This project serves as just another assault on the backdrop of our beautiful scenic community. The only benefit arising from this project inures to LIPA so they can conduct their experiment and to the property owner who will be the beneficiary of energy subsidies from LIPA. A 125 foot wind turbine cannot be said to be compatible, or in harmony with the surroundings of the proposed site or with any of the adjacent zoning districts and uses. CONCLUSION LIPA in its usual arrogance designed a project,purchased its equipment, and acquired the property it needed, all before it ever applied for the variance relief it knew it would need. LIPA did the same thing in the Town of Riverhead. It purchased land for the construction of a substation before it ever went to the zoning board for the required special exception. In response to the question of whether it could locate the turbine further north toward the railroad tracks,the applicant stated that the development rights on that parcel had been sold. It does not appear that they investigated who the owner of those development rights was and whether they would permit the proposed project,being that LIPA only needs 875 square feet for site area. While LIPA indicated that it reviewed many sites,they did not present detailed evidence of that analysis and the other sites considered nor did it present evidence that there were no other sites better suited to mitigate the substantial visual and noise impacts expected from this project. Especially,the sites it already owns and/or operates. When asked by the board whether the turbine could be aesthetically improved or reduced in height, LIPA provided no data supporting the requirement of the height and added that,well, we already bought them. LIPA basically went through the motions on this application assuming in their arrogance that the variance would be granted. This board should remain mindful that the hamlet of Peconic is already host to two tall cell tower structures and to permit this project would be piling on. This board should remember that the proposed project is experimental and not necessary for LIPA to provide electrical services to our community and that LIPA did not adequately demonstrate that this site is the only place it can put the turbine or that the turbine must be that tall. This turbine is advertised as capable of 7 providing electricity for twelve homes. At what point does the experiment become reality. If the Board allows the first one,how does it handle the next application from a developer who wishes to include on site electrical production through the means of a wind turbine. Additionally,this board should not let the Calverton project lull them into a false sense of security. That turbine is located at a much greater distance from Edwards Ave. and therefore will not have the same visual and noise impacts as the proposed site. Quite frankly,the photo simulation does adequately demonstrate the visual impacts from the Main Road or adjoining properties. If necessary, LIPA should adjust its site search criteria to look for an alternative location which permits the siting of the turbine at a greater distance from any major thoroughfare, adjoining residential properties, and proposed town parks thus mitigating the substantial visual impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, do not let the lack of opposition at the hearings be the barometer for town wide opposition. Sometimes people just do not know about the application. If anything, the 1989 Church Lane change of zone should be proof of that. I feel fairly certain that if the variance is granted and the turbine constructed, there will be a backlash over it from the silent majority. ' Finally,the applicant has not met its burden of proof having failed to present substantial evidence in support of its application. Based upon the evidence presented,this board can not conclude that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. LIPA has failed to meet the criteria for a special exception and for an area variance. Therefore, this Board must deny the relief requested. 8 'tel ;� KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L MINTZERPARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AvENUE HoCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com March 15, 2004 �h BY FEDERAL EXPRESS BAR 6 2004 Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse Chair, Southold Planning Board zoiml c 9Q,% o� Southold Town Hall APFGALs 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ms. Ruth Oliva Chair, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Ms. Oliva: This is to advise the Southold Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals that LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency for the above-referenced project,has determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and,therefore,will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non-significance is enclosed for your records. As indicated in the notice, this determination was based on the Environmental Assessment Form,the Environmental Assessment dated October 2003 and the revised Environmental Assessment dated March 2004,which addressed comments on the original EA provided to LIPA by the Southold Planning Board's environmental consultant. Please do not hesitate to contact Edward J. Grilli at LIPA or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP (212 715-8087), if you have any questions regarding this determination. Very truly yours, tf/ (4`- Karen L. Mintzer KL3 2327082 IAffiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels e. • KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALI a FRANKEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse March 15, 2004 Page 2 Enclosure cc: yr. Bruno Semon(by FedEx w/encl.) s. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Edward J. Grilli (by FedEx w/encl.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/encl.) KU 2327082 1 .; J State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Date: March 15, 2004 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"), as lead agency,has determined the proposed action described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Southold Wind Turbine Project SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: _Yes X No Description of Action: The construction and operation of a 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Southold,New York. Location: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Southold,New York, SCTM Section 75,Block 1, Lots 20.1 and 20.2. Reasons Supporting This Determination: A long form environmental assessment form ("EAF") was completed in October 2003. In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment ("EA") was prepared in October 2003 and revised in March 2004 to address comments provided by the Town of Southold Planning Board. A determination of significance was issued by LIPA on March 9, 2004. The EA and the revised EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project related to land use, community character, historic and archeological resources,visual resources, natural resources, hazardous materials,waterfront resources, infrastructure,traffic, air quality, noise, and construction. Based upon the EAF,the EA and the revised EA,LIPA has determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. KL3 2321468 1 s ' - For Further Information. Contact Person: Edward J. Grilli Address: Long Island Power Authority 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale,NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail egrilli@lipower.org KL3 2321468 1 ,, 03/16/2064_11:23 FAX 212.715 0 ____ KRAMER LEVIN LLP l]002 c.,: fOt( 1 NELSON POPE & VOCRHIS LLC ' •1 I CN VIgNm ONMENTAL • PLANNI • CONSULT INC 4 ( ..(l 1P c CHARLES J,vOORHIs,eeP.AlOp•ARTHURJ xosmen,PE,.VIOTORMr,,RE I Y / rAj � n,jJL)&EF}I R.EPIfAA9A PE•Room G.N6LSON,JR.,P.S. {� U1J G PAUL M,RAOZ,Pa.•"Moms MED,P E. �f RECEIVED March 11,2004 MAR 1 6 2004 own of Southold Planning Board outhold Town Hall -N 7 c ��'3095 Main Road R E .0 E a Y . ,C r L I PA ;outhold,New York 11971-0959 ZONING SOAP OF APPEALS tIn: Ma.Jerilyrn 13,Woodhouse-Chair MAR 1 5 2004 • Re: L I'A Wind Turbine Enlvimrlan i'..Warnent . • ' • • ,,'t- 'snow NP&V#03434 • Dear Ms.Woodhouse; • At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the revised and resubmitted Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by AKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants (AKRF) and dated March, 2004 for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR), 6NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(2)(i). Previously AKRF submitted an initial draft of the EA in October, 2003 and based on our review of the doour hent and the SEQRA regulations we believed that the document was insufficient as a 1 decision-making tool and submitted several Comments to be addressed in a letter dated January , 19,2003. AKRF has responded to these comments in a letter dated March 5,2004 and prepared a revised EA. Based on our review of the resubmission we find that it adequately addresses all of ( the previous deficiencies of the initial document and reoomttiend that the Planning Board accept the EA as complete to be used for the purpose of reaching a determination of significance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON.POPE&VOORHIS,LLC [qui , Eric Arnesen,RPG Project Man:ter i'n's' i.. ..a_7(. t, arles 3 •oor 's,CEP,AMP Marra_',:Partner , 070 WALT WHITt,1AN Pm AO. McLVILLE, NY 11747-aloe L831)4e7-6GG6 PAX C i)427- eao WWW,NEL3ONPOP=OM TOTAL P.02 03/16/2004 11:23 FAX 212 715 / ^ 0 KRAMER LEVIN LLP I j001 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10022 (212)715-9100 Fax Department: (212)715-9191 MAR.1A2g4 Fax Number: (212)715-8000 .ZONING.BOARD.OF.APEEUES FROM: Toni L. Ferrucci DATE: March 16, 2004 PHONE: (212) 715-9239 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT COMPANY FAX No. PHONE No. 1. Ms.Linda Kowalski Southold Town Hall 631.765.9064 631.765.1809 2. Mr.James McAllister AKRF 631.265.3796 631.265.0735 Total number of pages including this page: 2 The documents accompanying this facsimile transmission are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you. Re: LIPA KI3'23273241 A , i KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCI-IE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com 3 -RECE1VFD March 15, 2004 i MAR 1 6 2004 i BY FEDERAL EXPRESS " ZONING BOAR!? OF APPEALS Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse Chair, Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ms. Ruth Oliva (., Chair, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Ms. Oliva: This is to advise the Southold Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals that LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency for the above-referenced project,has determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non-significance is enclosed for your records. As indicated in the notice, this determination was based on the Environmental Assessment Form, the Environmental Assessment dated October 2003 and the revised Environmental Assessment dated March 2004, which addressed comments on the original EA provided to LIPA by the Southold Planning Board's environmental consultant. Please do not hesitate to contact Edward J. Grilli at LIPA or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP (212 715-8087), if you have any questions regarding this determination. Very truly yours, / ,a-'""-m' . ,,,/.. ..____, ( 62 (// Karen L. Mintzer KL3 2327082 1 Affiliate Studio Santa Maria Alliance Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan *Rome London *Brussels , i ' KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse March 15, 2004 Page 2 Enclosure cc: Mr. Bruno Semon(by FedEx w/encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Edward J. Grilli (by FedEx w/encl.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/encl.) KL3 2327082 I State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Date: March 15, 2004 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"), as lead agency,has determined the proposed action described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Southold Wind Turbine Project SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: The construction and operation of a 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Southold,New York. Location: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Southold,New York, SCTM Section 75,Block 1, Lots 20.1 and 20.2. Reasons Supporting This Determination: A long form environmental assessment form ("EAF")was completed in October 2003. In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment("EA")was prepared in October 2003 and revised in March 2004 to address comments provided by the Town of Southold Planning Board. A determination of significance was issued by LIPA on March 9, 2004. The EA and the revised EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project related to land use, community character,historic and archeological resources, visual resources,natural resources,hazardous materials,waterfront resources, infrastructure, traffic, air quality, noise, and construction. Based upon the EAF,the EA and the revised EA, LIPA has determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. • K13 2321468 1 For Further Information Contact Person: Edward J. Grilli Address: Long Island Power Authority 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale,NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail egrilli@lipower.org KI3 2321468 1 "1 ,,Q,, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP °'� 6;,� 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmmtzer@kramerlevin.com psi MAR U 8 2004 March 5, 2004 v-'P'-) _i-cr _t5, tYLIIMO BOAilEa OF APPEALS BY HAND Ms. Ruth Oliva Chair, Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Oliva: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and operate a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Southold. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency statuts and directed its consultant, AKRF, Inc.,to prepare an Environmental Assessment(`BA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson, Pope&Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V"). In response to those comments, LIPA has revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your review. You will note that the revised EA contains additional analysis of the potential visual impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. This additional analysis should address your concerns regarding the views of the wind turbine from Route 25. LIPA intends to make a SEQRA determination of significance regarding the proposed wind turbine by March 15, 2004. Accordingly, to the extent that the ZBA has any comments KL3 2324904 IAffiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Rome London*Brussels I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FR'INKEL LLP Ms. Ruth Oliva March 5, 2004 Page 2 regarding the revised EA or LIPA's environmental review of the proposed wind turbine, we request that such comments be provided to LIPA, or its counsel,prior to that date. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse Ms. Linda Kowalski (w/enclosures) KL3 2324904 1 Environmental and Planning Consultants 222 Middle Country Road,Suite 314 Smithtown,NY 11787 tel: 631 265-0735 fax:631 265-3796 www.akrfcom March 5,2004 Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse Chair,Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA—Proposed Wind Turbine, Response to Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC Environmental Assessment Review Comments Dated January 19,2004 Dear Ms.Woodhouse: We are the environmental consultants that prepared the October 2003 Environmental Assessment(EA)on behalf of LIPA in connection with the proposed wind turbine to be constructed on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. We have reviewed Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) comments on the EA, which were submitted to the Town of Southold Planning Board on January 19, 2004. On LIPA's behalf, we offer the following responses to those comments. The EA has also been modified to reflect the responses to NP&V's comments. The new text has been highlighted to aid in your review of the EA enclosed herewith. Figures: NP&V Comment 1: In Chapter 1, Section D it is stated that five (5) sites in Suffolk County were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Figure 1-3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered one (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional site omitted from the total. Response: Figure 1-3 has been revised to show that five sites were considered as part of the initial LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project. Section B Land Use, Zoning and Community Facilities, Probable Impact, Land Use, Project Site page 2-4¶1: NP&V Comment 2: It is stated that the proposed wind turbine would not conflict with the character of the general area immediately adjacent to or within the general area of the project site since historically,wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. While it is recognized that windmills have been and are still located on the eastern end of Long Island their use has been partially or directly related to the activities occurring on each farm which with they are associated. It is apparent that the placement of a wind AKRF, Inc. • New York City • White Plains • Long Island • Western New York • Baltimore / Washington Area Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 2 March 5,2004 r` turbine at the subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Dominion Vineyards with the exception of an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kilowatt hours(kwh)issued to the land owner. In addition,from an aesthetic point of view, the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with windmills historically utilized on the east end of Long Island. Several of these structures which still exist in village and hamlets of Long Island (i.e., Sag Harbor, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer a much different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice tower wind turbine would not offer. As a result the proposed structure may present visual characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic normally associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sections which state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical use of windmills on farms within Long Island. Response: LIPA acknowledges that the proposed wind turbine is different in appearance from historic windmills. However, as analyzed in the EA, the proposed action does not pose significant impacts with regard to land use and zoning or visual resources. The EA has been revised accordingly in response to this comment. Pages 2-4 through 2-10 NP&V Comment 3: Analysis of probable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a new-type of windmill structure, different in context, design, and function than historical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions). • The setback to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual character,noise, safety, and aesthetics. • Setback to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflicts. • The configuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and future use of the subject parcel. Response: Long Island, according to "The Windmills of Long Island" author Robert J. Hafner, is an ideal place for harnessing the steady wind from the ocean and bays. Many windmills were built and still exist on Long Island, particularly on the East End and are part of the wooden technology of the past. In fact, the South Fork of eastern Long Island contains the greatest number of surviving windmills in the United States. Windmills were a vital necessity to early settlers of Long Island just as electricity is to current inhabitants. The windmills were constructed to produce energy to mill grain, saw wood, pump water, and do various other jobs. The wind turbine is being proposed as part of LIPA's Clean Air Initiative to create needed electricity for modern day technology without burning fossil fuels. So while different in size and design, they share a common theme. a. The wind turbine is proposed to be located on a 4.5-acre lot which is part of a 50-acre site K owned by Osprey's.Dominion Vineyard. Development rights for approximately 46 acres .Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 3 March 5,2004 of this property have been sold to Suffolk County ensuring that this property adjacent to the proposed wind turbine will remain undeveloped. The nearest residential zoning district is an R-80 zoning district, which is over 600 feet away. Lots in an R-80 zoning district must be a minimum of 2-acres. Setback requirements in R-80 zoning districts, as in other Southold zoning districts, are designed to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses by requiring appropriate distances between developments. The location of the proposed wind turbine on the central portion of a 50-acre site, in conjunction with the setbacks required for development of properties in adjacent zoning districts, ensures that the wind turbine is an adequate distance from any residential development that may occur in the future. Accordingly, there are no potential land use conflicts. The EA has been revised accordingly,as indicated above,to address these comments. NP&V Comment 4: The statement on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surrounding the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned" goes beyond a rationale conclusion based on the information presented. It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A-C zoned properties. Response: It was not the intention of the statement on page 2-6 to draw the conclusion that the proposed use fosters the preservation of the agricultural use solely because it is a historically consistent structure. There were a number of factors which resulted in the conclusion that the wind turbine is consistent with existing land uses and encourages the continued use of agricultural land. The Long Island Farm Bureau, a function of which is to preserve agricultural lands, and LIPA jointly identified potential agricultural sites for placement of these facilities. A requirement of the program is that the wind turbines be located on agricultural property. It is reasonable to conclude that the Long Island Farm Bureau would not support the wind turbine demonstration program if the program was incompatible with agricultural uses. The statement on page 2-6 has been modified to address this comment. NP&V Comment 5: The statement on page 2-7 referring to four(4)vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generation information on page 2-22.This information should be reconciled. Response: It is anticipated that a maximum of four vehicle trips per month would be generated as a result of this project.This comment has been addressed on pages 2-7, 2-10, and 2-22. NP&V Comment 6: With regard to the information presented in response to "Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate, and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof' the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Response: No expansion is anticipated. Comment noted and addressed on page 2-8. NP&V Comment 7: Statements on page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further support as indicated above. Response: Comment and prior comments have been noted.The EA has been modified to provide the necessary support. Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 4 March 5,2004 NP&V Comment 8: With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously indicated. Response: Comment has been addressed as stated above on pages 2-7,2-10,and 2-22. NP&V Comment 9: Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located within the boundaries of the property, "...which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Response: LIPA has committed to providing landscaping on the publicly visible sides (i.e., southern and western) of the proposed wind turbine. The northern and eastern sides face the vineyards, which are not accessible to the public. Though different in size, structure, and materials from the typical wooden windmills historically associated with Long Island farms,the proposed wind turbine would be a modernized structure consistent with current farm land uses.The EA has been revised accordingly. NP&V Comment 10: Page 2-10 indicates that the facility is "...consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Response: The proposed facility is consistent with the existing development on the site and will be located on only 0.02 acres of land that is now vacant. The proposed wind turbine project is not inconsistent with agricultural uses or the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Specifically, the project would not degrade or consume natural resources or features, or prevent the opportunity to continue the use of farm practices in the area.This comment has been addressed on pages 2-11 and 2-30 of the EA. NP&V Comment 11: With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with the architectural features of"... the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood." Response: While different in size and appearance-from historic windmills, the proposed facility would be consistent with adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The wind turbine, while visually and physically different in height and appearance from windmills historically associated with agricultural uses, does not conflict with the existing site uses. This comment has been addressed on pages 2-8,2-10, and 2-11. Section C Historic and Archeological Resources, Archeological Resources,Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-15,¶4 NP&V Comment 12: It is stated that the proposed location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P 1B investigation and that no archeological resources would be impacted by the propose project since the tower still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil types.Upon inspection of the site, it was observed that the •Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 5 March 5,2004 proposed tower will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether this portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farming activities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find the information from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage 1B Archeological Assessment. It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage lB assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Response: The shovel test pits, while not at the exact location of the proposed footprint for the wind turbine, are believed to be at a close enough distance to warrant the same conclusions for this location, which has been cleared, graded, and planted with turf grass. No archaeological resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. To ensure that there are no unanticipated impacts during disturbance of this area for the purpose of constructing the wind turbine, staff from Historical Perspectives, Inc., will be on-site to monitor the excavation for the purpose of identifying any possible archeological resources. Section D Visual Resources,Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-16 NP&V Comment 13: Visual impact assessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar facilities in the context of the area and/or corridor subject-to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, sensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area, but the exact height and location of this utility are not provided, and the zoning, "surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different from a Police cell tower. Finally, the pre-existence of a Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape,particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural,A-C zoned location that may be different from other more intense use areas. The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings" does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements at the end on the section, "...the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility" and "Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely al''ected"are not fully supported given the information requested above. It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent or similar to a • Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 6 March 5,2004 flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the tower to be of a different character and larger than that to which is being compared. Please provide additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind turbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Response: Section D, "Visual Resources," of the modified EA, has been completely revised to follow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Program Policy (DEP-00-2, July 31, 2000) entitled "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts."The modified EA addresses each comment listed above. Section G Waterfront Revitalization,Town of Southold LWRF,page 2-20 NP&V Comment 14: Insufficient information is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. Response: As concluded in EA Section D, "Visual Resources," the proposed facility would not significantly impair the visual landscape as experienced from any scenic or historic resource or interfere with or reduce the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of any inventoried scenic, historic, or locally significant resource. Accordingly,the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. NP&V Comment 15: With regard to Policy 12, please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Response: A review of Policy 12 does not indicate other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural land surrounding the wind turbine. Section H Infrastructure,Existing Conditions,Sanitary Sewage,page 2-23 NP&V Comment 16: It is stated that since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However, the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a visitor's center which discharges some volume of sanitary effluent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site and method of disposal. Response: The project site is proposed to be sited on 0.02 acres of an approximately 50-acre site. The existing winery/visitor center currently contributes to sewage flow, however, the project site is an existing grass field that does not currently contribute to any sanitary discharge and would not in the future with the proposed project. This comment has been addressed on page 2-32. Section I Traffic,page 2-23 NP&V Comment 17: It is stated that the turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that there would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Please provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. Response: The trip generation figure of four vehicle trips per month is based on LIPA's experience with the existing wind turbine facility in the Town of Riverhead and from the •Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 7 March 5,2004 recommended maintenance schedule provided by the wind turbine manufacturer. This documentation is included as Attachment D to the modified EA. Section K Noise,Noise Prediction Methodology,pages 2-27 and 2-28 NP&V Comment 18: The basis for the maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the source of this approximate sound power level,and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation.Noise monitoring station- locations and receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aerial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information concerning methodology for decibel addition and support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exists,based on zoning. Response: (See bulleted items below) • As identified in the EA on page 2-37,the source of the sound power level was identified by the manufacturer based upon field measurements of existing installations. • Design specifications for the 50 kW wind turbine are included in Attachment D to the modified EA. The AOC 15/50 has been designed as a low-noise emission turbine. The sources of noise are the drive train and the aerodynamic emissions of the rotor as it passes the supporting structure. A diagram of the drive train assembly is also included in Attachment D. • A new figure,Figure 2-10,has been included in the EA which depicts the location of the proposed wind turbine and the noise monitoring receptor. • Predicated noise level calculations have been included as Attachment E to the modified EA. • Based on the existing zoning,no residential structures can be built any closer to the project site due to setback and other site requirements. Additional Information NP&V Comment 19: Mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA. Mitigation to be considered would include the following: • Modified tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or provide more appropriate historical context. • Modified location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or, an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the facility within the parcel. Property configuration,receptors,wetlands areas, and future potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Landscape screening at base of tower to"soften"mass of structure, screen fence, and partially screen base of tower. • Conditions in balance of property within proximity to tower to maintain access control, and improve safety within"fall zone"and immediate area. Other mitigation which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary. .17) Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 8 l March 5,2004 Response: SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Since no significant adverse environmental impacts were identified in the EA, mitigation measures were not included as part of this analysis. In addition, several of the mitigation measures suggested are not practicable or are unnecessary. For example, the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested as the wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. Also, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind • turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process, which is described in the EA. The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to safety, the wind turbine would be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly,no safety mitigation measures would be necessary. Miscellaneous Comments NP&V Comment 20: Inspection of the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where occasional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at the winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discuss any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design, or institutional controls to protect employees and/or visitors to the winery. Response: The EA has been revised to include the specific safety measures that LIPA intends to undertake as part of the proposed project. Such safety measures, identified on page 2-1 of the EA and illustrated on the proposed site plan submitted to the Planning Board'on October 20, 2003,mclude an 8-foot chain link barbed wire fence that would be locked at all times with the exception of maintenance and emergency visits. The fence would be screened from public view with landscape plantings. We trust that the above and the modified EA are responsive to NP&V's comments on the EA. Sincerely, AKRF j C. ,411 pAczf;fr-----) . es P.McAllister v ice President cc: Ms.Ruth Oliva(w/enclosure) Mr.Bruno Semon(w/enclosure) Ms.Linda Kowalski (w/enclosure) Mr.Mark Dougherty(w/enclosure) Mr.Frederick Peritore(w/enclosure) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/enclosure) '02/11/2004 14:50 FAX 212 715 80"" KRAMER LEVIN LLP [1002 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 RICHARD G.LELANDPARIS PARTNER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-8087 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-7569 FAx (33-1)44 09 46 01 rIeland@kramerlevin.com February 9, 2004 BY FAX AND HAND Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chair,Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hal] 53095 Main Road ' Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA-Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic • Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above- referenced project (the"Project"),which is the subject of an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval and applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception use and a height variance. We have reviewed the January 19,2004 report of the Planning Board's consultant, Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC ("NPV"), which contains NPV's comments on the Environmental Assessment("EA")prepared by LLPA's consultant,which was submitted to the Planning Board, as well as the ZBA, in October 2003. LIPA, which is acting as lead agency for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the Project as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"),will revise the EA to respond to NPV's comments as described below. Figures-LIPA will revise the EA to clarify the number and location of sites that were considered for the wind turbine demonstration project, of which this Project is a part. Section B Land Use, Zoninand Community Facilities -LIPA will revise the EA to address NPV's comments regarding the historical use of windmills and NPV's specific comments on pages 2-4 through 2-10 of the EA. KL3.2319614 5 Affiliate.'Studio Sawn-Marra Alliance'Berwirt LeightonParsuer London"Brussels • 02/11/2004 14:51 FAX 212 715 8""" KRAMER LEVIN LLP Z003 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse February 9, 2004 Page 2 Section C Historic and Archeological Resources-The EA will be revised to include further discussion regarding the potential archeological impacts resulting from the small change in the proposed location of the Project. Section_D Visual Resources -)LPA will revise the EA to provide additional information regarding its assessment of the Project's potential impacts on visual resources. Section G Waterfront Revitalization- The EA will be revised to address NPV's comments regarding Policies 3 and 12 of the Town of Southold Waterfront Revitalization Plan. Section I-I Infrastructure-NPV has asked LIPA to provide information regarding the sanitary effluent of the winery,which is located on Block 1, Lot 20.2. As stated in the current EA,the Project, which will be located on Block 1,Lot 20.1,will create no additional sewage flow whatsoever. Accordingly, the sanitary effluent from the already existing winery is not relevant to the analysis of potential sewage impacts resulting from the construction of the wind turbine. The EA will be revised to clarify this fact. Section I Traffic-The EA will be revised to clarify that, once constructed,the Project will generate a maximum of 4 vehicle trips during weekly or biweekly facility checks or monthly or quarterly preventative maintenance visits. The Project will not generate traffic at any other time. Section K Noise,Noise Prediction Methodology-The EA will be revised to provide additional information regarding the source of the predicted maximum sound power level and the details of the noise prediction methodology used. Additional information-NPV asserts that"mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA." It is our view that mitigation measures are not required to be included in an EA. SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Moreover, even if LIPA were to consider mitigation measures, several of the mitigation measures listed by NPV are impracticable or unnecessary. For example,the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested by NPV, as the wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. In addition, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process,which is described in the EA. The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to NPV's comments regarding safety,the wind turbine will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly,no safety mitigation measures will be necessary. Miscellaneous Comments -LIPA will address NPV's miscellaneous comments in the revised BA. • 7:I3 2316614,5 02/11/2004 14:51 FAX 212 715 8C"" KRAMER LEVIN LLP E 004 p KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Ms_Jerilyn B.Woodhouse February 9,2004 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, 14 ---- Richard G.Leland cc: Mr. Bruno Semon, Southold Planning Board Ms. Linda Kowalski, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Mr.Mark Dougherty,LIPA Mr.Frederick Peritore,KeySpan Mr. James McAllister,ARRF Karen Mintzer,Esq. i 1 • K1.3'2318614 5 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com October 21, 2.003 (y BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OCT 2 2 2003 1 Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority Applications for a Height Variance and Special Exception Use Dear Ms. Kowalski: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above-referenced applications. Per our conversation earlier today, we enclose Part A of the ZBA application form, which was omitted mistakenly from the application package sent to you yesterday. We also enclose 6 additional copies of the entire application, as well as 6 additional copies of the environmental assessment("EA") and full environmental assessment form (attached to the EA). At your suggestion,we will send five additional copies of the EA to the Planning Board. As we discussed, the location of the proposed wind turbine is on SCTM 1000 Section 75, Block 1, Lot 20.1,which is 4.64 acres. A winery is already located on Lot 20.1,however,two acres are available to be dedicated to the requested public utility use. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. Ver truly yours, - "44' l Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures x[a 2297472 1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS LLP Ms. Linda Kowalski October 21, 2003 Page 2 cc: Mr. Frederick Peritore (w/Part A.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. OCT 2 2 2003 1 KL3 2297472 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022-3852 RICHARD G.LELAND PARIS PARTNER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-8087 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-7569 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 rIeland@kramerlevin.com October 20, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS i OCT 2 1 2003 Ms. Linda Kowalski 19 °'Lot Ety,— e Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals — Southold Town Hall ((oaf-ate Auf. )(IL--A-au-41 53095 Main Road // Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority Applications for a Height Variance and Special Exception Use Dear Ms. Kowalski: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications for a height variance and special exception use permit for the proposed construction of a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Peconic. LIPA, through its agent Keyspan Electrical Services, LLC ("Keyspan"), has leased a portion of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard for this purpose. LIPA has also submitted an application for site plan approval to the Planning Board. A copy of the proposed site plan submitted to the Planning Board is enclosed for your reference. In addition to the applications for a height variance and special exception use and copy of the proposed site plan,we enclose a certification from LIPA authorizing Keyspan to act as its agent for purposes of these applications, a copy of Keyspan's lease with Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, the current certificate of occupancy for the property, and a check for$200. As you know, LIPA is acting as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). LIPA's environmental consultant has prepared • an environmental assessment ("EA") and an updated full environmental assessment form ("EAF") analyzing the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. As the ZBA is a SEQRA involved agency, we enclose the EA and EAF for ZBA review. We request that the ZBA provide any comments on the EA or EAF to me as soon as possible, so that LIPA may take those comments into consideration when making its determination of significance. KL3 2297155 t Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan*Rome London*Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& L''' VKEL LLP 1"" Ms. Linda Kowalski October 20, 2003 Page 2 Please do not hesitate to contact me or my colleague, Karen Mintzer(212) 715-7775, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, Richard G. Leland Enclosures cc: Mr. Fred Peritore(w/encl.) _J i` KL3 2297156 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP VENDOR: 103726 TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD CHECK NUMBER. 41109 REF# INV. # INV. DATE INV. AMOUNT INV. DESCRIPTION AMT. PAID 104269 102003-1 10-20-03 200.00 200 00 ii STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) I, Edward Grilli, Chief of Staff of the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"), hereby authorize Keyspan to act as LIPA's agent and handle all necessary work involved in LIPA's applications for (a) site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board, and (b) a special exception use permit and height variance from the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. efi—WARD GRILLI Sworn to before me this A-j day of October, 2003 Notary P. e is ROBERT J. CONROY • -ry Public, State of New-York No. 01 C06038213 Qualified in Nassau County ittttssidn Expires March.6 KL3 2296081 I . Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 10/27/03 Receipt#: 41109 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $200.00 Check#:41109 Total Paid: $200.00 Name: Long, Island Power Authority 333 Eagle Ovington Blvd Suite 403 Uniondale, NY 11553 Clerk ID: LYNDAB Internal ID:83080 ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE = G'yd`` Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ; y $ P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold,New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER �� y 0�. I Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER �_ Ol ,,i Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER = „ � southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: October 27, 2003 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5450 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5450—Long Island Power Authority-Zoning Board of Appeals application for special exception. Also included are letter from Edward Grilli, letter from Kramer Levin,Naftalis &Frankel, LLP, five certificate of occupancys, site plan, lease agreement,wind turbine demonstration project. f p LEASE AGREEMENT OCT 2 1 2003 ;'care : r, , •�, j between LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY d/b/a LIPA through its Agent KEYSPAN ELECTRIC SERVICES, L.L.C. and Osprey's Dominion Vineyards LAND OWNER LEASE AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Recitals 1 Definitions 1 Section 1 General Agreements -- _ _ 2 Section 2 Premises [ — '� 3 Section 3 Installation and Maintenance / OCT 2 1 2003 3 Section 4 Term Section 5 Renewal Terms _� =``° 4 Section 6 Rent During Initial Term - 5 Section 7 Rent During Renewal Term 5 Section 8 Access 5 Section 9 Mechanic's Liens - 5 Section 10 Legal Compliance 5 Section 11 , Indemnification and Insurance 6 Section 12 Surrender and Holdover 7 Section 13 Default 8 Section 14 Assignment or Sublease 8 Section 15 Notices 8 Section 16 Quiet Enjoyment; Warranty of Title 9 Section 17 Fire and Other Casualty 9 Section 18 Condemnation 10 Section 19 Coordination of Operation 11 Section 20 Brokers 11 Section 21 Memorandum of Lease 11 Section 22 Subordination/Public Service Commission Approval 11 Section 23 No Offer; Effectiveness 11 Page Section 24 Entire Agreement; Severability 12 Section 25 Limitation on Landlord's Liability 12 Section 26 Transfer of Landlord's Interest in the Property 12 Section 27 Authority 12 Section 28 Review of Lease 12 Section 29 Parties Bound by Lease 13 Section 30 Governing Law 13 Section 31 Hazardous Substances 13 Section 32 Taxes 13 Exhibit A Site Plan Showing-Ground Area 15 Exhibit B System Facility 16 Exhibit C Landlord's Electric Accounts 17 - 77,7 l ii I; OCT 2 .� 2003 • LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT("AGREEMENT")is made as of this 26 day of 19vGIf , 2003 by and between Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a LIPA through its agent,KEYSPAN ELECTRIC SERVICES, LLC, a New York limited liability company,having principal offices at 175 East Old Country Road,Hicksville,New York 11801 ("Tenant")and Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, LAND OWNER,having offices at 44075 Main Road,Peconic, New York 11958 ("Landlord"). WITNESSETH: RECITALS Tenant proposes to lease, a portion of certain real property owned or occupied by Landlord for the purpose of siting, installing, operating, and maintaining a wind-powered electric generator system("system"). Landlord is willing to grant certain rights to Tenant for such purpose provided that such facilities do not adversely impact or interfere with Landlord's operations or otherwise violate the covenants,terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants,terms and conditions contained herein,the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree as follows: DEFINITIONS For all purposes of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly stated herein or unless the context otherwise requires: (1) The terms defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them as-stated herein and include the plural as well as the singular. (2) Commencement Date means the first day of the month following the date that construction of Tenant's Equipment, as defined below,has commenced. (3) Ground Area means that portion of the Owner's Property/Site, as defined below, which is described in the site plan contained in Exhibit A,where Tenant will be permitted to install Tenant's Equipment and other equipment and facilities necessary to support the operation of the system. (4) Owner's Property or Site means the real property owned or occupied by Landlord where Tenant's Equipment, as defined below, will be located. - 1 - OCT 2 2003 (5) Premises i �, - es means that portion of the Property/Site compnsmg.�theGround, Area together with the Related Easements, as defined below,which are shown on the site plan --- contained in Exhibit A. (6) Related Easements as described in the site plan contained in Exhibit A means any and all easements, licenses, site access or other agreements,which Tenant must procure from Landlord or third parties that are required to access, construct,install, operate,maintain,repair or restore Tenant's Equipment, as defined below. (7) Tenant's Equipment means the wind-powered electric generator described in Exhibit B owned by Tenant, including one 50kW wind turbine, 100' lattice tower, a placement concrete slab, electrical and mechanical tie in material,mounting brackets and fasteners, disconnect switches, data acquisition systems with remote monitoring and dispatch capabilities, detented meter;and cable to LIPA's electric transmission and distribution system, and all personal property, and equipment necessary for the maintenance and operation of such facility. 1. GENERAL AGREEMENTS A. This Lease sets forth the terms and conditions applicable to the Site leased by Landlord to Tenant hereunder. B. Tenant shall submit to Landlord plans and specifications for construction and installation of the wind energy system at such Site. Said plans and specifications shall comply with the LIPA's Rules and Regulations for Electric Installations, in effect at the time of drafting thereof. C. If Tenant uses the Owner's Property for any purpose other than as provided for herein, Landlord shall have the right to terminate this Lease by providing thirty(30)days written notice of same to Tenant. D. Tenant's use and/or occupancy,regardless of its duration, of the Owner's Property,or other facilities owned by Landlord or any other third party, shall not create or vest in Tenant any ownership, property or possessory right in said property, facilities. Landlord shall have the right at any time to grant similar leases for use of the Premises to other persons,or entities. Nothing herein shall be construed as affecting the rights or privileges previously conferred by Landlord,by contract or otherwise,to other parties using the Owner's Property or other facilities owned by Landlord,whether it is for a purpose similar to that contemplated under this Agreement or otherwise, and Landlord shall have the right to continue to extend such rights and privileges to said parties. The privileges and lease(s)granted to Tenant herein are subject to any and all arrangements and/or agreements, by contract or otherwise,which Landlord has with other parties as of the date of execo.tion of this Lease. • - 2 - 2. PREMISES Upon execution of this Agreement,Landlord shall lease to Tenant,pursuant to the terms and conditions stated therein,the Premises and grants to Tenant the right to operate Tenant's Equipment. 3. INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE A. Tenant's Equipment (1) Landlord grants to Tenant the right to construct, install, operate,maintain, repair,modify, and remove Tenant's Equipment as specified in this Agreement. (2) Tenant shall install its Equipment, at Tenant's sole cost and expense. Tenant shall be responsible for maintenance, at its sole cost and expense, of the Equipment and all equipment and systems contained therein or related thereto. B. Contractors All of Tenant's contractors and subcontractors must be approved by Landlord,in writing,prior to commencing any construction, installation,maintenance,restoration, modification or other activities contemplated herein, said approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or conditioned. C. Owner's Property Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated herein,Landlord shall retain the right, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement,to perform any construction, installation,maintenance, alteration,repair, or removal of any structures, facilities or equipment located on or about the Owner's Property, including but not limited to the Premises,provided said work does not materially affect Tenant's operations except as otherwise provided for herein. Owner shall seek Tenant's prior approval before erecting or planting any structure or crop which will be both {i} twenty five(25) feet or greater in height acid {ii}within a two hundred(200) foot radius of the Equipment. D. Costs Tenant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred in performance of its obligations under this Section 3. In addition, Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for,all costs and expenses incurred by Landlord on Tenant's behalf to facilitate the installation,construction, maintenance,modification,repair, removal, and/or operation of Tenant's Equipment(to the extent required to accommodate Tenant's Equipment as set forth above). Said costs and expenses shall be subject to Tenant's prior approval,which shall not be unreasonably withheld. - 3 - E. Miscellaneous (1) Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, shall at all times maintain-Tenant's Equipment and the Premises in good, clean, safe and operable condition and shall not permit the Site or Tenant's Equipment to deteriorate,become unsightly,or unsafe. Landlord, at its sole cost and expense, shall at all times maintain the Owner's Property and access thereto in good, clean, safe and operable condition except as otherwise provided for herein. (2) Any construction, installation, maintenance, repair, or-modification or other activity undertaken by Landlord or Tenant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in a good,workman-like manner. 4. TERM AND TERMINATION This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by both parties hereto. The initial term of the lease for the Site shall be twenty(20)years commencing on the execution date(the Initial Term.") In the event, Landlord terminates this Agreement prior to the expiration of the Initial or any Renewal Term,Landlord shall pay Tenant liquidated damages in accordance with the following schedule: Year of Lease Term Liquidated Damages $Amount 1 50,000 2 40,000 3 30,000 4 20,000 5 10,000 6-15 1,000 16-20 0 Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty(30)days written notice to Landlord in the event Tenant determines that Tenant's Equipment has become obsolete, or Tenant, in its sole discretion, determines to terminate all or a portion of the demonstration project associated with the siting of Tenant's Equipment on the Premises pursuant to this Agreement. - 5. RENEWAL TERM Tenant shall have the opportunity to exercise one ten(10)year renewal term(Renewal Term) Tenant may exercise the option to renew by providing Landlord with written notice thereof no later than ninety(90) days prior to the expiration of the immediately preceding term. -4 - 6. RENT DURING INITIAL TERM Effective as of the installation and operation of Tenant's Equipment,LIPA will provide Landlord with an electric energy credit equivalent to 25,000 kWh per year. The energy credit to be provided to the Landlord may be applied against Landlord's actual use of electricity and may not be sold, assigned or transferred. The electric energy credit will be applied to,the Landlord's LIPA electric account(s) listed in Exhibit C attached hereto. 7. RENT DURING RENEWAL TERM The annual rent at the Site for the Renewal Term shall be equal to the annual rent for the immediately preceding year. 8. v ACCESS In accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, Landlord agrees that Tenant and its contractors, subcontractors, agents and invitees will have access to the Premises at the Site being leased by Tenant for the purpose of operating and maintaining Tenant's Equipment,including but not limited to 24 hour seven day a week emergency access,provided Tenant gives Landlord advance-notice as is reasonable practicable. Tenant and its invitees shall also have the right to access the Site for public relations and publicity purposes. Under no circumstances shall Tenant's access to the Premises prevent Landlord from effectively operating its business. Tenant agrees to refrain from exercising its right of access to the Premises, as provided for herein, in instances where Landlord's ability to effectively operate its business may be hindered by Tenant's access,but in such event Landlord agrees to use reasonable good faith efforts to provide to Tenant alternate access to the Premises,where reasonably practicable. 9. MECHANIC S LIENS If,because of any act or omission of Tenant, any mechanic's lien or other lien, charge or order for the payment of money is filed against the Premises or Owner's Property, Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense,cause the same to be discharged of record,by bond or otherwise,within thirty.(30) days after Tenant has received notice of the filing of same. , 10. LEGAL COMPLIANCE Tenant shall comply with every applicable requirement of law, in exercising its rights and fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement. Tenant's Equipment shall be constructed, - 5 - - installed,operated,maintained,modified,restored, or removed in accordance with the requirements of the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the same. • 11. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE A. Landlord or Tenant(the Indemnifying Party) shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees, invitees, successors and/or assigns (the Indemnified Party) from any liabilities,penalties, losses, costs, damages, claims, expenses,reasonable attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, suits, judgments, liens and encumbrances, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement and/or the Indemnifying Party's use and occupancy of the Premises, Tenant's Equipment,Landlord's equipment and facilities, or the Owner's Property,whenever made or incurred, including any and all liability imposed by law, and/or contract, and/or custom, upon the Indemnified Party except to the extent of Indemnified Party's negligence or willful misconduct, and in no event shall the Indemnified Party be entitled to recover lost profits, consequential damages or punitive damages pursuant to this indemnification provision. The Indemnified Party shall have the right to demand that the Indemnifying Party undertake to investigate, and defend the Indemnified Party against, any and all such liabilities,penalties, losses, costs, damages, claims, expenses, reasonable attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, suits,judgments, liens and encumbrances,whether justified or not, arising out of the Indemnifying Party's use and occupancy of the Premises,Tenant's Equipment,Landlord's equipment and facilities, or the Owner's Property. B. Tenant shall, at its own expense,.procure and maintain until expiration and/or termination of this Agreement,the following minimum insurance with insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the Landlord. Tenant shall be responsible for determining and requiring,prior to the commencement of any work on Owner's Property, that all of Tenant's agents, employees, licensees, invitees, contractors and subcontractors who do work on the Owner's Property are similarly in compliance with this Agreement's Section 11 insurance provisions at all times. Tenant, its contractors, subcontractors and agents shall name"Landlord" as an additional insured on all required insurance policies hereunder. Tenant shall deliver, PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK SPECIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT, a Certificate of Insurance showing that the insurance, as outlined, is in force and that not less than thirty(30) days notice will be given to Landlord prior to cancellation, termination or material alteration of said insurance. Tenant will not be permitted to bring its employees, agents, licensees, invitees, contractors, subcontractors,materials and/or equipment on the Site until Landlord receives from Tenant an acceptable Certificate of Insurance. The insurance requirements, as set forth herein, are to fully protect Landlord from any and all claims by third parties, including employees of Tenant, its agents, licensees, invitees, contractors and/or subcontractors. Said insurance,however, shall not relieve or release Tenant, its employees, agents, licensees, invitees, contractors and/or subcontractors from, or to limit their liability as to, any and all obligations herein assumed. - 6 - In the event that such insurance is available only on a claims made basis,then the dates of coverage, including the retroactive date and the time period within which any claim can be filed,will be so stated in the Certificate of Insurance, and Tenant shall be obligated to ensure that no gaps in coverage occur. C. Workers'Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements. D. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Personal Injury, Contractual, Products/Completed Operations, Independent Contractors,Broad Form Property Damage and Coverage, if applicable, for damage caused by explosion, collapse or structural injury and damage to underground utilities, i.e., removal of the X, C &U exclusions,with the following minimum limits of liability: $1,000,000 Per Occurrence Combined Single Limit $2,000,000 General Aggregate (1) The Commercial General Liability policy will include an endorsement stating that Landlord is an additional insured regarding operations relating to this Lease. E. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with the following minimum limits of liability: $1,000,000 Per Occurrence Combined Single Limit $2,000,000 General Aggregate (1) This insurance will apply to all owned,non-owned and hired automobiles used by Tenant in undertaking the activities specified under this Lease. F. Umbrella Liability. An Umbrella Policy will be in force with Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Employer's Liability policies scheduled,with required limits of $2,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate. 12. SURRENDER AND HOLDOVER Tenant's Equipment at a given Site will remain personal to and the property of Tenant. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Tenant shall, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, remove Tenant's Equipment within forty-five(45)days after the expiration or termination date therefore, subject to the terms and conditions of Section 3 herein, entitled, Installation&Maintenance. Tenant shall peaceably vacate the Premises in good condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Tenant shall be liable for any damage caused as a'result of its removal of Tenant's Equipment. Landlord reserves the right to have a representative present during any such dismantling and/or removal of Tenant's Equipment. If Tenant fails to remove any of Tenant's Equipment within such forty-five(45) day period, the same will be deemed abandoned and Landlord will be free to dispose or retain possession of same. - 7 - 13. DEFAULT In the event Tenant fails to comply with any of the provisions of, or defaults in any of its obligations under any provisions of this Agreement, Landlord may terminate this Agreement provided Landlord has given Tenant written notice of such default in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Agreement and Tenant has failed to cure the same within sixty(60) days of receipt of said notice. 14. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLEASE A. Tenant's assignment of any of its rights and/or responsibilities under this Agreement to any other entity or person shall require the prior written consent of Landlord. However, Tenant shall have the right to assign its rights and/or responsibilities under this Agreement or a particular Property Supplement,without Landlord's consent,to (i) any person, firm or corporation that is a parent, or subsidiary of Tenant or its parent company, (ii) any person, firm or corporation which controls Tenant, is under the control of Tenant or is under common control with Tenant or(iii) any person, firm or corporation into or with which Tenant has merged or consolidated or which purchases or otherwise acquires more than a fifty percent(50%)interest in the ownership or assets of Tenant. B. In the event of any assignment provided for herein, Tenant shall remain liable for all of its obligations under this Agreement and any Property Supplement that Tenant has executed with Landlord unless the assignee and/or transferee affirmatively assumes in writing all of Tenant's obligations under this Agreement and/or the Property Supplement(s) in question and provides reasonable assurance to Landlord of its ability to perform said obligations. 15. NOTICES All notices and demands hereunder must be in writing and sentlby(a)prepaid overnight courier delivery or(b)personal delivery with evidence of delivery or receipt obtained prior to 5:00 p.m. on a business weekday, or, if not received prior to 5:00 p.m. on a business weekday, then upon the next business weekday. All notices shall be addressed as follows(or to any other address that either party may designate in writing by like notice to the other party): Landlord: Frederick W.Koehler Osprey's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic,NY 11958 Copy To: Tom Stevenson Osprey's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic,NY 11958 - 8 - Tenant: LIPA 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale,New York 11553 Attn.: General Counsel Copy To: KeySpan Electric Services LLC 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,New York 11801 Attn.: R&D Manager 16. QUIET ENJOYMENT; WARRANTY OF TITLE Landlord covenants that upon Tenant's compliance with all other terms, covenants and conditions herein, Tenant will peaceably and quietly enjoy the Premises, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 17. FIRE AND OTHER CASUALTY A. Notifications If the Premises or any structure, facilities or equipment, on the Premises, and/or Tenant's Equipment, or any part thereof,is damaged by fire or other,this Agreement will continue in full force and effect, except as hereinafter set forth. B. Property Other Than Tenant's Equipment (1) If the Premises or any structure, facilities or equipment, on the Premises, excluding Tenant's Equipment, or any part thereof, is damaged by fire or other casualty, regardless of cause therefore,Landlord may in its sole discretion, either(i)repair or replace the damaged property, or(ii)terminate this Agreement. In the event Landlord elects to repair or replace such damaged property and Tenant has not directly or indirectly caused such damage, then the rent and other payments shall be suspended from the date following such casualty until the date that the system, in Landlord's reasonable discretion, can resume operations. To the extent that such fire or casualty does not materially interfere with Tenant's operations, rent and other,payments shall continue to be due and owing. In the event Landlord elects to exercise its right to terminate this Agreement, Landlord shall serve Tenant with written notice thereof, specifying a date for the termination of this Agreement. In such event, Tenant shall forthwith quit, surrender and vacate the Premises, and rental and other payments will be due and owing, as set forth in this Agreement, through the date that Tenant's wind-powered electric generator facility remains operational, except as forth in Subsection B.(2)below. - 9 - (2) To the extent, Tenant is responsible for such fire or casualty,Tenant shall pay its pro rata share of the repair,replacement and/or relocation costs for any damaged structure, facilities or equipment,whether owned by Landlord or any other party, on or about the Premises, and Tenant shall remain liable for all rental and other payments due and owing for the remainder of the term of the this agreement. (3) Tenant shall cooperate fully with Landlord's restoration,replacement and/or relocation efforts and, if requested to do so by Landlord, Tenant shall, to the extent necessary,remove Tenant's Equipment from the Premises. C. Tenant's Equipment (1) If Tenant's Equipment, or any part thereof is damaged by fire or other casualty, Landlord may,in its reasonable discretion, either to (i) allow Tenant to remove,restore and reinstall or replace Tenants' Equipment, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, subject to Section 3.A.(1),herein or(ii)terminate this Agreement. In the event Landlord elects to allow Tenant to repair,restore, or replace Tenant's,Equipment and Tenant has not directly or indirectly caused such damage,then the rent shall be suspended from the date following such casualty until the date that the system, in Landlord's reasonable discretion,can resume operations. To the extent that such damage does not materially interfere with Tenant's operations,rent and other payments shall continue to be due and owing. (2) To the extent Tenant is responsible for such fire or casualty, Tenant shall pay its pro rata share of such repair,replacement and/or relocation costs for Tenant's Equipment and Tenant shall remain liable for all rental and other payments due and owing for the remainder of the term of the Agreement. In the event Tenant's Equipment is rendered unusable during the restoration period, and such damage was due to Landlord's negligence then the rental shall be suspended from the day following the casualty until the day repaired. 18. CONDEMNATION In the event of any total or partial condemnation of the Premises(or sale in lieu thereof), Landlord will notify Tenant within ten(10),days of same and the Agreement for the Site being condemned will terminate as of the date that the.condemning authority acquires legal title to the Premises (Condemnation Date). Tenant shall be required to remove its system prior to the Condemnation Date and Tenant shall be responsible for rental and other payments through the date that such facility remains operational. Landlord shall be entitled to the entire award from the condemnation and Tenant hereby assigns to Landlord any and all rights,title and interest of Tenant now or hereafter arising in or.to any such award;provided that nothing shall preclude Tenant from intervening in any such condemnation proceeding to claim or receive from the condemning authority any compensation to which Tenant may otherwise lawfully be entitled to under Tenant's own claim for reimbursement which will not reduce the amount available to Landlord under Landlord's claim. - 10 - 19. COORDINATION OF OPERATION Landlord and Tenant will give each other notice of any repairs,modifications, additions, improvements or removals to be made with respect to the maintenance and operation of the Owner's Property and/or the Premises and of any planned shut downs for scheduled routine maintenance that might adversely affect the operation of Tenant's system, or Landlord's operations. Landlord and Tenant further agree to use all reasonable efforts to minimize any inconvenience to each other. 20. BROKERS Landlord and Tenant represent to each other that they have not negotiated with any broker in connection with this Agreement. Landlord and Tenant agree that should any claim be made against the other for a broker's commission, finder's fee or the like by reason of the acts of such party,the party upon whose acts such claim is predicated will indemnify and hold the other party free and harmless from all losses, costs, damages, claims, liabilities and expenses in connection therewith(including,but not limited to,reasonable legal fees) and will defend such action by counsel reasonably acceptable to the party to be indemnified. 21. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE Landlord and Tenant agree,upon the request of the other,to execute a Memorandum of Lease(the "Memorandum"). The Memorandum will be in accordance with the applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the Owner's Property is located and will not disclose any financial terms,unless required to do so by the laws of such jurisdiction. The Memorandum may be recorded by and at the expense of the party requesting execution of the Memorandum. 22. SUBORDINATION/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVAL This Agreement is automatically subject and subordinate to any existing or future mortgages on the Owner's Property without the necessity of any further instrument demonstrating same. 23. NO OFFER;EFFECTIVENESS The submission of this Agreement for examination does not constitute an offer to lease, a reservation of, or an option for, any Site, and this Agreement becomes effective only upon each party's execution of this Agreement and its delivery to the other party. - 11 24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY The parties agree that all prior understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement are merged within this Agreement,which alone fully and completely sets forth the understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may not be terminated except as provided for herein or by another written agreement between the parties. If any provision herein is determined to be invalid, said provision will be considered deleted from this Agreement and will,not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 25. LIMITATION ON LANDLORD'S LIABILITY Landlord's total liability to Tenant for any claim , damages, or losses arising out of or in connection with this Agreement,will in no event exceed the value of the leasehold at the Site in question, i.e., the sum of all rental payments that have been and/or would have been paid by Tenant for the particular Site pursuant to this Agreement during the Initial Term and any Renewal Terms upon which Tenant has actually exercised the option referenced in Section 5 herein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement,neither Landlord nor Tenant shall be liable to the other party, for any reason whatsoever, for incidental, consequential, punitive or special damages or lost profits. 26. TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S.INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY Upon the transfer of Landlord's interest in the Owner's Property, including an assignment of Landlord's interest in this Agreement and the assumption by such assignee of Landlord's obligations under this Agreement, Landlord will be relieved of all of its obligations under this Agreement,provided said assignee or transferee agrees in writing to be bound by all of Landlord's duties and obligations to Tenant hereunder. 27. AUTHORITY • Each of the parties hereto warrants to the other that the person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of such party has the full right,power and authority to enter into and execute this Agreement on such party's behalf and that, consent from any other person or entity is not necessary as a condition precedent to the legal effect of this Agreement. 28. REVIEW OF LEASE The parties acknowledge that each has had an opportunity to review and negotiate this Agreement and have executed this Agreement only after such review and negotiation. The parties further agree that this Agreement will be deemed to have been drafted by both Landlord - 12 - and Tenant and the terms and conditions contained herein will not be construed any more strictly against one party or the other. 29. PARTIES BOUND BY LEASE Subject to the provisions herein,this Agreement will extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 30. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflict of law provisions thereof. All disputes which arise in connection with; or are related to this Agreement, or any claimed breach thereof, shall be resolved,if not sooner settled,by litigation only in the Courts of New York State in Kings,,Nassau or Suffolk County or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 31. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Landlord and Tenant each separately represents, warrants and agrees that it will not use, generate, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material on,under, about or within any Site in violation of any law or regulation. Landlord represents,warrants and agrees that;to the best of Landlord's knowledge, Landlord has not used, generated, stored or disposed of, or permitted the use, generation, storage or disposal of, any Hazardous Material on,under, about or within any Site in violation of any law or regulation. Landlord and Tenant each agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other and the other's partners, officers, directors,parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, agents and employees against any and all losses, liabilities, claims and/or costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from any breach of any representation, warranty or agreement contained in this section. As used in this Section, "Hazardous Material" shall mean petroleum or any petroleum product, asbestos and/or any substance, chemical or waste that is identified as hazardous or toxic in any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. This Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 32. TAXES A. Tenant shall be responsible for and shall timely report and pay any and all taxes including,but not limited to,real property, special franchise,personal property and excise taxes, directly attributable to Tenant's ownership or use of Tenant's Equipment on the Premises. B. Tenant shall be responsible for and shall,timely reimburse Landlord for any additional taxes or fees directly attributable to any capital improvements that Landlord is required to make to Landlord's facilities on the Site for the purpose of accommodating Tenant's - 13 - Equipment thereon. Such increased tax shall be calculated by multiplying the original costs of such improvements including,but not limited to,materials and labor,by the appropriate taxing jurisdiction's annual equalization rate for the real property in question multiplied by the respective combined tax rates for said taxing authority. Landlord agrees to supply Tenant,upon request, documentation reasonably supporting same. C. Tenant shall be responsible for the preparation and submission of its required tax filings with federal, state and/or local taxing authorities. D. Except as set forth above, Landlord shall be responsible for paying all real property taxes, assessments and deferred taxes attributable to the Site. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have set their hands this date. WIT S , LANDLORD: elkIN/ By: 1,.Q ,,,,�,JJ Name: /YM (/ iit1)'r16-LV�t f Name:FED 21 c JL 1.4i)40 1t)%'• (Print) • •it) Date: 2, U 2 WITNESS: TENANT ke4.wa.rc By: Aga Name: ,�� ai,v� �t�1ei11t-<GRA Name: mA - Se ,KARScNTY (Print) (Print) Title: Yi c 6 f EsoewT Date: LYerkellibef aj ;Lab-3 • - 14 EXHIBIT A , 20J SITE PLAN SHOWING GROUND AREA Exhibit A will be forwarded at a later date. - 15 - EXHIBIT B ( , 24J SYSTEM FACILITY Exhibit B will be forwarded at a later date. - 16 - . e EXHIBIT C ( , 20_) LANDLORD'S ELECTRIC ACCOUNTS Exhibit C will be forwarded at a later date. 6 - 17 - OCT-14' 03(TUE) 15:20 RESEARCH & DEVELOP. 516 545_5248 P. 003 OSPREYS DOMINIail SS'17GS1SE 101' '33 03:0Spm F. 002 I • ' . } SENT SY:FW tiOEHLER & SONS s 2-21-94 ; 10:56 ; 51x99- '14B rV f 1 FORM NO.4 x TO i 1 OF SOUTHOLD >3tli iNG DEPARTMENT . . Ogura at the Building Inspector Town Hall . Southold,N.Y. . Certificate O Occupancy No. . x, I 98January 13. 1967 • • ..... ••• Data, - TN I. C TIFIES that tike buildini A a r i e u1.tuna b#r n . Location .f per' 44075 Main Road ' Peconie. 'Saw tork, Piewi fib.• aser . • Caurxty T p No, 1000 Section 075. 'ala Q I .Lot 020 N Subdivl.-•n F11ed Ma conforms sub tantlally to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed !n this office dated °etober 3, 1986 ' pursuant to which Building permit No. l 5449 z dated 0cC bar 30, 1986 .,was issued,and conforms to all of the requirements of the ap.I Ica le pravlalatet of the law.The occupancy for which this certificate fi issued is i AGRICULTURAL BARN - Thea • ca . la jawed to BARR VTNWYAJ 1 'LTD,. of the afo :. . building. , Suffolk C. Department of Health Approval • N/A UNDERW• :RS CERTIFICATE NO... R/A 1 PLUM/IR!. . f ERTIFICATI0>9. DATED: �1/A omr,.....3i27,4r......./... ., od 1 • • ding cnspector i • • .•u•,1.3�+ it�li• qh!'i� •f��� i. ' jll1��:`- •14 .•!I- [ ,i. I:•... • Iii IIS I ' OCT-14' 03(TUE) 15:21 RESEARCH & DEVELOP. 516 545 5248 P. 004 OSPREYS DOMIN101, . ,7.'i'EELSOS 10/ 1s 0Y:OEpm P. OCS ' 1 , • FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OP OCCUPANCY No 2-24627 Date SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ALTERATION Location of Property 44075 MAIN ROAD PECONIC, NEW YORK House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. oonforma substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated JULY 20, 1995p ursuant to which Building Permit No. 22927-Z dated AUGUST 4, 1995 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued isCONVERT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO WINERY USE G ADD A BATBROOM & CONCRETE PATIO AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to F_REDERICK W. KOEHLER (owner) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH APPROVAL C10-94-0018- MAY 3, 1996 UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N-333855-11/17/94 & N-368694-10/19/95 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED 10/4/95--U.SMITH PLUMBING & MATING INC. Suing Inspector Rev. 1/81 OCT-14' 03(TUE) 15:21 RESEARCH & DEVELOP, 516 545 5248 P. 005 OSPREYS DOMINIO, - SS17SS1Sea le, 92r OS:OSpm P. 004 I 4,5 FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector • Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z-24628 _ Date SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ALTERATION Location of Property 44075 MAIN ROAD PECONIC, NEW YORK House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 75 . Block 1 Lot 20 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated JULY 2p, 1995 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 22927-2 dated AUGUST 4, 1995 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is CONVERT SECOND AGRICULTORAL BUILDING FOR RETAIL SALES OF WINE(PROALrCED ON SITE) & WINE TASTING & ADD TWO BATHROOMS & CANVAS AWNING OVER PATIO AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to FREDERICK W. KOEHLER • (owner) of the aforesaid building. • SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL C10-94-0018-- MAX 3, 1996 UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N-333855-11/17/94 & N-366694-10/19/95 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED 10/4/95-H.SMITE PLUMBING & HEATING INC. fir+, f :uilding Inspector Rev. 1/81 OCT-14' 03(TUE) 15:22 RESEARCH & DEVELOP, 516 545.5248 P. 006 OSPREYS M I N I O GS176S1SOS 1 'IOS 0S:C'Spr P. 0°5 I I SENT BY:FW KOEHLER & SONS 1 2-21-94 ; 10:55 ; 51059' '149 ' # -#q FORM NO. 4 • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 11UrDDIUD .DEPARTMENT Office of the Buildityg Inspector Town Hall • Southold. N.Y. j CERIIP! W S OF OCCUPANCY R.--4§=31E0 Dene D 17. 1993 THIS CSRTIS'I!S that the baildiast - _.....AD 7ITION 't 7_►e g4R7 _—_ ••action of Propertyy44075 IN_ 1 ' War . House a No. Street Hamlet C. my Tare Nap Fro. 1000 section _ 75 Block 1 Lot ---20---- J - -- v±aian, ____ rums Map No. Lot No. _ • forms subatatial1y to the Application fax Building Permit heretofore - ' f ted in this o fice detadjala _purinant to which B ild#mg Perm# N'o. L4684-2 - dated SCR 22. 1986 I ' — , istued, and1 conforms to all of the requirecsats of the applicable i p'ovis.ona of e law. The occupancy for which this certificate ie • 1 sued is ADDITIC1f TO =STENO =gum URN A8 P 7 }0$` --� e cartificatelis issued tO _ a3PRS! ••I • R 00. (owner} o; the aforei IIbuilding. 8 -of& COUNT! b0N EPART7T OF HEALTH,A�$$Oi nL 1-_____A____ U '+EAirRTTIO B CFOlTIPIc'A'1g NO. N-Rao,9 - 3tfNg 22, 19,23 - ' is;A' : CERTI31•CATIQH DATED T: 15. 1993 VARI.SS K_ .MVP 11 . 404.72 /1.4911: • _ ' dine Ynator R- . ./S]. 1 OCT-14' 03 (TUE) 15:22 RESEARCH & DEVELOP. 516 545 5248 I', 007 OSPREYS DOMINIO SSI7S.s1903 10� 03:OSpm F. 006 " FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. ,CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: 2-29120 Date: 12/12/02 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ACCESSORY Location of Property: _ 44075 MAIN RD _ SOUTH/PEC (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) (HAMLET) County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.2 Subdivision _ Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated AUGUST 14, 2002 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 28708-Z dated , AUGUST_28,, 2002 was igai.ied, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is STORAGE BUILDING LIMITED TO SUFFOLK COUNTY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS, The certificate is issued to OSPREY DOMINION CO (OWNER) - of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. 02-8345 11/11/02 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A r i Aut .rize■ Signature Rev. 1/81 ^ ‘-_k c Cyt,; U.S.Postai ce B CERTIFI1 AIL RECEIPT ` , ��, r,.� ef I (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance CoverageV Provided) Attachment i m , 1 co 75-6-6.1 Little Bear Realty,Inc {tr. Postage $ . Lp 0 -'i. �, do Davidif&Malito LLP • Certified Fee .30 _ j Att: Howard B.Present `� } 'r� Return Receipt Fee ' P 605 Third Ave &4th Ave o (Endorsement Required) r �� );{.��� He New York NY 10158 o Restricted Delivery Fee l4, O (Endorsement Required) � ild 0 l's 1. !0 Total Postage&Fees $ "`7 )„5 75-6-6.2 :J 1w .i- Sent To John Stankewicz,Jr. i „._ UlYa.� i N Street,Apt No.;....------ ......_......__ _— John Rd ;O or PO Box No. u 140r) -I re t°-E P.O. Box 203 '0 city,stns,itP+"a ..........._.._......... ........_._ ..........." Peconic NY 11958 �a a�/_!, ' �137s PS Form 3800,January.2001 See Reverse for Instructions 75-6-7.5 Timothy Coffey U.S.Postal Service 44900 Main Rd CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT - - (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) Southold,NY .n ��. 69-4-1.1 a- O aF F G Ck. L Martin&Louise J. Mangels 0. Postage $ o 1C " 266 Route 25a D' �'`� II Wading River,NY 11792 Ce tifled Fee 2 ir' (.2..i0 ) 1. Return Receipt Fee ‘,C\-1.' jl 17:1 (Endorsement Required) I I. ' 69-4-1.4 O Restricted Delivery Fee L`;, '-/-- `� ' l� (Endorsement Required) i d Carlton Terry Latham 0 Total Postage&Fees $ q . 6,,,c 925 Sleepy Hollow La -a Southold,NY 11971 =- Sent To luar4-ln 4Lou Ise A- 0- 6Is ru Street Apt.No.; 69-4-2.4 Q orPO Box No. a(Q(� IQoUf2 5A al City,State,ZIP+4 Beverly Jacobs Iad In IUPC' 1179- P.O. Box 522 PS,For 3800,January 2001 See Reverse for Instructions Cutchogue,NY 11935-0522 F U.S. Postal Service . CERTIFIED•MAIL RECEIPT. Ln 69-4-4 (C.1om.es trc 114:1.1 only;' NoInsurance Coverage Provided) Suffolk County 330 Center Dr `0 Riverhead,NY 11901 "� R 10 Er OPostage $ ,- '\' Certified Fee 7_!i Y-' '' � , I 75-1-21 ilJ 1 R1-3 etu i ~( Bud Realty :cM! atRipt FeRestctedDeiiver I (Endorsement Required) ''-f r� Farmingdale, NY 11735 L.11=3 Total Postage&Fees �' '`' l,�,¢ NMI " Se To nI o /. i 1!I ,Rea r�A �?11_l Street,Apt.,v Az!Eci or PO Box No. U{2 Y i„res O /r(In � City,State,ZIP+4 �5 T r l 1. r/� RL3 2306628 I ` �O/�� S Form 380QaJ�nuarYY2001,"+ h, P. /� ,,,, ”,4.•,.Se See Reverse for�,lnstruotions o OC f1U/, `e Rever se r°r Mstrpct/on' 5-1-17.1 Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic,NY 11958 75-1-17.2 Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road#180 Peconic,NY 11958 75-1-6: William Buckingham,EST do William Midgley, Jr. 200 Skunk La Cutchogue,NY 11935 75-1-2.1 MTA-LIRR Jamaica Station Jamaica,NY 11435 75-1-1.1 John A.V. Wicks 34800 North Rd Peconic,NY 11958 75-2-1 Jacqueline G.Bauer P.O.Box 1084 Southold,NY 11971 75-2-2 (Please note this number was changed to : 75-2-2.1 per assessor's office) Merlot LLC 591A Bicycle Path Port Jefferson,NY 11776 2 KL3 2306628 I rI pp9;/6 /1P-)' Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment of One Site Located in the Town of Southold OCT 2 1 2003 SII r--I 1 October, 2003 -- Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority f� Prepared by: AKRF, Inc. LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ONE SITE LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LrI0T21 • 2003 I Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority Submitted by: AKRF, Inc. October, 2003 L_ ,072 ' 2003 7 Table of Contents 1:Project Description 1-1 A. Overview 1-1 B. Organization of the Environmental Assessment 1-2 C. Purpose and Need 1-2 D. Site Selection 1-3 E. Project Benefits 1-6 F. Public Outreach 1-6 2: Peconic Site 2-1 A. Introduction 2-1 Project Description 2-1 Site Location 2-1 Agency Actions,Permits,and Approvals 2-1 B.Land Use,Zoning, and Community Facilities 2-1 Methodology 2-1 Existing Conditions 2-2 Land Use 2-2 Zoning 2-2 Community Facilities 2-3 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-4 Land Use 2-4 Zoning 2-4 Community Facilities 2-10 C.Historic and Archaeological Resources 2-11 Historic Resources 2-11 Methodology 2-11 Existing Conditions 2-11 Archaeological Resources 2-12 Methodology 2-12 1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Existing Conditions 2-13 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-15 D.Visual Resources 2-15 Methodology 2-15 Existing Conditions 2-15 Project Site 2-15 Study Area 2-16 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-16 Site Conditions 2-16 E.Natural Resources 2-16 Methodology 2-16 Existing Conditions 2-17 Site Conditions 2-17 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-17 F.Hazardous Materials 2-18 Methodology 2-18 Existing Conditions 2-18 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-18 G.Waterfront Revitalization 2-19 Methodology 2-19 Policy Analysis 2-19 Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program 2-20 - H-.--Infrastructure- -- -2-21- Methodology 2-21 Existing Conditions 2-21 Water Supply 2-21 Sanitary Sewage 2-22 Solid Waste 2-22 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-22 Water Supply 2-22 Sanitary Sewage 2-22 Solid Waste 2-22 Energy 2-22 ii Table of Contents I. Traffic 2-22 J. Air Quality 2-22 K.Noise 2-23 Methodology 2-23 Noise Fundamentals 2-23 "A"-Weighted Sound Level(dBA) 2-23 Community Response to Changes in Noise Levels 2-23 Noise Descriptors Used in Impact Assessment 2-24 Noise Standards and Criteria 2-25 Southold Noise Code 2-25 New York State Department of Transportation 2-25 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2-26 Noise Control Act of 1972 2-26 Impact Criteria 2-26 Noise Prediction Methodology 2-27 Existing Conditions 2-27 Selection of Noise Receptor Locations 2-27 Noise Monitoring 2-28 No Build Conditions 2-28 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-28 L. Construction 2-29 Methodology 2-29 Preconstruction Site Preparation 2=29 - ---- -- -- - Unit Assembly and Site Finish 2-30 Utility Connections 2-30 Potential Impacts and Control Methods 2-30 Traffic 2-30 Hazardous Materials 2-31 Air Quality 2-31 Noise and Vibration 2-32 Erosion Control 2-34 M. Environmental Justice 2-35 N. Cumulative Impacts 2-35 iii LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project EAF Form Attachment A Coastal Zone Management Attachment B Avian Report Attachment C Archaeological Resources iv i List of Tables 1-1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Initial Four(4) Sites Selected 1-1 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program 45 Sites and Their Initial Ratings 1-5 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Eight(8)Sites Considered 1-6 2-1 Identified Precontact Period State Historic Preservation Office Sites 2-13 2-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels 2-24 2-3 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels 2-24 2-4 FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria 2-26 2-5 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With An j Adequate Margin of Safety 2-27 2-6 Existing Noise Levels Adjacent to the Peconic Wind Turbine Site 2-28 2-7 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment 2-33 2-8 Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings 2-34 2-9 Peconic Population and Economic Characteristics 2-36 v List of Figures Following Page 1-1 Illustration of Wind Turbine 1-1 1-2 Power Output of Facility as a Function of Windspeed 1-1 1-3 Regional Site Locations 1-3 2-1 Project Site Location 2-1 2-2 Peconic Site Location 2-1 2-3 Peconic Existing Land Use 2-2 2-4 Peconic Zoning Use Districts 2-2 2-5 Peconic Community Facilities 2-3 2-6a Peconic (North View) 2-16 2-6b Peconic(Northeast View) 2-16 2-7 Peconic Census Tract and Block Group 2-35 vi Chapter 1: Project Description A. OVERVIEW In June 2002,the Long Island Power Authority(LIPA)issued an environmental assessment for a proposal to site, construct, and operate a total of four (4) wind turbines on farmland in Suffolk County, Long Island. The locations of the four wind turbine sites examined in that assessment are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Initial Four(4) Sites Selected No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Area/Section Town 3 Christopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 Sound Avenue Northville Riverhead 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel Riverhead 27 Kurt Van deWetering Ivy Acres,Inc 2296 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow Riverhead 38 Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton Riverhead The environmental assessment of the initial sites indicated no significant impacts. The assessment stated that a fifth site would be selected at a later date and would be subject to its own environmental assessment.Together these facilities will be part of LIPA's program to: • Demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation; • Demonstrate the applicability of distributed energy sources; and • Expand green sources of electricity on Long Island. This assessment examines a fifth site, located in the Peconic section of the Town of Southold. As with the previous environmental_assessment,_this site will involve the installationof one (1) - Atlantic Orient Corporation Model AOC 15/50 wind turbine. Figure 1-1 shows a picture of the wind turbine. The center of the three-bladed rigid-hub rotor would be approximately 100 feet above the ground. The tower supporting the wind turbine would be a relatively thin, open lattice metal structure. The rotor blades are approximately 25 feet in length. Consequently, the top of the rotor blades would be approximately 125 feet above the ground. The AOC 15/50 is designed to operate at wind speeds of 4.6 meters/second(10.3 miles per hour (mph)) and greater, and reach its rated output of 50 kilowatts (kW) at 11.3 meters/second (25.3 mph). Its peak continuous output of 66 kW is achieved at 16 meters/second(35.8 mph). Figure 1-2 shows the power output of the AOC 15/50 as a function of wind speed. Assuming 100 percent availability, this turbine is calculated to produce approximately 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kwh)of electricity per year. The wind turbine would be located in an area approximately 25 feet by 35 feet. For safety and security the area would be fenced to separate it from the adjacent land. The wind turbine/tower ensemble would be located on a concrete pad approximately 6 feet deep and 21 feet by 21 feet. 1-1 x I A(' l s : .. ,, ,_ .. , . _,,,, ma.... I Pi rin i.,7'1,:"V`:"41 i .' ''-',..-'- i Wind Turbine LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 1-1 II Calculated Power Curve 80 70 60 I a 50 p 40 _60 Hz 3 30 0 a 20 y 2 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Speed (m/s) Power Output of Facility as a Function of Windspeed LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Besides the wind turbine/tower ensemble,the wind turbine area would contain a control box and transformer. Energy produced by the wind turbine would be transmitted via underground wiring to a nearby 3-phase distribution line and into the LIPA power grid. In selecting the sites, LIPA worked with the Long Island chapter of the New York State Farm Bureau(FB)to identify suitable sites and interested landowners for this demonstration program. The FB sent letters to its members to solicit interest in the program. Forty farmers expressed interest in locating a wind turbine on their property. The sites selected for this demonstration project were selected from these 40 farmers'properties. As part of this project, LIPA will enter into a 20-year lease with each of the landowners for the approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land needed to site the proposed wind turbine facility, for an easement for the underground wiring from the wind turbine facility to a nearby distribution line, and for access to the site. LIPA will site, construct, and operate the proposed facility, and will be responsible for maintaining the proposed facilities throughout the 20-year lease period. LIPA will reimburse the landowner for any increase in tax and/or insurance resulting from the proposed facility, and will provide the landowner with an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kwh of the energy output from the proposed facility on the property. - -- A wind turbine has already been developed at the Calverton site. B. ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Environmental Assessment(EA)evaluates potential environmental impacts of the proposed project(i.e., the siting, construction, and operation) in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA),6 NYCRR Part 617. This EA is organized as follows: • Chapter 1 is the Project Description, which contains an overview of the project, its purpose and need, site selection criteria,project benefits,and overview of the proposed facility. • Chapter 2 is the Environmental Impact Assessment,which provides a discussion of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project by specific environmental analysis discipline (i.e.,land use and zoning,community facilities, cultural resources,air quality,noise, etc.). - -• - Attachment-A is-a detailed discussion-of coastal zone management issues: • Attachment B is an avian report detailing potential impacts of the proposed project on birds. • Attachment C is a detailed archaeological report regarding the site of the proposed project. C. PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed wind turbine facility will be part of a demonstration project which is part of LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative. This 5-year, $170 million program includes funding for renewable energy programs, energy efficiency programs, peak management programs, and research and development. Renewable energy is defined as energy from resources that are not depletable or are naturally replenished when used at sustainable levels. Renewable energy sources generally refer to hydropower, solar, wind,biomass, geothermal, ocean, and landfill gas. Use of renewable energy provides a number of benefits including: 1-2 Chapter 1:Project Description • Increased energy diversity and security; • Reduction in air emissions; • Greenhouse gas reduction; • Economic development opportunities; and • On-site power generation. Currently within New York State, renewable energy sources account for only a very small part of the energy supply—less than 11 percent. Hydroelectricity accounts for approximately 92 percent of this renewable energy supply, and wind accounts for approximately 1 percent of New York State's renewable energy supply. In light of Governor Pataki's Executive Order No. 111, "Green and Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles, which mandates that State agencies such as LIPA increase their procurement of energy generated from technologies such as wind and solar thermal power, it is expected that the State's renewable energy sources will be significantly increased. The proposed wind turbine facility would demonstrate the feasibility of use of this type of renewable energy source for power generation on Long Island. This application of individual units at discrete farm locations would also demonstrate the applicability of distributed energy sources. In addition, it would expand the use of green (non-polluting) sources of electricity on Long Island. D. SITE SELECTION The five (5) sites in Suffolk County on Long Island that were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities were the result of a site selection process that LIPA initiated in the Fall of 2001 (see Figure 1-3). Early in the planning process, because the wind turbines require unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds, LIPA determined that farm property would be the best type of property upon which to site the wind turbine facilities. The bulk of Long Island farmland is located on the East End of Long Island in Suffolk County. The land in this area can generally be characterized as flat and windy terrain and, therefore, presents favorable conditions for the operation of wind turbines.LIPA then contacted the FB for assistance in identifying farmers that would be interested in having LIPA construct wind turbines on their property._ During December 2001,LIPA and FB sent a joint letter to bureau members requesting that those members interested in having their farms considered as potential wind turbine sites submit an application to LIPA by January 21, 2002. LIPA received applications from FB members identifying 45 potential sites on 40 farms. LIPA then visited each of the proposed sites and determined whether each site was feasible for the development of a wind turbine facility based on whether the sites: • Were agricultural lots in agricultural use; • Had unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds; • Were located on farms that were at least 2 acres in size; • Were a minimum of 400 to 500 feet from the nearest residence; • Had access to LIPA's power grid(i.e., no third-party easements required for connecting the wind turbine to a 3-phase distribution line of the existing LIPA grid); and 1-3 .y . "°"l.gd'' am,.,, !* I",. „�,.... '- .,.. 1t / ., � l', -r./ \ 1 ,„We��f� +Ai ) 4/am-ilk k N 4f,-1 i 1 w v; 1 ...1„iffAreifer a;Ili\ ,ri N.fr--,--. slog/ /- Area of Detail' � ���� ,, •.,.-�, , r4' 6 t•� P con r� = ►.tt _ �.,�" �11:1 zw�I ‘� Y tt 114 4/411112g• • 4 / t .•:-.4-, - ‘S \ 4114; blil . 45/ :Mil 1144 1 ...,,„,...4* oI, �� lii �. ,.�il�,. , _ '� ! tztp yi, /4., , . � 441/ �G 0 1`� •• r, lir _ _ , Y M ro w ,i ,. moi• ` '` 1111 .,t � � r , / iii .‘ �` :: !°\A k, Balling Fiona ,s _- - ' ' - - orthvll e �� t\v .4 ,„ . wit .... ..t. 2 ,,,,, toi-0 4,110111 . �i�� L ' AV �elmihl ► hditi4 orkiho, • d" % `" --‘ 401, 1 /ivlir P0.4.f st .,,„,,..,-ir, , . g 11+ , ) 113�i diiin1 iIlnwa .1�� f 1 .Vg• �‘ lei� '14- . ‘0 . 0 'Init'.4111.1kVta, ‘k: ' Id I., --416.W 1 is 41Ip *0141. +nU�i�lie1''_j''v II�G�J ;Wmenanu? �'.A��, �111.1 AIN"IV ��r,dft k a . ,,74‘ "Iiii‘. • `. fr tleS 0* *II, lit 111161t04W1k‘ Olt'''. 1111 )111 t ",. ,,A, e 1.. . , ap1,4111„, jis,,o it 4 .4....,,ik .., iote,,A ,. kii..,61 iLry 4ir-i 4, t„, ,,,Iii ,.....,, ' '''' '' \' — - iiIiii lik,4414"100---„,,.. —,:'f---d''' '' \\ _ ..1 Aoki `ii ,� ,-- :.::r; t�, ,..... ��% 111 t�, �,t.„ *4;iipt.,",, ,,,,.. ,,,,,, r��/1 I,. ►� . ; --- .a��!j •• ,�„lug W��, �' '---1*,....„ w+--4.44...`♦ `�1V S Ili tilk 1 • II‘r `r�� ►_ t fp.,- i o , �, •: 1 jiti040.0 1r�A�� • i 1/_/,./, ‘ii---. 1:c \�'"44\4>',\\ ��1.� 'E►�474 wA� '. /„'► / it Pri fib'i 1I‘Telpior vfl-wol oh... /1. 711:trr‘if • -, vizi 0. ,,,,„ \ tAir 111/ Co /0 &Not -- - —11Pcs\:40......ritiVellt- 0 titiove - ' , 4$;,. i ��`�� r. R . r:l x 'r „41/4"._ 41 c. lf ?Ilib' iirt, ::%-;.- . ILIppra Illh * ' irel VIIIIN 4P ”. ,1 a ilv iii ♦gyiota tl'c1 ._1* .01 . *31. 1 1. 4p l � 1 p111111111111 1 �. 0A ,," ,,.,itir t 1)� ` irtmJ 'r IIUt ' 1140111111111iyiu�1 ' NIP • j� ' V` .°II /� ,`tt�\IIIIIIII :�� !/ �5` �/ �,' t1�`w �uullllllll ����� n_,,, - - E :�� `SIS�1► �- �� �N��� 148/ 1141"14----(0111".,,- 11 001 ttt ., Trill" 'IVII;►Ai►`, r/ 1And elliti , :. ::: g 1 I%it; ,,4 1 IT -it 11111116rJD I I le \ .• Il IffriatiL g. laff I rr` Imo' titto yt um-t `s ill .` _r.�utV% iI;i1-f/�-.k wig nr -_xx x-. P U �1� Miles 0 1 2 3 4 ® New Project Site 1 Mile Study Area Street Network Regional Site Locations ---- Town Boundary Figure 1-3 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project • Were located on farms with intact and unfettered development rights. Based on these criteria, LIPA developed a grade for each proposed farm site: A (highest potential), B+(good potential), B (feasible),B-(somewhat feasible), and C(not feasible). Table 1-2 lists the 45 sites and their initial gradings. (Note: Five of the sites are multiple sites owned by the same entity, which were given the same number, but a suffix was added to differentiate between site locations.) Of the 45 sites considered, 9 sites were graded B+or A (i.e., 4 sites were graded B+ and 5 sites received an A grade). One of the sites that received an A grade, Shade Trees Nursery located in Jamesport, was removed from consideration by the farm owner. Table 1-3 lists the 8 sites that were considered in the next step in the site selection process. As part of the next step in the site selection process, a team of environmental specialists visited each of the sites, and discussions were initiated with officials in each of the communities where the potential wind turbine sites were located. These field visits and discussions were performed to determine the following: • Sites for the proposed facilities did not have any significant environmental constraints (i.e., wetlands or sensitive ecology issues, endangered or threaten species, major contamination issues,visual quality concerns,on-site historic or archeological concerns,etc.); • Sites are geographically dispersed; and • Sites are selected, where feasible, in areas where there is support anticipated from the local community. 1-4 Chapter 1:Project Description Table 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program 45 Sites and Their Initial Ratings No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Locatio/Town Rating 1 Frederick W.Koehler Osprey's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road-Peconic Peconic B+ 2 Richard Girards Flora Nurseries,Inc. 6900 Wickham Avenue Mattituck B- 3 Christopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 Sound Avenue Northville B+ 4 John Grodski The Long Island Perennial Farm 159 Reeves Avenue Riverhead C 5 Harry Hanley Eberhard&Hanley 198 Head of Neck Road Manorville A 6 Richard&Catherine Ringhoff R.E.Ringhoff Farms CR 51/CR 111 Eastport C 7 Thaddaeus Hill Timothy Hill Children's Ranch 298 Middle Road Riverhead B 8 Bradford T.Reeve 891 Main Road Aquebogue B 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel B+ 10 Thomas P.McGunnigle McGunnigle Farms 30255 County Road 48 Peconic C 11 Robert R.Samolewski 7800 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue C 12 Randy Scott Shur Soundview Nursery/Randy Scotts 4050 Soundview Avenue Mattituck C 13 Walter&Ellen Godzieba 189 Barnes Road Moriches B 14 Patricia Pugliese Pugliese Vineyards Bridge Lane Cutchogue B T 15 Alfred M.Popp Whispering Meadows Farm 524 Tuthills Lane Aquebogue C 16 None Provided Northeast Nurseries County Road 48,P.O.Box 1158 Cutchogue B- 17 Joseph R.Agoglia Justin Purchasing Corp. 4080 Sound Avenue Riverhead C 18 Reginald&Connie Farr The Farm 156 Youngs Avenue Calverton C _ 19 James J.Hoffman 39 Middle Island Yaphank Road Middle Island C 20 Phil&Mary Barbato Biophilia Organic Farm 211 Manor Lane(Jamesport) Riverhead C 1 21a John Verderber VerDerBer's Landscape Nursery 369 Main Road Aquebogue B- 21b John Verderber VerDerBer's Landscape Nursery Peconic Bay Blvd. Jamesport C 21c John Verderber VerDerBer's Landscape Nursery Sunrise Highway Southampton B- 1 22 William&Marianne Savino Salt River Farm,Inc. 363 Railroad Avenue Center Moriches B 23 June Croon The Plantage,Inc. Elijah Lane Mattituck B- 24 Reynold F.Blum Main Road Southold B 25 Mark Zaweski MKZ Farms 506 Church Lane Jamesport B 26 John C.Filasky Flower Barn/IGHL Greenhouses 1 Montauk Highway Moriches B- 27 Kurt Van deWetering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow A 28 Russell Weiss Kurt Weiss Greenhouses,Inc w/s Chapman Blvd.,s/o Sunrise Hwy. East Moriches C 29 Harry S.Ludlow Fairview Farm do Mecox Rd.&Horsemill Lane Bridgehampton C 30a Louis Caracciolo - --- --- Shade Trees Nursery-- - - - - 1st of 3 sites/Herricks-Lane -- -- -- Jamesport- -- A- - -- - 30b Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 2nd of 3 sites/Herricks Lane Jamesport C 30c Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 3rd of 3 sites/Herricks Lane Jamesport C 30d Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 1 site/Mill Lane Mattituck C 31 Erin Wells Conklin Breeze Hill Farm 340 Scuttle Hole Road Bridgehampton B Fuchsia Garden Design 32 James J Stakey Jim Stakey Greenhouses 324 West Lane(P.O.Box 950) Aquebogue 8+ 33a Albert J.Krupski,Jr Krupski Farms Youngs Avenue Southold B 33b Albert J Krupski,Jr. Krupski Farms 2790 Skunks Lane Cutchogue B- 34 Henry Silverman 4654 Sound Avenue Riverhead B- 35 Kathryn Kresci Pindar Vineyards LLC/Cabernet LLC 7045 Oregon Road Mattituck C 36 William P.Stubelek Ponquogue Marine Basin 86 Foster Avenue Hampton Bays C 37 Paul W.Vigliotta Northeastern Landscape Design& 240 Frowein Road Center Moriches B- Dev.Corp. 38N Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A 38S Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A 39 Frank Zimmer Zimmer Farm Main Road(P.O.Box 355) Orient 40 Richard J.Magg 33-05 Oregon Road Mattituck B- 1-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Eight(8) Sites Considered No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Location/Town Rating 1 Frederick W.Koehler Osprey's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road-Peconic Peconic B+ 3 Chnstopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 Sound Avenue Northville B+ 1 1 5 Harry Hanley Eberhard&Hanley 198 Head of Neck Road Manorville A 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel B+ 27 Kurt Van dewatering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow A 32 James J Stakey Jim Stakey Greenhouses 324 West Lane(P.O.Box 950) Aquebogue B+ 38N Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A 38S Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A E. PROJECT BENEFITS The major benefits of a wind turbine are the production of electric energy without burning any fossil fuels and emitting any air pollutants. A wind turbine is a renewable energy source that ---- would produce electricity without consuming any fuel resources and without generating any pollution. Over a 20-year period, each wind turbine would eliminate the use of approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas, and would eliminate the emission of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides,and 240 pounds of particulates. F. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach to generate community support for the demonstration process began with the town supervisors of Brookhaven,Riverhead and Southold,in whose townships the top rated sites are situated. In Southold, the town supervisor and town board have provided guidance on group contacts in the town. Contact with Southold town officials and community leaders will continue during the development of the Peconic site. In Southold, LIPA and/or the Long Island Farm Bureau have contacted and provided project information to the Sustainable Energy Alliance and the North Fork Environmental Council. Both groups expressed their support for the project. Information has and will be provided in multiple formats, including via telephone conversation, in-person meetings, written 1 (correspondence and printed versions of Power Point presentation) and electronic (LIPA Web site and e-mail). In addition, the community will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed project at town hearings. Follow up contact with the above groups and new contact with additional groups will be made, as appropriate,before and during development of the Peconic site. 1-6 Chapter 2: Peconic Site A.INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION - This analysis examines the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposed wind turbine unit to be sited at the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard, located at 44075 Main Road, in the ' Peconic area of the Town of Southold in Suffolk County,Long Island.The Suffolk County Land and Tax designation of the Vineyard is Section 75,Block 1,Lots 20.1 and 20.2 SITE LOCATION The project site is located in the southern center portion of a 50-acre parcel of land owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyard, LTD. The Vineyard is bordered to the south by Main Road, Peconic Lane and Carroll Avenue to the west, the Long Island Rail Road's Main Line track to the north, and additional agricultural parcels to the east (see Figure 2-1). The immediate proposed site is located in a flat, grass-covered, open field, adjacent to planted grape vines and north of buildings associated with the winery. Figure 2-2 depicts the view of the proposed site looking south at the Vineyard's storage buildings(see Figure 2-2). , AGENCY ACTIONS,PERMITS,AND APPROVALS LIPA must comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as well as obtain site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a height variance and a special use permit for a public utility. B. LAND USE, ZONING,AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES METHODOLOGY This section describes existing land use, zoning, and community facilities in the vicinity of the project site and evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project on these features. Information relative to existing land use,zoning, and community facilities was obtained through several sources, including Geographic Information System(GIS), aerials, supplemented by field surveys conducted by AKRF, Inc. in April 2002 and September 2003, and the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. This section analyzes two study areas, a primary study area extending roughly 1/2 mile from the proposed site, and a secondary study area extending roughly 1 mile from the proposed site. These two study areas include the area within which the proposed project could reasonably be expected to exert some degree of influence on future land use patterns and neighborhood character. The 1/2-mile study area was chosen to assess the potential land use conflicts of the proposed project on the immediate surrounding area, and the 1-mile study area was chosen to 2-1 N :e t A y° `v 9 r. CVO e. O c 4,,t,kc, �F2FN` 9E. s o - GLENN ND < ,,\ Z '_ p -1,,, t � O� v , s 40 fin... w .---:-1:--;:'''N's _ f Scat Project Site I--. Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 au JO 5 Mi 4le Study Area 01 Mile Study Area Peconic —1---LIRR Tracks Project Site Location Figure 2-1 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project 10.03 416..:r �t Z Y a, #� * M ll e 141. •.‘.4,-,:s4 .,-, � � ''"}F' k14..y y ,, • 1 1<, ..-_w r++.a...reXe+i'� N — i�P+i � I, cty 5rM ,_ , ... + rb -0 «rt Ec.,, .„ 40,.!-.,.:i. d..:Vs”' n Bti`„ t " �' s bz "ti a9 .- �ikii . :� „ i4 _i,tt' � r,' } be#4Rk ' ; " � , ' s c� „„..c Siyl,�w +c. k }r rat ' < sti Y , .I �( , 1441'.. ii • ,'.e'..r t.., ,*.,..` ' .%-. .Pe• .,. .ter¢.{ r'�K.... y� 4 t'.*#' moi,v, . L,'VX� s Yv4'1 a ._ `.... y_ " : d �yyi�t r, A .,,, . 64• il aN Peconic Site Location LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project assess the more indirect, or secondary effects of the proposed project on the surrounding area, such as compatibility with the general land use patterns. Since the project is expected to be completed by the spring of 2004, it is not necessary to conduct a separate analysis of the future without the proposed project since conditions are not expected to materially change from the current conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS LAND USE Project Site The proposed project site is an agricultural property used historically for farming. The immediate project site is a flat, grass-covered, open field locatedadjacentto an area used for -- - cultivating grape vines and approximately 200 feet from an aluminum storage building (see Figure 2-3). 1/2-Mile Study Area The majority of the 1/2-mile study area is used for agricultural purposes. There are residential, vacant, and commercial uses along Main Road to the south of the proposed site, and north between the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)Main Line tracks and Middle Road. Additional uses west of the proposed site, along Carroll Avenue and Peconic Lane, include recreation and open space and institutional,the Peconic Lane Primary School,located approximately 1,450 feet from the proposed site.Also located within the 1/2-mile study area are government owned lands to the north and west of the project site 1-Mile Study Area The land use for this study area remains essentially the same as the 1/2-mile study area. Within this study area, both agricultural and residential land uses are significantly expanded in all directions. This includes mixed-density residential uses along Harbor Road and Bayview Road to the east and southeast, along Wells Road to the south, and along Henry's Lane that runs perpendicular to Middle Road to the northwest. Large parcels of vacant land uses also exist to the south, along Richmond Creek, to the northwest along Mill Road, and north along Sound View Avenue. Additional recreation land use exists at Goldsmith's Inlet Park northwest of the proposed site as well as east and southeast associated with various cemeteries. ZONING Project Site The land surrounding the proposed project site is situated in the Agricultural-Conservation Zoning District(A-C). According to the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, the Agricultural Conservation district permits uses that prevent the unnecessary loss of currently open lands containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils, and areas containing sensitive environmental features such as aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. Uses that are permitted in this zone include one-family dwellings, agricultural operations, and accessory uses such as irrigation that are instrumental for agricultural uses(see Figure 2-4).Dwellings constructed within the A-C district are limited to a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet(2 acres)and width of 175 feet.In addition,this district contains a height limitation of 35 feet. 2-2 N ; I q0t Fy A0 ti / ,�\ \�' 4,q_0 !Y, ,,;,rnn;,a�nanw.�:ve aam t�,n a,� 4- � /fr 01 SO 4//441.1,_u GRPNG• * If ° 4 / y x"40 FyRhs l• 9L ���5 a GLENN f2f) �9 F . of � V p�4 / A(. ° IV 0,t7 0# 4 0Z b was.. aar o co irm rv, Fto \ ,,.. / Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003,Town of Southold 2002; Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003. • Project Site Residential - Recreation and Open Space Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 mini era 0.5 Mile Study Area Agriculture Ell Utility - Commercial Government 1 Mile Study Area Institutional Vacant Land Peconic — LIRR Tracks Existing Land Use Figure 2-3 Long Island Power Authoritywind Turbine Project N A 0 oe- ,oo, q $' pbM �r, r . ,� fi l qPfir! "r,'♦ o' ♦\ i�4' 'I �,, I4Oi! 64 1 b v00001— yFti oft �,i, s<q L. • cpo O t7 1 SI 'OFoo + t '1/cJ At. # ' 4 lry . t 4.44 ...tool,� I: A----, \ 1 'N.- 1 SPa\NGVP �` Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;Town of Southold,2002; Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003 / • Project Site Agricultural-Conservation(A-C) -General Business(B) Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 � .®.p0.5 Mile Study Area Low-Density Residential 40(R-40) Hamlet Business(HB) Low-Density Residential 80(R-80) ,M Limited Business(LB) 1 Mile Study Area Peconic Residential Office(RO) 1111 Light Industrial +LIRR Tracks Zoning Use Districts Figure 2-4 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project assess the more indirect, or secondary effects of the proposed project on the surrounding area, such as compatibility with the general land use patterns. Since the project is expected to be completed by the spring of 2004, it is not necessary to conduct a separate analysis of the future without the proposed project since conditions are not expected to materially change from the current conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS LAND USE Project Site The proposed project site is an agricultural property used historically for farming. The immediate project site-is a flat, grass-covered, open field located--adjacent to an area used for - - cultivating grape vines and approximately 200 feet from an aluminum storage building (see Figure 2-3). 1/2 Mile Study Area The majority of the 1/2-mile study area is used for agricultural purposes. There are residential, vacant, and commercial uses along Main Road to the south of the proposed site, and north between the Long Island Rail Road(LIRR)Main Line tracks and Middle Road. Additional uses west of the proposed site, along Carroll Avenue and Peconic Lane, include recreation and open space and institutional,the Peconic Lane Primary School,located approximately 1,450 feet from the proposed site.Also located within the 1/2-mile study area are government owned lands to the north and west of the project site 1-Mile Study Area The land use for this study area remains essentially the same as the 1/2-mile study area. Within this study area, both agricultural and residential land uses are significantly expanded in all -- directions. This includes mixed-density residential uses along Harbor Road and Bayview Road to the east and southeast, along Wells Road to the south, and along Henry's Lane that runs perpendicular to Middle Road to the northwest. Large parcels of vacant land uses also exist to the south, along Richmond Creek, to the northwest along Mill Road, and north along Sound View Avenue. Additional recreation land use exists at Goldsmith's Inlet Park northwest of the proposed site as well as east and southeast associated with various cemeteries. ZONING Project Site The land surrounding the proposed project site is situated in the Agricultural-Conservation Zoning District(A-C).According to the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, the Agricultural Conservation district permits uses that prevent the unnecessary loss of currently open lands containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils, and areas containing sensitive environmental features such as aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. Uses that are permitted in this zone include one-family dwellings, agricultural operations, and accessory uses such as irrigation that are instrumental for agricultural uses(see Figure 2-4).Dwellings constructed within the A-C - district are limited to a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet(2 acres)and width of 175 feet.In addition,this district contains a height limitation of 35 feet. 2-2 N A 0 30 - F Q49, µ .. . __ " wes 111181104.4, 40,07 �� } ' I • tiV ' M4LRD �. �9F ` o•Gs l I 13 tiF�RY, �`9 Al/''' I P GLENN RD S<q G� of O o 410 I 410 it 4 ill iiiki A4444 SCO �`S / -- oN N• .w� , �y ♦ t / • `moi` ♦♦ •\\ Id `�answ� \� 0 z i w SPR\NG,.... ` y' Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;Town of Southold,2002; Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,Distnct 1000-Town of Southold,2003. • Project Site 1•Goldsmith's Inlet County Park 10.Willow Hill Cemetery Feet gull2 Suffolk County Water Authority Property 11:Town of Southold Park 0 500 1000 1 500 2.000 Imd0 5 Mile Study Area 3 Suffolk County Water Authority Property 12.Custer Institute 4.Peconic Main Post Office 13•Southold Indian Museum D1 Mile Study Area 5:Jean W.Cochran Park 14 North Fork Head Start Development Service Peconi• c 6.Robert W Tasker Memonal Park 15.Church of the Open Door +-LIRR Tracks 7•Peconic Lane Primary School 16.Town of Southold Fire Department Substation Community Facilities 8•Town of Southold Recreation Center 17.St.Patnck's Cemetery 9.Town of Southold Police Department Figure 2-5 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE Project Site The proposed facility would alter the current agricultural land use on the (25 feet by 35 feet) I project site. However, the proposed facility would not conflict with the current agricultural use or character of the general area immediately adjacent to the project site or in close proximity to the project site.Historically,wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. 1/2-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not alter the land use of the study area and would be compatible j -with predominant land uses in the study-area. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not alter the land use of the study area and would be compatible with predominant land uses in the study area. ZONING Project Site The proposed facility would exceed the height limitations and not be consistent with the permitted uses for an Agricultural-Conservation zoning district. LIPA is seeking a variance for height and a special use permit from the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, and site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board. To ensure a thorough consideration of potential impacts,an assessment of the proposed facility's conformance with the substance of the local: zoning regulations has been performed. - -Specifically, this assessment considers whether the proposed facility would be consistent with the Southold Town Code requirements for granting a special use permit to construct a public utility structure in an Agricultural-Conservation zoning district, a variance for height and site plan approval. Special Use Permit Regulations Under Southold Town Code § 100-31(B)(6), public utility buildings and structures are permitted in all districts when approved as a special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a special exception for a public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town, subject to such conditions as the Board of Appeals may-impose in order to protect and promote the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of the community and character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be considered. No special exception approval shall be granted unless the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically finds and determines that(a)the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health and welfare,the comfort,the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter; (e) the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with 2-4 Chapter 2:Peconic Site regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance; (f) all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily assessable for fire and police protection. See Town Code§ 100-263. In making such determinations, the Zoning Board of Appeals must consider numerous factors, the following of which are potentially applicable to the proposed facility: (A)the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such permitted uses; (B) the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land; (C) the effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets,highways or sidewalks to assure public safety; (D) the availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment,removal or discharge of sewage,refuse or other effluent(whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise)that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use; (E)whether the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot; (F) whether the use will cause disturbing emission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise; (G) whether the operation in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, if existing or if proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies; (H) the necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located; (1) whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result of the use, or by the structures to be used therefor, or by the inaccessibility of the property or structures thereon for convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus or by undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon such plot; (J)whether the use or the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population; (K) whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof; (L)whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school,theater,recreational area or place of public assembly, (M)whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use; (N) whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use; (0) whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate; and (P) whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. See Town Code § 100-264. In deciding on any application for a special exception use, the Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary or appropriate to preserve and protect the spirit and the objectives of this chapter. See Town Code § 100-265. Finally, the Zoning Board of Appeals must also consider whether the erection of public utility structures would be in compliance with all applicable federal,state, and local laws. The following is an analysis of the applicable factors required to be considered by the Board of Appeals before it may make a determination to allow a public utility structure in an Agricultural- Conservation zoning district: 2-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project The character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such proposed uses. The project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and agricultural land uses dominate the land within 1/2 mile of the site. Windmills have historically been part of the farm environment and the proposed use would be consistent with farm uses on and surrounding the project site. The conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land. As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site-and on the farms surrounding the project site and, therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned. ' The effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets, highways or sidewalks to assure public safety. The proposed facility would only occasionally create a small number of vehicle trips, and thus would create no significant traffic congestion on public streets,highways,or sidewalks. The availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use. The proposed facility would not cause or create sewage, refuse or effluent or necessitate the availability of adequate or proper public or private water supply. Whether the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. The proposed facility would not give off obnoxious gases, odors,smoke or soot. Whether the use will cause disturbing emission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. The proposed facility would cause no disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light or vibration. While the windmill would create some noise, no significant noise impacts would occur due to the proposed facility(see Section K,"Noise"). Whether the operations in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, if existing or ifproposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. The proposed facility would only occasionally create a small number of vehicle trips (a maximum of approximately four per month), and the nearest recreational facilities are approximately 1,500 feet from the proposed site, and thus would not interfere with or have an impact on public parking or recreational facilities. The necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located. 2-6 Chapter 2:Peconic Site The minimal number of vehicle trips generated by the use of the proposed facility (approximately four per month)would not require bituminous-surfaced space for the purposes of off-street parking of vehicles. Whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result of the use, or by the structures to be used therefor or by the inaccessibility of the plot or structure thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus. The windmill would create no fire, erosion or panic hazard and would be accessible to fire and other emergency apparatus. Whether the use or the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. The proposed facility would be cited on land used for agricultural purposes and would not cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof Considering the current agricultural use, flat surface, and exposure to prevailing winds, the plot area contemplated for the proposed facility is adequate for the proposed operation of a windmill. Whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area or place of public assembly. The closest community facilities, a primary school,two town parks, and a post office are located approximately 1/2 mile away from the proposed facility and would not be impacted by the erection of a windmill,which would create no significant adverse impacts to visual resources, air quality, or noise (see Section D, "Visual Resources," Section J, "Air Quality," and Section K, "Noise"). Whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use. The site was chosen particularly because it is flat, located on agricultural land, and has exposure to prevailing winds. Whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use. Visual impacts of the proposed facility are minimal(see Section D,"Visual Resources"). Whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate. The proposed facility would not generate stormwater runoff, sewage,refuse or other liquid, solid or gaseous waste; therefore there would be no provisions for their collection and disposal. Whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. Use of the proposed facility would not pose a risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. 2-7 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Whether the provisions of the laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of all state,federal and local agencies or bureaus applicable to such uses have been complied with. The proposed facility would be constructed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements. Based upon consideration of these factors,the Board of Appeals would be able to determine that the erection of the wind turbine on the project site would not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or specially permitted uses in adjacent zoning districts. The wind turbine would require only a small piece of property in the midst of farmland.The wind turbine would be connected to existing transmission lines via underground wires. Accordingly, the wind turbine would not interfere with existing uses or development of adjacent properties or zoning districts. In addition, the wind turbine would not adversely affect health and safety. On the contrary, the wind turbine provides an opportunity for increased energy diversity and a reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases, all of which benefit public health. Finally, as the wind turbine is consistent with each of the other required determinations, and is also consistent with historical agricultural uses, the use would be in harmony with and would promote the general purposes of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, the proposed facility would comply with the standards applicable for the granting of a special permit to construct a public utility building or structure. Height Regulations The maximum height permitted in the A-C zoning district in which the project site is located is 35 feet. Therefore, the proposed facility requires a variance to exceed the maximum height by 90 feet. Southold Town Code § 100-271 grants the Zoning Board of Appeals the power to vary or modify the application of such regulations relative to the Town Code "so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public health, safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done." A variance for a use of land that does not meet the dimensional or physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulation may be granted by the Board of Appeals upon a determination that the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance was granted. hi balancing the needs of the variance applicant against those of the community,Town Law § 267-b requires the Board of Appeals to consider whether: (a) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; (b)the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the variance; (c) the requested variance is substantial; (d) the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and(e)the alleged difficulty was self-created. In the case of the proposed facility, the 90-foot exceedence of the permitted maximum height is necessary so that the proposed facility is high enough to capture the wind required to generate electricity. The proposed facility would not cause a significant detriment to the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding community.As stated above,windmills have historically been part of the farm environment and, thus, the construction of the proposed facility would not produce a change in the character of the neighborhood,but rather would be consistent with the character of the project site and the nearby properties. In addition, an existing police cell tower is located just east of the project site in excess of 100 feet. Therefore, the wind turbine would be consistent with surrounding uses. 2-8 Chapter 2:Peconic Site The height exceedence that would be required for the windmill is substantial, however, at a lower height, the proposed facility would not be effective. Thus, there would be no feasible alternative to the height variance that would be required. The proposed facility would not have an adverse environmental impact; indeed, it would provide an environmental benefit by providing an opportunity for increased energy diversity, and reduction in air emissions and _ greenhouse gases. While the proposed facility would create some noise, the increased noise levels are not significant (see Section K, "Noise"). Finally, the need to exceed the maximum height restriction was not self-created; the project site was selected based on a number of factors, which combined seek to maximize the success of the proposed facility by providing maximum access to unobstructed prevailing winds while ensuring access to LIPA's power grid and adequate distance from the nearest residences. Based on the analysis above,the benefit to the applicant would not be outweighed by a detriment to health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, the Board of Appeals would be within its discretion to grant a height variance. Site Plan Regulations Southold Town Code § 100-252 authorizes the Southold Town Planning Board to approve a site plan if such site plan meets a number of objectives. The site plan requirements are discussed below. The site plan proposes adequate traffic accessways in terms of number, width, grade, alignment and visibility, relationship of location to intersections, pedestrian accessways and places of assembly, and are in conformance with overall traffic safety considerations. The proposed facility would only occasionally create limited vehicular trips (a maximum of four per month); access to the project site would be over an existing driveway. The proposed site provides adequate off-street parking and loading spaces to satisfy the parking needs of the proposed uses and that convenient access to such parking spaces is provided which promotes pedestrian safety and will not impede existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow. No parking would be necessary. The proposed facility would provide adequate landscaping and screening from adjacent residential uses. The project site is located well within the boundaries of the existing farm,which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties. The proposed facility preserves the natural features on and adjacent to the existing site. The proposed facility is consistent with existing historic farmland uses, thereby preserving the existing features. The proposed facility would feature paved areas that are both aesthetically pleasing and a safe combination of pavement and plantings intended for use by pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed facility would not feature paved areas and would not be accessible by the public. Any sound that the facility produces shall be located to minimize sound to adjoining properties or on the adjacent street. The sound produced by the proposed facility will have no significant impact on adjoining properties or streets(see Section K, "Noise"). 2-9 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project The site plan provides for the placement of lights and lighted signs so as not to cause direct light to shine on other properties. The proposed facility will feature few service lights to be used only during maintenance and emergency conditions. The site plan provides for adequate grading and drainage of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed facility The proposed facility will have no impact on existing grades on-site. The proposed facility conforms to existing public requirements and standards with regard to use of public utilities. The proposed facility would not use any public utilities. The site plan illustrates that the facility is consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. The proposed facility conforms to the existing development of an agricultural site and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. The proposed facility would exhibit architectural features in conformance with the prevailing character of the neighborhood. The architectural features of the proposed facility would be consistent with those related to adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The site plan and building design accommodate the needs of the handicapped. The proposed facility would not be accessible to the public and does not need to be handicapped accessible. Thus, the proposed facility would conform to the requirements of the conditions for site plan approval if such approval were required. -- 1/2-Mile Study Area The proposed facility conforms to the existing uses in the 1/2-mile study area as presently zoned and,therefore would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning in the 1/2-mile study area. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility conforms to the existing uses in the 1-mile study area as presently zoned and,therefore would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning in the 1-mile study area. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Project Site Since there are no community facilities at the project site, no impacts on community facilities are expected. 1/2 Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any community facilities within the 1/2- mile study area. It would not affect the ability of any community' facility to serve the community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have significant adverse visual, air 2-10 Chapter 2:Peconic Site quality, or noise impacts on any community facilities (see Section D, "Visual Resources," Section J,"Air Quality,"and Section K, "Noise"). 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any community facilities within the 1-mile study area. It would not affect the ability of any community facility to serve the community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have significant adverse air quality, noise, or visual impacts on any community facilities. C.HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES HISTORIC RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This section considers the potential for the proposed project to affect historic resources in the vicinity of the project site.For this analysis, the section addresses a study area of 1/2 mile and 1 mile from the project site. Within this study area, historic resources were identified and the potential effects on the resources were assessed. Effects are determined at locations where proposed construction activities may occur,within close proximity to a historic structure to potentially cause structural damage, and also account for visual or contextual impacts. Historic resources were located through their listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, and as National Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts. Since the proposed facility is scheduled to be operable by the spring of 2004, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed action, since conditions would not materially change from the existing conditions. - EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Site There are no designated landmarks located at the project site. 1/2 Mile Study Area There are no designated landmarks located within the 1/2-mile study area. 1-Mile Study Area There are no designated State or National landmarks located within the 1-mile study area. However, the Town of Southold has approved the designation of local historic landmarks under its Landmark Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 56 of the Town Code). The law is designed to protect and maintain the character of historically significant properties within the Township. There are four sites on the local register of historic landmarks located within the 1-mile study area: Town Doctor's House located on Ackerly Pond Lane, Joseph Reeve House located on Lower Road, Abijah Corey House located on Main Bayview Road, and Deacon James Horton House also located on Main Bayview Road. 2-11 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Project Site i Since there are no designated landmarks at the project site,no impacts on historic resources are expected. 1/2 Mile Study Area Since there are no designated landmarks within the 1/2-mile study area, no impacts on historic resources are expected. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any historic resources within the 1-mile study area. _ ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This archaeological assessment was directed at identifying whether there were any archaeological concerns regarding construction of the proposed wind turbine at the Peconic site. Existing conditions were determined through two phases, the first being limited background research designed to estimate the potential for precontact and historical archaeological resources to exist at the project site. A Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment, including documentary research and field investigations, was undertaken by Historical Perspectives, Inc., (HPI) in May 2002 for the Peconic site.Data were gathered to compare the precontact past,the historical past, and the subsurface disturbance record.Research to accomplish these goals included: • Identifying categories of potential archeological resources through documentary and cartographic research at repositories such as the New York Public Library (NYPL), the Suffolk County Archaeology Association (SCAA) records at Hauppauge Town Hall, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), and the New York State Museum site files (NYSM) files and archives (e.g., predictive models, regional studies,planning documents,and site inventory forms). • Examining the land use history of the project site in order to estimate the extent of subsurface impacts by reviewing atlases and/or maps at specified time intervals. • Identifying resource types which may have remained undisturbed. Subsequently, Phase 1B field testing was undertaken to establish the presence or absence of archaeological resources to confirm existing conditions. To accomplish these goals, subsurface testing, in the form of 50 x 50 cm hand excavated shovel test pits (STPS), was conducted at intervals which formed a crucifix pattern over the project site. Where this was not possible due to topographic constraints,judgmental STPs were completed. All excavated soil was screened through 1/4-inch hardware cloth, and cultural material encountered was recovered and bagged according to natural stratigraphy.Relevant information about each test location,including depth, stratigraphy, anomalies, disturbance, and artifact content, was recorded. Any artifacts encountered were returned to a laboratory for further analysis. 2-12 1i 11 Chapter 2:Peconic Site EXISTING CONDITIONS Precontact Resources Precontact Sensitivity Long Island,and more specifically,the Southold area,has been utilized by precontact peoples for thousands of years spanning the Paleolndian,Archaic,Transitional, and Woodland periods.Archaeological work conclusively proves that Native Americans occupied this area utilizing both coastal and inland resources(Lightfoot et al., 1985:61; Bernstein et al., 1996:126). A site file search undertaken at the SCAA records in Hauppauge, the NYSM, and the i_. NYSOPRHP found four previously inventoried precontact period State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)sites, and eight previously completed archaeological surveys within 1 mile of the Peconic project site(see Attachment C).The following SHPO sites were identified(see Table 2- i - 1) Table 2-1 Identified Precontact Period State Historic Preservation Office Sites - SHPO Site# Location Site Type Artifact Description A10310.000030 Richmond Creek Lithic Workshop Quartz points,blades,flakes, +1-1 mile SW etc. A10310.000224 Mill Lane Woodland Adena,Levanna&Lamoka (SCAA#351) +1-1 mile NW Qtz Proj.Pts. — A10310.000225 Goldsmith Inlet Woodland NA +1-1 mile NW A10310.000244 Bowery Lane NA NA +1-3/4 mile NE Sources: Suffolk County Archaeology Association(SCAA),the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation(NYSOPRHP),and the New York State Museum site files(NYSM). Of the eight archaeological surveys, the first was completed at Goldsmith Inlet County Park in 1980 (Johannemann 1980a:2), and identified site A10310.000224 (SCAA #351) described above. Goldsmith Inlet is a saltwater pond near the coast more than 1 mile northwest of the project site. The second survey was undertaken at the Peconic Dunes County Park, about one mile north of the project site on the coast (Johannemann 1980b:1), where field testing was recommended due to high archaeological potential. The third survey was undertaken for the Richmond Creek Farms Subdivision, south of Route 25 near Richmond Creek, about 3/4 to 1 mile southwest of the project site (Billadello and Johannemann 1987:27). Site A10310.000030, a quartz lithic processing station, was identified on the property in proximity to the Richmond Creek. A Stage 2 investigation of the precontact loci at Richmond Creek Farms found that the site contained a light density of lithics, the vast majority of which were found in the plow zone. The site was found to lack the criteria necessary for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places(Bernstein and Lenardi 1999:15). East of the project site, two archaeological surveys were completed in the Village of Southold, one for the Southold Villas Project (Barber and Bonasera 1991:6), and one for the Route 25, 1 2-13 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Highland Road, Cutchogue to Sixth Street project(Silver and Merwin 1995:1).Neither of these surveys identified precontact sites within their boundaries. Closest to the project site, a Phase I survey was undertaken for the proposed Middle (North) Road Wells in Peconic (Cammisa 2000:1). Phase IB field testing found no precontact resources within the boundaries of that project site (Ibid.:13). Finally, to the northwest of the project site, j f also on North Road, a Phase 1 study of the Agri-Business Child Development property was undertaken in 2001 (Bernstein et al.). Phase 1B testing at the site failed to recover a precontact material(Ibid.:20). The SCAA records reported numerous previously identified precontact sites along the shores of the Peconic Bay, but none in proximity to the project site. Two sites identified in Peconic were located at Richmond Creek and Indian Neck, south of the project site(SCAA#720,721). In a 1978 report on the archaeological sensitivity of Suffolk County, archaeologists used existing cultural resource inventories to establish areas of high, moderate, and low precontact activity within the county.At that time, the current project site fell within an area of intensive aboriginal activity, or high sensitivity (Suffolk County Archaeological Association 1978). Areas that had intensive aboriginal habitation were centered around Peconic Bay and along inland river channels,but extended north as far as the Peconic site. Results of Field Investigation No precontact material was recovered from any of the STPs excavated(see Attachment C).The Phase 1B field investigation found no potentially significant precontact resources within the Peconic site,confirming that the site has no precontact potential. ' Historical Resources Historical Sensitivity In 1702 a cart path was laid out through the woodlands of Riverhead, facilitating travel from Southold to Brookhaven Town. Maps from thel7th through early 19th century do not depict structures or townships in proximity to the project site; however they do depict a system of established roads (Ryder 1675, Southark 1734; Colton 1836;Mather 1842). In 1836, 1842, and 1844 the project site was depicted as vacant, with the closest development being a series of structures fronting the north side of Route 25 to the south(Colton 1836;Mather 1842; Colton 1844). In 1858 the project site was depicted as vacant, with the closest structures still fronting on Route 25 (Chance 1858), south of the project site and on Peconic Lane, west of the project site.The site appeared unchanged in 1873 (Beers 1873). Despite the growth of the region and increased residential development along Route 25, the project site remained vacant in 1906 and 1929 (Hyde 1906; Dolph and Stewart 1929). It appears that throughout the 20th century, the project site remained undeveloped and was probably continually used as agricultural land. The only historic sites inventoried within a 1-mile radius of the project site are SHPO Site I A10310.000015, the Great Western Mill, located in the hamlet of Southold, and Site A10310.000227, a 19th century refuse midden near Goldsmith Inlet. The mill was built in ca.1679 and was utilized through ca.1870(see Attachment C). No features or signs of historical structures were observed on the project site property when the Phase 1B field testing was undertaken. Currently the site is under cultivation as a vineyard. The lack of historic features, coupled with the lack of historic development portrayed on maps and 2-14 Chapter 2:Peconic Site atlases, suggested that this site had almost no potential for historical resources. Fieldwork was designed to test these hypotheses. Results of Field Investigations No historical features or potentially important resources were observed at the site, and none were found in any of the STPs (see Attachment C). Therefore,the Phase 1B testing confirmed that the site has no potential for historical period resources. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed LIPA facilities installation would have no negative impact on any potential archaeological resources at the Peconic site, since none were indicated by research or identified during the Phase 1B field investigation. Since the shovel test pits were taken, the location of the unit has been moved but still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consist with the original site location ground cover and soil type.Therefore,no archaeological resources would be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. D. VISUAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This analysis describes the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding area within 1/2 mile of the project site, and assesses the effects of the proposed facility on the existing visual quality and design characteristics of the site and study area. The analysis examines building types, heights, materials, and topography. In addition, the wind turbine tower was superimposed onto a photograph taken in the field to further analyze whether the tower would diminish the visual character of surrounding neighborhood. This analysis follows the methodology set forth by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to assess visual impacts; significant scenic and aesthetic resources, including properties on or eligible for inclusion in the State or National Register of Historic Places; state parks; cultural parks; state forests; National Wildlife Refuges; National Natural Landmarks; National Parks; national or state wild, scenic, or recreational rivers; sites eligible for designation as scenic; state or federally designated trails; and state nature and historic preserve areas. The potential visual impacts were assessed based on field visits to the project site and surrounding study area in April and May 2002 and September 2003, and utilizing aerial photography of the project area. Because the facility is expected to be constructed and operating by the spring of 2004, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed project, since conditions would not materially change from the existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS ! I PROJECT SITE The project site is located on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. It is relatively flat,with grass as the dominant ground cover. The project facility would be located in the northeast quadrant of the open field adjacent to planted grape vines. 2-15 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project STUDY AREA The study area is principally composed of farmland to the north, east, south, and west. Sporadic residential houses primarily exist further from the project site to the south along Route 25 and to the west along Peconic Lane. North of the project site is additional residential development as well as the LIRR Main Line track. Also located in the 1/2-mile project site is the mouth of Richmond Creek. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS With the proposed project, the (25 feet by 35 feet) project site would be altered from an agricultural parcel of land-to a_small wind turbine facility containing the wind turbine on top of a - - -- support tower and some relatively small control equipment. At most locations, the only visible feature of the proposed facility would be the latticed tower and the three turbine blades. The tower rises to a height of 100 feet, and the turbine blades are approximately 25 feet in length, yielding a facility that has a maximum height of 125 feet and a maximum width of 50 feet. The remainder of the facility, including the control equipment and surrounding fencing, would be similar to or less than that of any surrounding structure. The proposed facility would be constructed of materials and colored in such a manner as to blend in visually with the surrounding structures and features. The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings. The proposed facility would be visible for some distance from the project site, but would not have an adverse visual impact. The proposed site would be setback more than 600 feet from Route 25.In addition,a police cell tower is present just east of the project site and is in excess of 100 feet and therefore the wind turbine would be consistent with the surrounding visual features. Photosimulations have been prepared that show two views of the project site, with and without the wind turbine facility, from a distance of approximately 610 feet looking north from Route 25, the nearest visual receptor(see Figure 2-6a), and from a distance of approximately 720 feet looking northeast from Route 25 (see Figure 2-6b). The photo simulations show that while visible behind the main building of the winery on Route 25,the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility(see Figures 2-6a and 2-6b). Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely affected. E. NATURAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This section addresses natural resource issues, presents information on the site's existing resources, and identifies potential impacts of the proposed project. Field surveys were conducted during April 2002 and September 2003 to evaluate whether any natural resources are present on the site. The discussion of resources was also based on existing information and data from the Natural Heritage Program. The Natural Heritage Program maintains a database of rare or state- listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats that occur in New York State. 2-16 10.03 • tip f; • .d da • View north from Route 25—Without the proposed project YL. f:1 A A • li View north from Route 25—With the proposed project Peconic LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-6a 10.03 i . er y • •,-r - 4» 1 ,-' -11.; libiba to t , illili gtltlQll !IF • .41114, View northeast from Route 25—Without the proposed project . t • r -- I II I 9 T' .0a View northeast from Route 25—With the proposed project Peconic LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-6b i f Chapter 2:Peconic Site Since the facility is expected to be constructed and operating by the spring of 2004 and conditions would not substantially change from existing conditions, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed project. it EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located within an existing vineyard, on an open, grass-covered field adjacent to planted grape vines.No significant natural resources were found on-site. The Natural Heritage Program database found that two sensitive plant species may occur in the Peconic vicinity. Woodland agrimony (Agrimonia rostellata), and orange fringed orchis (Platanthera ciliaris) were_last seen in the Peconic area_in the early__20thcentury and therefore _ have more than likely been extirpated from this area.The woodland agrimony is generally found in dry wooded areas. Because the project site is located within an existing vineyard, it can be concluded that this particular species would not occur on the project site. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The site is currently part of an existing vineyard and located on disturbed land adjacent to planted grape vines. The proposed facility would not have any significant adverse effect on groundwater and surface water. There are no significant natural resources or wetlands located on-site or within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, in conjunction with this assessment, LIPA retained Dr. Paul Kerlinger of Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, (C&K) to perform an avian risk assessment of the proposed facility, and evaluate impacts of this facility on birds. A copy of the C&K report is contained in Attachment C. The C&K study included a literature review and site visits by an avian expert. These sources of information were used to provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use the project site and the area surrounding that site. This information was then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any, from wind power development at the particular site. The closest sensitive habitat for birds is at least 400 to 500 feet from the Peconic site. The project site does not contain sensitive habitats or even habitats where birds normally nest. Human activity at the site is considerable including farm equipment, earth moving equipment, trucks,and field workers. Nothing in the literature or from what was observed at the project site indicated that the site is an important nesting or foraging area for birds, including federally or state listed or sensitive (species of concern) species. There are no known hawk migration pathways or lookouts on or within many miles of the project site.The site is not known to be a significant wintering site for birds, so relatively few species are likely to use the site between mid-November and mid-March. In addition,there was no evidence that the project site or lands adjacent to the site would attract significant concentrations of migrating or wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, hawks, or other species. However, small numbers of songbirds and other species are likely to migrate over the project site. Site visits revealed no evidence of endangered or threatened species (federal or state)presence on or use of the site and the habitat did not appear to be suitable for such species. Birds observed during the site visits indicated that the species most likely to be present and use the project site are common birds of farmland,brushland,and residential areas. Raptors that may 2-17 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project frequent the site and nest nearby are primarily Red-tailed Hawk and American Kestrel, and, perhaps, Northern Harrier, although in winter some Rough-legged Hawks are likely to be present.Also, Ospreys nest within a mile.Herons and egrets may fly near or over the site as they move between foraging sites. Use of the project site and the area immediately adjacent to the project site by all but a few common songbirds is very low. A review of the available literature on wind turbine impacts on birds did not reveal evidence that would suggest that small,single-turbine projects like the proposed project,pose any risk to birds. Studies have shown that the least impact tends to occur with small numbers of turbines, especially if they are situated in agricultural fields.No records of fatalities at small turbines,like the 50-kilowatt Atlantic Orient Windpower machines proposed for this facility, could be found in the literature. Similarly, free-standing (unguyed) communication towers have almost never been implicated in avian collision fatalities. Because the proposed facility would consist of a single, small turbine and would be situated in an area where bird use is likely to be low, the C&K study concluded that it would be highly improbable that the proposed facility would pose any significant adverse risk to birds. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on natural resources. F.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS METHODOLOGY This chapter assesses the possibility that hazardous materials may be found in soil or groundwater on-site and evaluates the potential impacts associated with redevelopment of the site. To identify potential sources of hazardous materials, a site reconnaissance of existing site conditions was performed at the site. This study included a visual inspection of the area to identify on-site hazardous material uses and to assess existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS The study site is located within an existing vineyard on an open field adjacent to planted grape vines and north of a storage/utility building for the vineyard.The site was chosen by LIPA based on its former and current agricultural use and has no known available history of industrial usage. No unusual staining or stressed vegetation was noted at the study site or surrounding area. No structures were located at the site or at surrounding areas that would impact the study area. Based on the location of the site, its current condition and the historical and current usage, the potential concerns associated with the proposed construction of the windmill would likely be the presence of pesticides and/or herbicides in the soil.Pesticides and/or herbicides have likely been applied to the vegetation over time to destroy insects and to inhibit the growth of weeds. However,no stressed vegetation and no unusual staining were noted on the surficial soil in these areas. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The development of the site would involve limited excavation and disturbance of the existing soil on the site. The construction of a utility trench may have the potential for exposure to 2-18 Chapter 2:Peconic Site impacts due to possible contaminants in the soil. The exact location of the utility trench would be determined prior to construction. Construction activities may result in temporary increases in exposure pathways for construction workers to the potential pesticides and herbicides in the soil. Typically, concentrations of pesticides and herbicides used for vineyards are not sufficient to require a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) during subsequent excavation in areas where such chemicals have been properly used. However, to avoid any potential adverse health impacts, field personnel would be instructed to be aware of staining and/or odors. If any staining or odors are noted by field personnel during construction, excavation activities would be stopped and appropriate measures would be taken prior to resuming such activities. These measures would include the implementation of a construction Health and Safety Plan,which would detail appropriate testing and/or monitoring to assure that the construction workers, site abutters and the environment are not adversely affected-by the construction activities: - - - - -- - -- - - -- - With these measures, and based upon the sites previous farming use and field observations, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the construction activities associated with the proposed facility. G.WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION METHODOLOGY The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 sets forth standard policies for reviewing proposed projects along coastlines. The New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) administers the program at the state level. The 44 statewide policies for waterfront protection and improvement address public access, recreation, development, flood and erosion hazards, water resources,fish and wildlife,scenic quality,cultural resources,and air quality. Each of the State's 44 policies is discussed in Attachment A of this application. Many of these policies do not apply to the proposed project. Those policies that apply to this particular site are discussed below. POLICY ANALYSIS Policy 23: Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas, or sites that are of signifi- cance in the history, architecture, archeology, or culture of the State, its communities, or the nation. The proposed project would not adversely affect any structures, sites, or districts of historical, architectural, archaeological,or cultural significance. Policy 24:Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance. As described in the visual character analysis, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The proposed structures are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which in this case is agricultural. Therefore,the project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views. Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area. 2-19 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project The proposed site is farmed agricultural land which is consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project site is 25 feet x 35 feet,it is not expected that the proposed project would significantly impact agricultural lands. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM In addition to the 44 policies set forth by the state, the Town of Southold has developed 13 policies which were adopted in April 2003 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). These policies are used as guidelines for development and proposed actions in the Town. According to the Town of Southold,the following is a summary list of the LWRP policies: Policy 1: Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location,and minimizes adverse effects of development. The proposed project would be developed on existing agricultural land utilizing existing developed areas instead of vacant, natural areas. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 2:Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. The proposed project would not adversely affect historic resources in the Town. The Peconic site has been examined for this policy. In addition, no historic resources exist within 1/2 mile of the project site. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 3:Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. As described in the visual resources analysis, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The proposed structure is visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which are agricultural. Therefore _ this project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views.The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4:Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Because of existing agricultural development and land uses, the project site does not contain natural features, such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, or other natural protective features.This policy does not apply. Policy 5:Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. This policy is not applicable. The proposed project would not involve the use or degradation of surface or groundwater. Policy 6:Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem. Given the nature of the proposed project site, agricultural land, there are no significant natural resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. This policy does not apply. Policy 7:Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. The proposed project would not degrade air quality in the Town or cause violations of state or national air quality standards. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. - 2-20 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Policy 8: Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. The proposed project would not produce solid waste or hazardous substances or waste. Therefore,this policy does not apply. Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters,public lands, and I public resources of the Town of Southold. This policy does not apply.The project site is privately owned and would not be located on coastal waters. Policy 10: Protect the Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water- dependent uses in suitable locations. - -The proposed project would not involve water-dependent uses.-This- policy is- not applicable. Policy 11:Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Long Island Sound,Peconic Estuary,and Town waters. This policy is not applicable. Policy 12:Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. The proposed project would be sited on agricultural land, an existing vineyard, and therefore consistent with local land use.Because the proposed project site is 25 feet x 35 feet, it is not expected that the proposed project would significantly impact agricultural lands.The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 13:Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. The proposed project is the development of a wind turbine, to produce energy. Wind turbines are an alternative, self-sustaining energy source. Therefore, the proposed -- project is consistent with this policy. H. INFRASTRUCTURE METHODOLOGY The proposed facility at the Peconic site would initially generate a greater degree of activity to the project site during the construction phase than what currently exists. This activity would primarily involve construction vehicles and equipment and would not create a new demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management. Upon completion of the proposed facility,no new demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management would be generated. As a producer of renewable energy, the proposed facility would contribute electrical power to the existing power grid. Li EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SUPPLY As a private agricultural site, the existing water demands for the proposed site are for agricultural purposes. 2-21 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project SANITARY SEWAGE As an agricultural land use,the site does not contribute any sewage flow. SOLID WASTE No solid waste is currently generated on the proposed site. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT { WATER SUPPLY The proposed project would not generate new demand for water supply. SANITARY SEWAGE The proposed project would not contribute any additional sanitary sewage flow to the existing sewer system. SOLID WASTE The proposed facility would not generate additional solid waste. ENERGY Over a 20-year period, the proposed facility is expected to contribute an additional 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electrical power annually to the existing power grid without generating any additional demand. I. TRAFFIC The proposed wind turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips. After construction is completed, the only vehicle trips would be, at most, a weekly or biweekly visit to check that the facility is operating correctly, and a monthly or quarterly preventive maintenance trip. At most there would be four vehicle trips (two arrivals and two departures) in a peak hour.This small number of vehicle trips would not result in any significant impacts. J.AIR QUALITY The proposed wind turbine facility would have a beneficial effect on air quality. It would produce electrical energy without burning any fossil fuels or emitting any pollutants. Over a 20- year period, assuming 100,000 kwh of electrical power is generated annually, the wind turbine would result in the elimination of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates that would otherwise be emitted from fossil fuel fired power generating facilities. This estimate is based on information provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which compiled fuel usage and emission factors from a typical mix of fossil fuel fired utilities in New York State, as well as United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)AP-42 emission factors and LIPA system average heat rates.In addition, over the same 20-year period, the wind turbines would eliminate the use of approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas. 2-22 Chapter 2:Peccnic Site K.NOISE METHODOLOGY The noise analysis for the proposed wind turbine facility focuses on noise impacts from the operation of mechanical equipment at the project site. The proposed project would only . occasionally generate a small number of vehicle trips, which would not have the potential for significantly affecting noise levels. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS "A"-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL(DBA) Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dB). Because loudness is important in the assessment of the effects of noise on people, the dependence of loudness on frequency must be taken into account in the noise scale used in environmental assessments. One of the simplified scales that accounts for the dependence of perceived loudness on frequency is the use of a weighting network,known as A-weighting,in the measurement system,to simulate the response , of the human ear. For most noise assessments, the A-weighted sound pressure level in units of dBA is used in view of its widespread recognition and its close correlation with perception. In the current study, all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted decibels. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS The average ability of an individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented (see Table 2-2). Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most listeners, whereas 10 dBA changes are normally perceived as doublings (or halvings) of noise levels. These guidelines permit direct estimation of an individual's probable perception of changes in noise levels. It is also possible to characterize the effects of noise on people by studying the aggregate response of people in communities. The rating method used for this purpose is based on a statistical analysis of the fluctuations in noise levels in a community, and integrating the fluctuating sound energy during a known period of time,most typically during 1 hour or 24 hours. Various government and research institutions have proposed criteria that attempt to relate changes in noise levels to community response. One commonly applied criterion for estimating response is incorporated into the community response scale proposed by the International Standards Organization(ISO) of the United Nations (see Table 2-3). This scale relates changes in noise level to the degree of community response and permits direct estimation of the probable response of a community to a predicted change in noise level. 2-23 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-2 Average Ability to Perceive Chan es in Noise Levels Change (dBA) Human Perception of Sound 2-3 Barely perceptible 5 Readily noticeable 10 A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 A"dramatic change" 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound Sources: Bolt Beranek and Neuman,Inc.,Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, _ __ Report No.PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration,June 1973. Table 2-3 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels Change (dBA) Category Description 0 None No observed reaction 5 Little Sporadic complaints 10 Medium Widespread complaints 15 Strong Threats of community action 20 Very strong Vigorous community action Sources: International Standards Organization, Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Re- sponses,ISO/TC 43. (New York: United Nations, November 1969). NOISE DESCRIPTORS USED IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT Because the sound pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment and because very few noises are constant,other ways of describing noise over more extended periods have been developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over a specific period, as if it were a steady,unchanging sound.For this condition, a descriptor called the "equivalent sound level," or Leq(1), can be computed. This is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and period (e.g., 1 hour, denoted by Leq(1), or 24 hours, denoted as Leq(24), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. Statistical sound level descriptors—such as L1, L10, L50, and L90—are sometimes used to indicate noise levels that are exceeded 1, 10, 50, and 90 percent of the time, respectively. Discrete event peak levels are given as levels. The relationship between Leq and levels of exceedance is worth noting.Because Leq is defined in energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is not simply related to the levels of exceedance. If the noise fluctuates very little, Leq will approximate L50 or the median level. If the noise fluctuates broadly, the Leq will be approximately equal to the L10 value. If there are extreme fluctuations, the Leq will exceed the background level by 10 or more decibels. Thus, the 2-24 Chapter 2:Peconic Site relationship between Leg and the levels of exceedance will depend on the character of the noise. In community noise measurements, it has been observed that the Leg is generally between Lio and L50.The relationship between Leg and exceedance levels has been used in the current studies to characterize the noise sources and to determine the nature and extent of their impact at all receptor locations. For purposes of the proposed project, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Lego)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. Leg(1)is a noise descriptor that is widely used for project impact evaluation, including stationary source equipment noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels. NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA There are a variety of noise standards and guidelines that have been promulgated by various city, state, and federal agencies. A number of these agencies criteria are discussed below. However, none of these criteria are directly applicable to the proposed facility. SOUTHOLD NOISE CODE The Town of Southold does not have a noise code which would be applicable to the proposed facility and would provide noise limits or contains impact criteria. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ii The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)has noise criteria that it uses for projects subject to its jurisdiction. NYSDOT has adopted the noise criteria of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)(23 CFR 772).These criteria have two components: a"fixed" noise criteria and a"relative"noise criteria. The fixed noise criteria consist of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which are shown in Table 2-4.These NAC depend on task interference due to noise interruption of various activities involving speech,which vary by land use. By NYSDOT policy, substantial fixed noise impacts occur when predicted traffic-noise levels equal or exceed the applicable NAC from this table. The second type of FHWA criterion is relative to existing noise levels. Substantial relative noise impacts occur when predicted traffic-noise levels increase by more than 5 decibels (i.e., 6 decibels or more) above existing noise levels. 2-25 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-4 FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria Activity Category Leq(1) Description of Activity A 57 Outdoors Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those quali- ties is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Outdoors Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences,motels,hotels,schools,churches,libraries,and hospitals. f C 72 Outdoors Developed lands, properties,or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D None Undeveloped lands. - E 52 Indoors Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, Ii- braries,hospitals,and auditoriums. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently published a guidance document titled Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (October 6, 2000). This document states that increases from 0 to 3 dBA should have no appreciable effect on receptors, increases of 3 to 6 dBA may have the potential for adverse impact only in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present, and increases of more than 6 dBA may require a closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing noise levels and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. It goes on to say that in terms of threshold values, the addition of any noise source, in a non-industrial setting, should not raise the ambient noise level above a maximum of 65 dBA, and ambient noise levels in industrial or commercial areas may exceed 65 dBA with a high end of approximately 79 dBA. Projects which exceed these guidance levels should explore the feasibility of implementing mitigation. NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972 As a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, a document entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,was published in 1974 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Table 2-5 shows these values. These levels do not constitute enforceable federal regulations or standards.Nevertheless,the noise levels identified by EPA represent valid criteria for evaluating the effect of project noise on public health and welfare. IMPACT CRITERIA For purposes of this project, the project would have a significant impact if noise levels with the project exceed an Leq(1) value of 50 dBA, and the project results in an increase in Leq(1) noise levels over future conditions without the project of greater than 5 dBA. Both conditions would have to occur in order to have a significant impact. The 50 dBA criteria is based upon a consideration of achieving a 40 dBA interior noise levels.Absent any special window treatment, typical building construction produces 10 dBA of attenuation with an open window.Therefore, a 2-26 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Table 2-5 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety Effect Level Area Hearing loss Leq(24)s 70 dB All areas Outdoor activity interference Ldp s 55 dB Outdoors in residential areas and annoyance and farms, and other outdoor areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use. Leq(24)s 55 dB Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time,such as school yards,playgrounds, etc. Indoor activity interference Lin s 45 dB Indoor residential areas. and annoyance Leq(24)s45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities, such as schools,etc. Sources: Report No.EPA-550/9-74-004, March 1974. 50 dBA exterior noise level would be reduced by typical building construction to approximately a 40 dBA interior value, which is a relatively low value. The 5 dBA relative change criteria, is consistent with increases in noise levels that are generally considered noticeable and likely to result in complaints. NOISE PREDICTION METHODOLOGY Noise levels for the wind turbine at each receptor locations were calculated using the following formula: Lp=L,-20Log D-0.6 where Lp=sound level at specified location LW=sound power level D=distance from source(feet) While the sound pressure level varies with wind speed and direction, in general, the maximum sound power level is approximately 101 dB. EXISTING CONDITIONS SELECTION OF NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS A receptor site near residences or other sensitive receptor sites on roadways adjacent to the project site was selected for analysis. The receptor site was located on Route 25 (i.e., at 43000 Main Road), between Wells Road and Maple Avenue. The selected receptor site is representative of noise levels in the area, and is a location that has the potential for the largest increases in noise levels from the proposed facility. 2-27 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project NOISE MONITORING At the selected noise receptor site, a 20-minute noise measurement was made on a Saturday night/Sunday morning between 10 PM and 5 AM. The weekend late night/early morning period was selected, since this is the time period when,existing noise levels would be expected to be low and, consequently, project impacts would be expected to be the largest. It is also the time period when generally any nearby residences would be the most sensitive to increases in noise levels. During other hours project noise impacts would be expected to be lower than during the late night/early morning period. Equipment Used The noise monitoring was conducted using a Larson Davis Labs (LDL) Model MK224 microphone connected to an LDL preamplifier attached to an LDL Model 700 Type 1 (according to ANSI Standard SI.4-1983)sound level meter. The equipment was mounted at a height of 4 feet above the ground on a tripod.The meter was calibrated before and after readings with a Briiel & Kjaer Type 4230 sound level calibrator using the appropriate adaptor. Measurements at each location were made on the A-scale(dBA)for a sampling period of 1 hour. The data were digitally recorded by the noise analyzer and displayed at the end of the measurement period in units of dBA. Measured quantities included Leg, L1, L10, L50, and L90 . A windscreen was used during all sound measurements except for calibration. All measurement procedures conformed with the requirements of ANSI Standard 51.13-1971 (R1976). Results of Measurements Existing monitored noise levels (Leq(1) and statistical noise levels) at the receptor site are - summarized in Table 2-6. Measured noise levels at the measurement site are relatively low and reflect the relatively low traffic volumes on Route 25 and the fact that there are no significant noise sources in the area. Table 2-6 Existing Noise Levels Adjacent to the Peconic Wind Turbine Site Site Location Leq(1) Ll(1) Lim) L50(1) L9o(1) 1 Route 25 48.4 61.0 46.0 41.0 37.5 Notes: All values in dBA. Values measured byAKRF, Inc.,on Sat./Sun. May 11th/12th,2002. NO BUILD CONDITIONS Since it is anticipated that the proposed facility would be in operation by the spring of 2004, conditions without the proposed project would be the same as existing conditions (i.e., noise levels would be the same as those shown in Table 2-5). PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The closest residence to the project site is approximately 670 feet south on Route 25. At this residence, noise levels from the wind turbine would be approximately 43.8 dBA. Without the proposed facility,based upon the measured background noise levels,nighttime Leq(1)noise levels values would be approximately 48.4 dBA. The proposed wind turbine would increase the noise levels at this residence by approximately 1.3 dBA to a background noise level of approximately 2-28 Chapter 2:Peconic Site 49.7 dBA. An increase of this magnitude would be an imperceptible and insignificant change in noise levels. Therefore, at all sensitive receptor locations,the proposed facility would not result in significant ` noise impacts.The above results are conservative, since they do not take into consideration wind noise, which would mask some, if not all of the noise generated by the wind turbine, on windy days. L. CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY The proposed Peconic site is an open field located within an existing vineyard adjacent to planted vines.The site is relatively flat.There are no structures on the immediate project site and no demolition activities would be required for installation of the proposed facility. These activities generally fall within the following four phases: preconstruction site preparation; unit assembly and site finish; and utility connections(electrical distribution). Each of these activities, as well as potential project impacts, are described below. PRECONSTRUCTION SITE PREPARATION Pre-installation site preparation would start with clearing the site to remove any vegetation (grass-cover), grading to a level surface (limited grading may be required) and limited surface soil excavation. This would be followed by installation of the equipment slabs for the wind turbine units. Installation of the equipment pad would require excavation to accommodate a subbase and concrete foundation for the unit which would be approximately 21 feet long and 21 feet wide with a depth of 6 feet. The actual footprint of the site to accommodate a metal fence i ! would be 25 feet by 35 feet. Excavated material would be removed from the site for off-site disposal. Soil erosion and sediment controls would be installed to reduce the potential for erosion and soil loss consistent with those in use by the Town and the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. It is not expected that there would be the transport of significant soil from the site. All soils disposed off-site would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. Construction of the pad requires approximately 98 cubic yards of concrete. The foundation slab requires a soil bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot(psf). Site preparation will require heavy equipment for grading and excavation and pad construction. This would include backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and concrete trucks. During this period, which should last about 1 week(on average),there would be an estimated 10 workers at the site. Trucks trips would be heaviest during the pad installation and would amount to a peak of 10 per day,primarily for concrete delivery. Pre-installation site preparation activities would be undertaken immediately, so that when all approvals are obtained construction activities would not be delayed and the proposed facility would be operational by the spring of 2004. 2-29 i LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project UNIT ASSEMBLYAND SITE FINISH The wind turbine tower would be delivered in five 20-foot sections for placement on foundations. An on-site crane is required to lift the components from the transport vehicles for placement on the individual equipment pads.Transport will likely be by truck. Other elements of the facility would be transported to the site in component parts for final on- site fabrication and assembly. On-site fabrication would generally require welding and bolting of pieces. Final site installation activities would include a 7-foot-high protective chain link fence, site lighting,and some landscaping. Total time for unit installation is about 4 weeks. During this phase about 10 to 20 employees would_be at the site.Equipment would include cranes,compressors,and hand held equipment. UTILITY CONNECTIONS The proposed facility requires connections to an electrical distribution cable. A 15 kV solid electric feeder line would connect the generating unit to a nearby substation via an under-street conduit.This work would occur simultaneous with the on-site assembly. Electric connections between the generator set and substation/distribution equipment would not require excavation in public or private streets. Utility connections would require the use of jackhammers, backhoes, front-end loaders, and dump trucks.Final cover and paving would follow. This construction period would overlap with the unit installation. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND CONTROL METHODS TRAFFIC During construction, there would be new vehicle trips to and from the project site, including those from workers traveling to and from the site, as well as those from the movement of goods and equipment. The estimated average number of construction workers on site at any one time would vary,depending on the stage of construction. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 10 to 20 during construction. Given typical construction hours, worker trips would be concentrated in off-peak hours and would not represent a substantial increment during peak travel periods. Vehicle trips associated with construction would not be likely to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding streets. Truck movements for material delivery and removal would be spread throughout the day on weekdays, and would generally occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:30 PM, depending on the period of construction. The maximum number of trucks is estimated to be approximately 10 trucks per day during construction. A second shift may work between 4:30 and 7:30 PM. Trucks would use prescribed truck routes. Based on the relatively modest number of vehicular trips, and the short duration of construction, it is not anticipated that construction activities would result in any significant traffic impacts. 2-30 Chapter 2:Peconic Site HAZARDOUS MATERIALS As discussed in Section F., "Hazardous Materials," construction activities may result in temporary increases in exposure pathways for construction workers and workers on nearby sites to the potential pesticide, herbicide and/or petroleum in the soil. Typically, concentrations of pesticides and herbicides used for farmland are not sufficient to require a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) during subsequent excavation in areas where such chemicals have been properly used. However, to avoid any potential adverse health impacts, field personnel would be instructed to be aware of staining and/or odors. If any staining or odors are noted by field personnel during construction, excavation activities would be stopped and appropriate measures will be taken prior to resuming such activities. These measures would include the implementation of a construction HASP. The HASP would define worker safety training and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels, and appropriate mitigative and protective measures: In addition, all material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.With these measures,no significant impacts would occur during construction. AIR QUALITY Possible impacts on local air quality during construction of the proposed project include fugitive dust (particulate) emissions from land-clearing operations and excavation; mobile source emissions, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from construction worker and delivery vehicles; and construction equipment operation. The impacts on air quality would be insignificant due to the limited excavation that is required. Fugitive Emissions Fugitive dust emissions from land-clearing operations can occur from excavation, hauling, dumping, spreading, grading, compaction, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas. Actual quantities of emissions depend on the extent and nature of the clearing operations, the type of equipment employed, the physical characteristics of the underlying soil, the speed at which construction vehicles are operated,and the type of fugitive dust control methods employed. EPA has suggested,in general, an overall emission rate of about 1.2 tons of particulate/acre/month of active construction from all phases of land-clearing operations with no fugitive dust control measures. However, this is a national estimate and actual emissions would vary widely depending on many factors, including the intensity and type of land-clearing operations. Much of the fugitive dust generated by construction activities consists of relatively large-size particles, which are expected to settle within a short distance from the construction site and not significantly affect people nearby. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures—including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks—would be employed to minimize any impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions would be anticipated. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions are emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles, referred to as mobile sources. During construction, such emissions may result from: (1) trucks delivering construction materials and removing debris; (2) workers' private vehicles; and (3) construction equipment operation.Because of the location of the site near adjacent roadways,truck deliveries 2-31 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project and workers' private vehicles are not expected to have a significant impact on mobile source emissions. Construction equipment operation is not expected to generate a significant amount of pollutants. Therefore, mobile source emissions from construction are not expected to be j I significant. NOISE AND VIBRATION Impacts on noise and vibration levels during construction of the proposed project include noise and vibration from construction equipment operation, and noise from construction vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the site. The level of impact of these noise sources ' depends on the noise characteristics of the equipment and activities involved, the construction schedule,and the location of potentially sensitive noise receptors.Noise and vibration levels at a given location are dependent on the kind and number of pieces of construction equipment being - operated, as well as the distance from the construction site. In general, like most construction projects, construction of the proposed facility would result in increased noise and vibration levels for a limited time period. Noise Typical noise levels of construction equipment that may be employed during the construction process are given in Table 2-7. Noise from construction equipment is regulated by EPA noise emission standards. These federal requirements mandate that: (1) certain classifications of construction equipment and motor vehicles meet specified noise emissions standards; and (2) construction material be handled and transported in such a manner as not to create unnecessary noise. These regulations would be carefully followed. In addition, appropriate low-noise _ emission level equipment would be used and operational procedures implemented. Compliance with noise control measures would be ensured by including them in the contract documents as material specifications and by directives to the construction contractor. The contractor would be encouraged to use quiet construction equipment. - Noise levels caused by construction activities would vary widely, depending on the phase of construction and the specific task being undertaken. Increases in noise levels caused by delivery trucks, employees traveling to and from the site, and other construction vehicles would not be significant and would be limited to the major access roadways to the project site. Increased noise levels caused by construction activities can be expected to be most significant during the stages of construction that require the use of impact equipment.In general,noise from the operation of impact-type equipment,may be discernible and might be considered intrusive at nearby residences and businesses. However,there are no residences immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore, while noise from construction activities may be discernible at residences in the area, they would be short-term in duration and would not be considered a significant adverse impact. 2-32 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Table 2-7 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment Noise Level at 50 Feet Equipment Item (dBA) Air Compressor 81 Asphalt Spreader(Paver) 89 Asphalt Truck 88 Backhoe 85 Bulldozer 87 Compactor 80 Concrete Plant 831 Concrete Spreader 89 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Vibrator 76 Crane(Derrick) 76 Delivery Truck 88 Diamond Saw 902 Dredge- 88 Dump Truck 88 Front End Loader 84 Gas-driven Vibro-compactor 76 Hoist 76 Jackhammer(Paving Breaker) 88 Line Drill 98 Motor Crane 83 Pile Driver/Extractor 101 Pump 76 Roller 80 Shovel 82 Truck 88 Tug 853 Vibratory Pile Driver/Extractor 894 Notes: I Wood,E.W.and A.R.Thompson,Sound Level Survey, Concrete Batch Plant:Limerick Generating Station,Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.,Report 2825 Cambridge,MA, May 1974. 2 New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation,Construction Noise Survey,Report No.NC-P2, Albany,NY,April 1974. 3 Bungener,J.H.,Sound Level Survey:Wise's Landing, Kentucky,Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.,,Report 2880, Downers Grove,IL,June 1975. 4 F.B.Foster Company,Foster Vibro Driver/Extractors, Electric Series Brochure,W-925-10-75-5M. Sources: Patterson,W.N.,R.A.Ely,and S.M.Swanson, Regulation of Construction Activity Noise,Bolt Beranek and Newman,Inc.,Report 2887. 2-33 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Vibration _ Table 2-8 shows architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility distances for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities that would occur during construction of the proposed project. Architectural damage includes cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, etc. Architectural damage is not considered potentially dangerous.The nearest residence is more than 650 feet from the project site.That is substantially 1 , beyond the distance for any perceptible impacts due to vibration from construction activities. Table 2-8 � Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings Damage Potential Distance(feet) Perceptible Architectural Activity-- --Distance-(feet) -- - - Structural- -- - Historic Residential - Blasting 1,000 400 300 60 Pile Driving 200 90 50 12 Pavement Breaking 150 60 40 8 ' Bulldozing 60 30 20 3 Heavy Truck Traffic 50 20 15 3 Jackhammers 30 15 10 2 Sources: Wiss, John F. Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art. Journal of the Geo- technical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107,No.GT2, February 1981. Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations.ASSHTO Designation:R8-81 (1986). . EROSION CONTROL Due to construction activities, there would be increased potential for on-site erosion and 1 sedimentation. To minimize erosion, the disturbance to the site would be minimized by clearing I vegetation and excavating only in those areas planned for construction. An erosion and sediment control plan with sequencing and specific details has been prepared for the project utilizing the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control," the Town guidelines as well as Suffolk County. Proper implementation of the plan, and its sequence and maintenance schedule, would ensure minimal impacts associated with construction-related soil disturbance. Erosion control would be accomplished through a combination of structural as well as vegetative measures. Several structural erosion and sediment control measures would be used. A series of temporary sediment traps would be strategically located within the project site, where runoff within the construction zones would be collected and settled. Straw bales would be used to protect all proposed catch basins and other drainage structure inlets. 2-34 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Anti-tracking entrances would be installed at the project entrances. In addition, silt fencing would be installed along contours directly below construction zones and used where sheet flow is likely to occur.This fencing would be installed prior to construction activity to delineate areas predetermined as construction zones. Temporary and permanent vegetative measures are proposed to stabilize soils on the site. M. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE While there currently is no requirement to include an environmental justice analysis as part of i , SEQRA, one has been provided for informational purposes. The focus of the environmental justice analysis is to determine whether the construction and operation of the proposed facility would have both adverse and disproportionate impacts on an environmental justice community. r - - - -The first step in the-analysis is to-determine whether-there-is a-low-income and/or-minority - - --- - - - -- population, or so-called"Community of Concern"(COC)that may be impacted by the proposed facility. Censustractdata derived from both 1990 and 2000 Census information was used to determine minority status, income, and poverty level in the 1-mile study area surrounding each of the proposed sites. Census tract 1700.02, which includes census block group, 1700.02.1, and census tract 1702.01, which includes census block groups, 1702.01.1, 1702.01.2, 1702.01.3 and 1702.01.4, are located within the 1-mile study area of the proposed facility at the Peconic site (see Figure 2-7). As indicated by population and socio-economic data provided in Table 2-9,no census block groups within the Peconic study area could be identified as potential COC. In addition the percentage of households below poverty level (2.2 percent) and the minority population(5 percent)within the Peconic study area are less than those of Suffolk County as a whole (6 percent and 21 percent, respectively). Therefore,it is determined that the proposed project will not impact a COC. Since there are no potential COCs, minority or low income communities would not be disproportionately affected by the proposed facility. N. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed facility, combined with other wind turbine facilities proposed by LIPA as part of this demonstration project, would not have any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed facilities are widely dispersed (i.e., not located near one another). More important, impacts of each facility in terms of the relevant concerns (i.e., land use, zoning, and community facilities; cultural resources; visual resources; natural resources; hazardous materials; waterfront revitalization; infrastructure; traffic; air quality; noise; construction; and environmental justice) are localized, small, and not significant. Based upon the distance between the proposed facilities (i.e., each facility is more than 2 miles from one another), and the small impact of each facility individually,it can be concluded that there would-be no significant cumulative impacts from any existing or proposed facilities. 2-35 N A /:// .x �r# , `'' Q �s4-. 4Q ,.rte44111.1%1at,' � .--;...:,1.717:7•�t �„ . w � p`414 ,,,+(,....;-:):;!'"::_•,...:: w \ /?..::.,:...1702.01.3b,),.....-:,.. . 1702.01.31S` �<<Ro .; 1702.01.4 Iq j 4 i , 11) . r. •- he : / «• • 1702.01. . NY /.off -, - •. i N f ' , . . a.`cotiic s�A � - 't'►# 1702 01 1 . g /• 1700.02.1 c•:., :; s t t .. . ':1-;.,-111:': 1 \1.4 ', , - y Source AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;U.S.Census Tract Maps,2000. •"_, Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003 ' • Project Site Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 imam 5 Mile Study Area D1 Mile Study Area Peconic tLIRRTracks Census Tract and Block Group Figure 2-7 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-9 Peconic Population and Economic Characteristics Population(2000) %HHs Census Percent Race and Ethnicity(Percentage) Bow Block 2000 Change Below Groups Total 1990- Med Poverty 2000 White Black Asian Other Hispanic* Number of Income Level Households **($1999) *** 1700.02.1 1,170 44 94 2 0 2 2 452 52,368 2 1702.01.1 1,021 43 94 0 0 0 6 417 60,509 0 _ 1702.01.2 650 1 93 0 2 0 5 260 46,250 0 1702.01.3 1,315 64 97 0 0 1 2 514 68,611 3 1702.01.4 554 -50 95 1 2 0 2 274 33,571 6 Study 4;710- 35 95 .6 .8 .6 3:4 1469 _- **54;978 2.2 Area Suffolk 1,419,369 7 79 7 2 1 11 469,299 65,288 6 County Notes: *Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. **The median income was calculated by taking the weighted average of the median incomes of all the census tracts in a given study area. ***Percent of households with incomes below established poverty level.The U.S.Census Bureau using its established income thresholds for poverty levels defines poverty levels. ` Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.Census of Population and Housing, 1990 and 2000. * 1 2-36 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner,whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently,there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature,yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data,it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from_a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large,then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: n Part 1 l Part 2 ri Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate),and any other supporting information,and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ®A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* nC. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment,therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Town of Southold,New York. Name of Action Long Island Power Authority Name'of Lead Agency Edward Grilli Chief of Staff Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer I , Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form,Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in the Town of Southold,New York. Location of Action(include Street Address,Municipality and County) Osprey's Dominion Vineyards,44075 Main Road,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York. Name of Applicant/Sponsor Long Island Power Authority Address 333 Earle Ovington Blvd.Suite 403 City/PO Uniondale State NY Zip Code 11553 Business Telephone 516-222-7700 Name of Owner(if different) Osprey's Dominion Vineyard,LTD (President:Frederick W.Koehler) Address 44075 Main Road City/PO Peconic State NY Zip Code 11971 Business Telephone (631)765-6188 Description of Action: The Long Island Power Authority proposes to site,construct,and operate a wind turbine generator to demonstrate both the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources,and expand green sources of electricity on Long Island.This document refers to one 50-acre site selected for the wind turbine demonstration,Section 75,Block 1,Lots 20.1 and 20.1. Refer to Chapter 1 for project description. , I ! Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use:n Urban Industrial D Commercial Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm) Forest Agriculture ®Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 0.02* acres. *Project would be located on 0.02 acres of a 50-acre parcel of land. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland(Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres 'acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 50.0 acres 49.98 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other(Indicate type) wind turbine energy source demonstration acres 0.02 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?Haven Loam a. Soil drainage: D Well drained 100%of site ®Moderately well drained %of site. Poorly drained %of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0.02 acres(see 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ® Yes El No a. What is depth to bedrock ** (in feet) **Bedrock is not expected to be a significant issue for construction. 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: TIO-10% 100% 10- 15% % 15%or greater % 6. Is project substantial) contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? I 1 Yes E No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Yes No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 10(in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? El Yes No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes No r Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ElYes 1 No According to: field visits conducted by AKRF,Inc.April 2002.The land is used for agricultural purposes. Identify each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site?(i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? EYes ®No Describe: 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Eyes ID No If yes, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? rives JNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: N/A b. Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? El Yes El No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? n Yes EI No b. If YES,will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ENo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? IJYes 1.7No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? El Yes No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ®Yes i No B. Project Description ' f 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: 0.02 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. 0 % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: *** (upon completion of project)? ***4 on a weekly or bi-weekly basis h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions(in feet) of largest proposed structure: 125**** height; 50 width; 10 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? 294 cy tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed EJYes ®�— No J N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? El Yes El No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes El No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers)will be removed from site? Negligible acres. ****The structure will be a 100-foot tower with a wind turbine at the top with 25-foot blades. I I. Page 5 of 21 - 5. Will any mature forest(over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? riYes J No 6. If single phase project:Anticipated period of construction:spring'o4months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: _ month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Yesri No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes El No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10-20; after project is complete less than one. 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?El Yes El No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? D Yes El No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? nYes El No Type -- 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Yes ri No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes riNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? n Yes No a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? r I Yes El No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 0Yes U No Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain: a — I I 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? EYes ONo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes,what is the anticipated site life? years. - -- - - -- - - ---- - 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ._Yes No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? J1Yes No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? El Yes D No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? _ Yes El No If yes, indicate type(s) { ' F 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 0.0 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ri Yes ri No If yes, explain: The project is a demonstration project funded by Long Island Power Authority,a state public authority. 3 I ' Page 7 of 21 • 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board - ®Yes ri No , Site Plan Approval City, Town, Village Planning Board Yes No I i Height Variance City, Town Zoning Board El Yes No Special Use Permit City, County Health Department 1-1 Yes ri No Other Local Agencies Yes No ri Town of Southold Building Permit(non-discretionary) Suffolk County Planning Other Regional Agencies Yes D No Commission Review State Agencies El Yes 17 No Federal Agencies El Yes No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? MYes No If Yes, indicate decision required: fjZoning amendment Zoning variance El New/revision of master plan n Subdivision Site plan El Special use permit EI Resource management plan 11 Other I - i Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? A-C Agricultural-Conservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? i 20 percent coverage permitted in agricultural conservation zoning. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes are proposed. 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? No zoning changes are proposed. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? D Yes No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? The prominent land use within 1/4 mile of the site is agricultural and the predominant zoning is agricultural. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a �/4 mile? n Yes ,I No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A j a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A Page 9of21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s)for the formation of sewer or water districts? El Yes D No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services(recreation, education, police, fire protection? Yes El No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes El No N/A yt 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? fl Yes ri No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. EJYes n No N/A D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Long Island Power Authority Date Signature Title If the action is in the Coastal Area,and you are a state agency,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. I Page 10 of 21 PART 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information(Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But,for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response,thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project,on each site,in each locality,will vary. Therefore,the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts,consider long term,short term and cumulative effects. Instructions(Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If - -- - impact threshold equals or exceeds any-example provided,check column 2.-If impact will occur but threshold is lower than -- - - - - example,check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large(column 2)does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s)in the project to a small to moderate impact,also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO ® YES El Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15%or greater,(15 foot ® ® Yes J No rise per 100 foot of length),or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. 0 Construction on land where the depth to the water table ® ®, ® Yes ®No is less than 3 feet. 0 Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more ® Yes El No vehicles. 0 Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or ® Yes O No generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. D Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or D 0 Yes No involve more than one phase or stage. D Excavation for mining purposes that would remove El ® Yes 0 No more than 1,000 tons of natural material(i.e.,rock or soil)per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. ® Yes El No 0 Construction in a designated floodway. ® ® ®Yes ElNo 0 Other impacts: D f Yes ®No Would place wind turbine generator on existing agricultural land. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?(i.e.,cliffs,dunes,geological formations,etc.) ENO FIVES _ Specific land forms: _ ® ®Yes_ No Impact on Water 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) nNO ElYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ® El Yes No 0 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of Yes 0 No a protected stream. 0 Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water ® ®Yes _fl No - - body. 0 Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. El D Yes n No 0 Other impacts: 1] El El Yes ID No 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ®. NO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 A 10%increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of Yes 0 No water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. 0 Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface El [ Ei Yes El No area. . 0 Other impacts: El El E Yes fi No Page 12 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. 0 El El Yes El No 0 Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not El El El Yes El No have approval to serve proposed(project)action. 0 Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater D ® ®Yes El No than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. 0 Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water El 0 Fl Yes El No supply system. 0 Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. 0 0 El Yes El No 0 Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which El ® El Yes fl No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. 0 Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons El El Ei Yes E No per day. 0 Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into El El EIYes El No an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. 0 Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or ® ® rj Yes ®No chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. 0 Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without El El D Yes 0 No water and/or sewer services. 0 Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses 0 El E Yes El No which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. 0 Other impacts: 0 ® Ekes El No i Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change i 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff? NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 -- 0 Proposed Action would change flood water flows Ei Yes - No 0 Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. El 0 ©Yes O No 0 Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. El Yes ®No 0 Proposed Action will allow development in a designated 0 D Yes El No floodway. 0 - Other impacts: El JYes ONO IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any _ 11 IlYes El No given hour. 0 Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ® ii El Yes ®No of refuse per hour. 0 Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.per hour EJ El lJYes El No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. 0 Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land El El Oyes ®No committed to industrial use. 0 Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of El El IIYes ®No industrial development within existing industrial areas. 0 Other impacts: E El Elves ®No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?' NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or El DYes No Federal list,using the site,over or near the site,or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ® El Yes D No 0 Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, El El El Yes El No other than for agricultural purposes. 0 Other impacts: El El ®Yes ®No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? NO YES Examples Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident ® ® ®Yes El No or migratory fish,shellfish or wildlife species. 0 - Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of ® ®Yes No mature forest(over 100 years of age)or other locally important vegetation. 0 Other impacts: El DYes "ElNo IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ®NO ®i,, YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 The Proposed Action would sever,cross or limit access to El _LI El Yes- No agricultural land(includes cropland,hayfields,pasture,vineyard, orchard,etc.) 0 Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of El Yes El No agricultural land. 0 The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 E rl Yes n No acres of agricultural land or,if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. Page 15 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of fl Yes 0 No agricultural land management systems(e.g.,subsurface drain lines,outlet ditches,strip cropping);or create a need for such measures(e.g.cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). 0 Other impacts: El ® ®Yes ®No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources?(If necessary,use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20,Appendix B.) D NO El YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed land uses,or project components obviously different ['Yes D No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns,whether man-made or natural. 0 Proposed land uses,or project components visible to users of El E ®Yes Ei No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. 0 Project components that will result in the elimination or El El Yes ®No significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. 0 Other impacts: ® ® ®Yes El No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or ® ® El Yes © No substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. 0 Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within El El ®Yes El No the project site. 0 Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive El © El Yes D No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Other impacts: E D D Yes D No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? D NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes D No 0 A major reduction of an open space important to the community. _El ® Yes El No 0 Other impacts: El El Ej Yes fl No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area(CEA)established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? ®i NO DYES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ® El ®Yes ®No 0 Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the ElEl El Yes ®No resource? 0 Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the El El yes DNo resource? 0 Proposed Action will impact the use,function or enjoyment of the L1 E ®Yes El No resource? 0 Other impacts: El LI Dyes ®No Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ®. NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or D El El Yes El No goods. 0 Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ® El ®Yes ©No 0 Other impacts: El ® DYes El No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ®NO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5%increase in the ® ®Yes 0 No use of any form of energy in the municipality. 0 Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an El El EJYes j No energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial I or industrial use. 0 Other impacts: El DYes ®No - Project would slightly increase Long Island's electrical generation capacity. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital,school or other sensitive El El DYes El No facility. 0 Odors will occur routinely(more than one hour per day). El El 1lYes ®No 0 Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the EJYes fl No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. 0 Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a El El [Yes El No noise screen. 0 Other impacts: El El ElYes El No Page 18 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? D NO ®YES 0 Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of ® ® Yes ®No hazardous substances(i.e.oil,pesticides,-chemicals,radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions,or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. 0 Proposed Action may result in the burial of"hazardous wastes" E ®Yes ®No in any form(i.e.toxic,poisonous,highly reactive,radioactive, irritating,infectious,etc.) ' ! 0 Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied ® El ®Yes ®No natural gas or other flammable liquids. 0 Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other El EJYes El No disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. D Other impacts: ® Dyes ®No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? El NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 The permanent population of the city,town or village in which the El El ®Yes El No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. 0 The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating El Dyes El No services will increase by more than 5%per year as a result of this project. 0 Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or El 0 Dyes 11 No goals. 0 Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. El ®Yes El No 0 Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, El ®Yes ®No structures or areas of historic importance to the community. 0 `Development will create a demand for additional community El Yes Ei No services(e.g.schools,police and fire,etc.) Page 19 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future ® ® fl Yes El No projects. 0 Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. El Yes El No 0 Other impacts: El El El Yes El No __ 20. Is there,or is there likely to be,public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? ®. NO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s)is considered to be potentially large,even if the impact(s)may be mitigated. Instructions(If you need more space,attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 1 3. Based on the information available,decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance,consider: •The probability of the impact occurring •The duration of the impact •Its irreversibility,including permanently lost resources of value •Whether the impact can or will be controlled •The regional consequence of the impact •Its potential divergence from local needs and goals •Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. - i { Page 21 of21e ' 1Se I I I I ITTACHMENT A Coastal Zone Management I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management A. INTRODUCTION The Federal Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972 was established to support and protect the nation's coastal areas and sets forth policies for managing the use of coastal areas. The policies are intended to address local, State, and Federal concerns about the deterioration and-inappropriateuse of waterfront-space.In 1982, New York State adopted its CZM program, which is designed to balance-economic development and preservation. It promotes waterfront,revitalization and water-dependent uses while protecting fish and wildlife, open space, scenic vistas, and public access to the shoreline. In addition, the policies are intended to minimize adverse impacts to ecological systems and ameliorate erosion and flood hazards. The New York State program provides for local implementation when a municipality adopts a local waterfront revitalization program(LWRP). The CZM program encourages coordination among all levels of government to promote sound waterfront planning and requires consideration of the program's goals in making land use decisions. The New York State Department of State (DOS) administers this program at the State level. COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY The implementation of CZM is effectuated, in part, through Federal and State consistency pro- visions that require direct Federal agency activities or federal funding, or authorized actions to be consistent with the CZM. State agency actions along the State's coastal area are required to be consistent with the State's coastal policies. The State's coastal policies and consistency re- view requirements are outlined in 19 NYCRR Part 600 and 6 NYCRR Part 617;Federal consis- tency regulations are found at 15 CFR Part 930. Article 42 of the Executive Law states that one of the policies of the State is to assure the consis- tency of State actions and, where appropriate, Federal actions, with State coastal policies and • LWRP's. It also requires that certain State agency actions within the coastal area be undertaken in a manner consistent with the State's coastal area policies, or a State-approved LWRP. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area involving a State agency's direct action or funding,or requiring State permits for actions involving an EIS under SEQRA,must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Article 42 and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 or an approved LWRP. Pursuant to Article 42, DOS monitors and advises State agencies regarding the consistency of their actions with the State CZM, State coastal policies,and approved LWRPs. No State agency involved in an action shall carry out,fund, or approve an action until the agency has complied with the, provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and, its implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. For State agency actions,whether a State agency is either a lead or involved agency, if a positive declaration has been made and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required pursuant to A-1 • Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management Policy 7: Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected and preserved so as to maintain their viability as habitats. The proposed project would have no effect on the viability of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats.This policy does not apply. Policy 8: Protect, fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants that bioaccumulate in the food chain or cause significant sublethal or lethal effects on those resources. The proposed project would not result in the release of any hazardous wastes or other pollutants.Therefore,this policy does not apply. Policy 9: Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing —-_T ----access-to existing-resources,•supplementing•existing stocks,=and developing new-resources. -- - ---- • = - This policy does not apply. The project is not proposed to enhance or expand recreational fish and wildlife resources. Policy 10: Further develop commercial fmfish, shellfish, and crustacean resources in the coastal areas by encouraging the construction or improvement of existing onshore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the State's seafood products,maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding agriculture facilities. This policy does not apply. The proposed project would not develop commercial fishing facilities. Moreover, the project would not adversely impact fmfish, shellfish, or crustacean resources, including those that may be commercially•caught or harvested outside the project area. 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. This policy does not apply. None of the proposed facilities would be occupied. In addition,no erosion protection measures are proposed as part of the project. Policy 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize their adverse effects on natural features that protect against flooding and erosion. Because of existing agricultural development and land uses, the project sites do not contain natural features, such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, or other natural protective features.This policy does not apply. 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 30 years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs. This policy does not apply. The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures is,not proposed. Policy 14: Activities and development including the construction 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 at other locations. This policy does not apply. The proposed project does not include the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures. A-3 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management The proposed project is not located along the waterfront and therefore not appropriate for water-related recreation.This policy does not apply. Policy 23: 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. , The proposed project would not adversely affect any structures, site, or districts of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. Each of the sites has been examined for this policy. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 24:Prevent impairment of scenic resources of Statewide significance. I s -- - - As described-in the-visual character analysis for-each site,-the-proposed.project would- - - not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The proposed structures are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which are in all cases agricultural. Therefore the project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views.The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 25: Protect, restore, and enhance the natural and manmade resources that are not - identified as being of Statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. As stated above, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources such as vistas and views.Therefore,the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area. 1 The proposed sites are all agricultural lands which are working farms or vineyards and are therefore consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project sites are 0.02 acres each, it is not expected that the proposed project will significantly impact agricultural lands.The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 27: Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location. The proposed project in not considered a major energy facility. This policy is not applicable. 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. - The proposed project would not involve ice management practices. This policy is not applicable. Policy 29: Encourage the development of energy resources on the outer continental shelf(OCS). and in other water bodies and ensure the environmental safety of such activities. The proposed project would not involve the development of energy resources. This policy is not applicable. A-5 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management The proposed project would not involve the discharge of non-point source pollutants or excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. This policy is not applicable. Policy 38: The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. The proposed project does not involve the use or degradation of surface and groundwater.This policy is not applicable. Policy 39: The transport, storage,treatment and disposal of solid wastes,particularly hazardous wastes,within coastal areas will be conducted in,such a manner so as to protect groundwater and _ _ _ surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands,and scenic resources. The proposed project does not involve the transport, storage, treatment, or disposal of. solid wastes.This policy does not apply. Policy 40: Effluent discharged from major steam, electric generating, and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and will conform to State water quality standards. None of these activities are proposed under the proposed.project. This policy is not directly applicable. Policy 41: Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause National or State air quality standards to be violated. - The proposed project would not_cause any violations of air quality standards and is therefore consistent with this policy. 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. The proposed project would not cause reclassification of land areas to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.This policy is not applicable. Policy 43: Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursors:nitrates and sulfates. The proposed drainage plans would not generate acid rain precursors, nitrates, and sulfates.This policy is not applicable. Policy 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The proposed project sites are not located on tidal or freshwater wetlands. This policy does not apply. A-7 I I I I IATTACHMENTb I Avian Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Project, Suffolk County, New York Osprey Dominion Vineyard Site June 2002 Report Prepared for: AWS Scientific,Inc.—Bruce Bailey,President and Long Island Power Authority(LIPA) Report Prepared by: Curry& Kerlinger,L.L.C. Paul Kerlinger,Ph.D Curry&Kerlinger,L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point,NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 email: pkerlinger@aol.com www.currykerlinger.com LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 2 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Project, Suffolk County,New York Osprey Dominion Vineyard Site Executive Summary A wind power project consisting of a single 50-kilowatt wind turbine,has been proposed for an agricultural sites in Suffolk County,New York. The Atlantic Orient Wind turbine is equipped with 25 foot long rotors,mounted on a diagonal lattice tower about 100 feet in height -(total height about 125 feet when the rotor is in the [2 o'clock position). Electrical lines would be underground on site and then run above or underground to the nearest transmission lines, which are either on or adjacent to the turbine property. The electricity generated would be the equivalent needed to power about 15 average homes. Ownership of the land is private and is used as a commercial vineyard. Land use would remain virtually unchanged. This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for wind power development. It includes a literature review and site visits by an avian expert on May 16, 2002. Together,these sources of information provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use a project site and the area surrounding that site. This information is then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any, from wind power development at a particular site. In addition,the concerns of regulators and environmental organizations were determined and incorporated into the risk assessment. The Osprey Dominion Vineyard site is one of several sites that have been considered by LIPA for wind power development. A brief description of the site follows. The number following the site name is the reference number used by LIPA during the screening process. > Osprey Dominion Vineyards-#1 (41°02.7'N 72°27.076'W)—turbine would be located within a grape field 200+ feet from a tree/hedge row. A small wetland exists more than 250 feet from the turbine location, although there is no open water within this distance. There are no significant habitats for birds within hundreds of yards of the turbine site. The Osprey Dominion Vineyard is used for growing grapes and for winemaking. The turbine site is not sensitive habitat,nor is it habitat where birds normally nest. The small, semi- wooded wetland that is within 100 feet of the edge of Osprey Dominion Vineyards, is the closest wetland or sensitive habitat to the turbine location. Activity at the site is considerable including heavy farm equipment, earth moving equipment, trucks, and field workers attending to the grape vines. Nothing in the literature or from what was observed on the site indicated that it was an important nesting or foraging area for birds including federally or state listed or sensitive (species of concern) species. There are no known hawk migration pathways or lookouts on or Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger • 4 Introduction A small wind power project has been proposed for a site in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York(Figure 1). Because birds have been impacted at a few,older wind power sites in the United States and Europe, concern for their well-being has been raised as an issue at most proposed wind power facilities. The impacts on birds include fatalities resulting from collisions with operating turbines and habitat modification/disturbance as a result of construction activities and new infrastructure at a particular site. Impacts have been reported at modern wind power facilities,but they have not been deemed significant from a population perspective. That impacts have occurred at some sites suggests that these impacts are associated with site-specific attributes. • —This report details-a Phase-I Avian Risk Assessment contracted-for the Long Island Power Authority(LIPA)Farm Bureau wind power project. The purpose of a Phase I Assessment is to determine the potential risks to birds at a proposed wind power project site. Thus, the Phase I Assessment is designed to guide developers,regulators, environmentalists, and other stakeholders through the process of determining the degree of risk at a particular site and how impacts or potential impacts,if any are perceived,need to be studied in more detail. The initial assessment includes a site visit and a literature search. The site visit is made by a trained avian ecologist (Paul Kerlinger)with extensive experience in wind power development. The site and surrounding area are walked and toured by automobile. During the visit,habitat and topography are examined and the avifauna present is observed. The site visit is not meant to be a quantitative survey or inventory of birds on the site and surrounding area. Instead,the purpose of the site visit is to gain an understanding of the habitat and topographic features so that a list of species that might be present may be assembled and the potential for risk to those birds evaluated. The literature search includes examination of pertinent materials including Audubon Christmas Bird Counts,hawk migration literature/newsletters,New York Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA),USGS Breeding Bird Surveys,Hawk Migration Association of North America (FIlVIANA), Important Bird Areas (IBA)projects, and other sources of information on birds that might nest,migrate through, forage on,winter on, or concentrate at the site. Information from these diverse sources are then integrated into a report like the one that follows, summarizing what is present at a site,potential risk of wind turbine construction at the site, a comparison of risk at the site with other sites where risk has been determined empirically, and suggestions for further studies, if indicated. Project Description. The LIPA Farm Bureau wind energy project at Osprey Dominion Vineyard would consist of one, 50 kilowatt Atlantic Orient Windpower wind turbine generator, east of the town of Riverhead. The single wind turbines would produce a total of 50 kilowatts of generating capacity. The tower will be diagonal lattice structure about 100 feet in height,with rotor lengths of about 25 feet. The footprint of the wind turbine is limited to an area of less than 35 x 35 feet Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA–Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 6 > Osprey Dominion Vineyards -#1 (41°02.7'N 72°27.076'W)–The turbine would be located near the edge of a grape field about 100-150 feet from a-tree/hedge row. This vineyard has been producing for many years and the vines are mature. The vegetation at the project footprint is mowed grass and grape vines on a trellis-like structure. The habitat cannot be construed as wildlife habitat and certainly is not suitable for any rare or sensitive species. A small wetland, a stream with wet areas adjacent to it, exists about 200+feet from the turbine location, although there is no open water for a greater distance. There is a treed buffer between the turbine location and the wetlands that consists of mostly upland species adjacent to the field and some wetlands species in the wetlands per se. Wetlands vegetation that is visible from the edge of the tree row includes Phragmites and willows (species?). Upland trees included black cherry, locust, a cultivated cherry, eastern red cedar,box elder, sumac, and Norway maple, all of which indicate a disturbed area(some species are non-native) or a forest in early stages of succession. Brushy and herbaceous species included poison ivy, multiflora rose,Japanese honeysuckle,Virginia creeper, and vetch, among others. There are — no significant-habitats-for-birds within hundreds ofyardsthe-turbine site. The field beyond the wetland/hedge row was cultivated, offering little wildlife habitat. Vineyard buildings and barns/sheds were located near the project footprint and a dirt road separated the vineyard fields from the hedge-tree row. A major road,Highway 25,runs by the project site and large transmission lines are visible in the distance. There were two communication towers within about one-half mile of the project footprint and transmission lines for the project's power are just off site. A sodfarm was located immediately adjacent to the corn field in which the turbine would be located. Birds observed on site included Herring Gull,Red-tailed Hawk,Rock Dove,Mourning Dove, American Crow,American Robin,Eastern Kingbird,European Starling, Gray Catbird, Northern Mockingbird, Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat,Northern Cardinal,Brown- headed Cowbird,Red-winged Blackbird,Baltimore Oriole, and House Sparrow. During the site visit we were told that an Osprey nest occurs about a mile away from the site and that herons and egrets fly through the site from time to time. The wetlands are too small and isolated to support shorebirds, although individual herons or egrets (Great Blue Heron is likely), ducks (most likely Mallard), and a few other birds that are attracted to wetlands will be present at times. The type of habitat on site and its dissected and disturbed nature on and immediately adjacent to the project site suggests strongly that the site is not suitable for most species of special concern,threatened, or endangered species. Species that nest on and adjacent to the site are primarily common species of forest edge,brush, and,to a lesser degree oldfield and grassland. Forests adjacent to the site are small and it is improbable that they_support the more uncommon Neotropical migrant species of songbirds or sensitive interior forest nesting birds. I ' Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA-Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 8. Table 1. Birds of New York State that are endangered,threatened, or species of special concern (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation,Endangered Species Program; Federally - listed species are also included as indicated). Also noted was whether the habitat at the project site or immediately surrounding the site(within 200 m)was suitable(S),marginally suitable as indicated(MS), or not suitable(NS)for that species. A question mark indicates that a definitive determination was not possible or there was uncertainty in the evaluation. Endangered/Threatened Species Status - Suitability of Project Site Habitat Pied-billed Grebe Threatened-NS Least Bittern Threatened -NS Bald Eagle Threatened-NS (Federally Threatened— Proposed for delisting) -- ---Northern-Harrier------ -- --------— -Threatened=NS - — —- - -- T -_ - - Golden Eagle(extirpated) Endangered-NS Peregrine Falcon Endangered-NS Spruce Grouse Endangered-NS King Rail Threatened-NS Black Rail Endangered-NS Upland Sandpiper Threatened-NS Piping Plover Endangered(Federally Endangered Great Lakes, Threatened on Atlantic Coast) -NS Common Tern Threatened-NS Roseate Tern Endangered-NS (Federally Endangered) Black Tern Endangered-NS Least Tern Threatened-NS (Federally Endangered) Short-eared Owl Endangered-NS Loggerhead Shrike Endangered-NS Sedge Wren Threatened-NS _ Henslow's Sparrow Threatened-NS Species of Special Concern Common Loon NS American Bittern NS Osprey NS Sharp-shinned Hawk MS (foraging only) Cooper's Hawk MS (foraging only) Northern Goshawk NS Red-shouldered Hawk NS Black Skimmer NS Common Nighthawk MS? (foraging only) - Whip-poor-will NS Red-headed Woodpecker NS Horned Lark NS Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 10 project site with a significant hawk migration. Away from the shore on Long Island there are no known migration concentration sites. It is unlikely that the flat topography and agricultural situation at the project site would attract raptors dining autumn migration, although a few individuals may forage on or adjacent to the site after or before their daily migratory flights (Kerlinger 1989). Wintering Birds The winter climate on eastern Long Island is harsh, lasting from November through mid- March. The project site is subject to moderate to strong winds,relatively low temperatures, and some snowfall. These attributes combine to make the area relatively inhospitable to birds during the winter. Such harsh weather necessitates high caloric intake for avian survival. However,the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound, and Peconic Bay has a moderating effect on - • ----the-weather-on-eastern-Long-Island and waterbirds=especially-thoseassociatedwith salt-water (both open water and tidal marshes), are present in very large numbers in some places. Land birds are not uncommon throughout the general area,but their distribution varies greatly and is keyed to habitat. The primary sources of information on birds wintering in and around areas like the LIPA Farm Bureau project sites are National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs). CBCs from 1991/1992 through 2000/2001 were examined from three counts (Orient—centered at the northern tip of Shelter Island; Quogue-Watermill—centered about 2 miles northeast of the navigation beacon at Shinnecock Inlet; and Sagoponack—centered at Georgia Pond Inlet). Each of these Christmas Counts included the area within a 15 mile(24 km) diameter circle, an area of about 177 square'miles (453 square km). Thus,the three sites together covered a total area of 1 1 531 square miles (1,359 square km). A total of 124 people were involved in searching for birds in this area during the 2000-2001 CBC. Christmas Counts provide an excellent overview of the birds that inhabit an area during winter. Each winter within about 10 days of Christmas, dozens of birders comb their local CBC area counting all birds encountered. These birders search during the day and to a lesser extent at night, in the entire area encompassed within a particular count area. In addition, they scout for birds during that season, especially during the "count week"period,to prepare for the actual count day. Although most of these birders are unpaid amateurs who are usually proficient or highly skilled observers. The CBC count data are used for various types of conservation purposes including population tracking and determining geographic range and abundance of species by various environmental groups and government wildlife agencies. In the analyses that follow, all birds seen on the counts and during count weeks were included. The most recent ten- year period for these counts was examined. A majority of the birds reported on the five Christmas Bird Count data sets were common species. A large number of species were associated with water or wetlands including waterfowl, seabirds, and other species that are found at or near the intertidal zone(including tidal marshes, backbays, etc.). Of these species, only the upland species are likely to be found on the project site during winter, although very small numbers waterbirds may fly over or near the site. The Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 12 Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Avian Risk at the LIPA—Farm Bureau Osprey Dominion VineyardWind Power Project Site,Long Island,New York,With Existing Wind Power Facilities Perhaps the best means of assessing risk to birds at proposed wind power project sites,is • to compare the avifauna, geographic setting,habitat, and topographic conditions found at that site with locations where varying degrees of risk are known and have been documented empirically. By comparing the species present,numbers of individuals of those species, seasonal presence, and behavior of birds that are likely to nest on or use(migrate or forage on)the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Power Project site in different seasons with wind power facilities that have documented risk or lack of risk, an educated assessment can be made as to the overall risk to birds that can be anticipated at the LIPA project site resulting from the development of a single wind turbine. Reviewing what is known about avian impacts,two types of negative impacts have been documented at wind power sites: habitat alteration(disturbance/avoidance) and collision fatalities. Habitat alteration with resulting impact on birds is not well known or documented. Few studies have addressed this problem because habitat'alteration is not often construed as a legal issue, except in the case of federally endangered and threatened species or some state listed - species. The issue of disturbance includes both short-term disturbance during actual construction and longer term disturbance from infrastructure and habitat alteration following construction. With respect to the LIPA Osprey Dominion Vineyard wind power project site, construction activities associated with the erection of the turbines are likely to require less than two months, after which, land use and human presence will return to pre-construction levels. Some maintenance is required at wind turbines,but visits from maintenance crews are usually limited to two or three visits per year,requiring only a few hours of time on Site. It should be - emphasized that the sites currently host almost constant human activity with workers,tractors, trucks, sprayers, sprinklers; and other equipment operating on a daily basis. Thus, construction activities are ephemeral and limited to the project footprint and the area immediately surrounding that footprint. ' Longer-term habitat disturbance resulting from presence of infrastructure has been studied at only a few locations. In a study done in southwestern Minnesota at a large wind power plant,reduced nesting activity of songbirds was detected in grazed areas and farm fields close to wind turbines as opposed to farther from those turbines(Leddy et al. 1999). For this reason,researchers recommended the placement of wind turbines on tilled agricultural lands such as corn, soy beans, and other types of intensive agriculture. European studies have shown similar impacts in grassland habitats,with some species showing avoidance of up to 200+meters from large,modem wind turbines. Other studies showed habituation by some species. A study by Kerlinger(2001a) at turbines placed in a forested hilltop in Vermont suggested that some species habituated to the turbines while other species moved farther into the forest. The latter species tended to be those that are most sensitive to the creation of forest edges. In the APWRA of California,where there are thousands of turbines,raptors, songbirds; and other species have habituated to the presence of turbines and now perch on them, feed amongst them, and even nest Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 c LIPA-Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 14• Studies done in the Midwest in fanned areas also revealed very few avian fatalities. At the Buffalo Ridge wind power facility near Lake Benton,Minnesota, small numbers of fatalities have been reported by researchers (Strickland et al. 2001): Relatively few fatalities have resulted from the more than 100 wind turbines searched at this site. The species composition included a variety of birds,but did not include raptors or significant numbers of migrating songbirds. A one-year study of a wind power facility on the Door County peninsula of Wisconsin revealed only three songbird fatalities under 35 turbines situated in farm fields. In the eastern United States, studies have been conducted at small wind plants in Vermont(Kerlinger 2001a), Pennsylvania(Kerlinger 2001b),'New York(Cooper et al. 1995), Massachusetts, and Tennessee(Nicholson 2001 -unpublished report)revealed very few fatalities. None were found in Vermont New York, and Pennsylvania where there were 11,2, and 8 turbines respectively. About a dozen fatalities were noted at three turbines in Tennessee and-4-or-5 were-found at 7 turbines-in-Madison,-New-York-(Kerlinger study-in-progress;1 Golden-crowned Kinglet and an unidentified songbird in 12 months of searches). Fatalities at wind power facilities do not compare in numbers with those found at communication towers,highways,transmission lines, and other sources (Erickson et al. 2001). Communication towers are responsible for between 4 and 10 million fatalities per year and roads and transmission lines together account for more than 100 million collision deaths (Erickson et al. 2001). Erickson and others also have demonstrated that fatalities at modern wind plants are also not nearly as numerous as those reported from the Altamont. In addition,the fatalities at other sites rarely involve raptors and a total of about 7 raptors have been found at wind turbine facilities outside of California. Most often,the small numbers of fatalities are spread among a variety of bird species such that only small numbers of a given species are involved. From the recent studies it is obvious that avian fatalities at wind turbine sites are rare events and,to date, no population impacts have been demonstrated to result from collisions with wind turbines and no federally endangered or threatened species have been killed. In Europe, avian fatality has not been shown to be significant at wind power plants, although in a few localities small numbers of fatalities have been reported. In coastal Netherlands at a wind power site where there are about 18 turbines, several dozen songbirds and shorebirds of a variety of species were killed(Winkelman 1995). This site was adjacent to the North Sea,where migration is concentrated into a relatively small area. That several species were involved is important because the fatalities were spread among species all but eliminating the possibility of impacts to populations. At a large wind power facility in Tarifa, Spain,where one of the largest concentrations of migrating raptors and land birds occurs (Straits of Gibraltar), fatalities of migrants have been rare (Montes Marti and Jaque 1995, Janss 2001). Local Griffon Vultures are killed on occasion, apparently because they habituate to the turbines and forage amongst them constantly. Several factors are believed to contribute to avian risk in the Altamont. They are: an extraordinarily large number of operating turbines (N=5,400,reduced from about 7,000 several years ago); closely spaced turbines(<100 feet—32 m)that may not permit birds to fly between them safely; the presence of very large numbers of foraging raptors; year-round raptor use; Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 • LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 16 ' 6. Large Prey Base-Attract Raptors No Significant Prey Base 7. Raptor Use of Area High Raptor Use of Area Low 8. Year-round raptor/bird use high Seasonal bird use low in winter The issue of night migrating song and other birds colliding with turbines and communication towers should also be considered when assessing risk. None of the studies listed in Appendix I report more than a few night migrants colliding with wind turbines and some report no collisions. The incidents involve mostly single birds,unlike the catastrophic events that can occur at communications towers; the total number of nocturnal migrants that have been reported at several thousand wind turbines number slightly more than 100. It is likely that the actual-number-per-year-is=in-the-thousands because scavengers-remove-carcasses-and-observers are not 100% efficient when searching for carcasses. The reason so few nocturnal migrants collide with wind turbines as opposed to communications towers is related to the shorter height of wind turbines and their lack of guy wires. A majority of migrants fly between 300 and 2,500 feet(91-915 m) above the ground(Kerlinger 1995,Kerlinger and Moore 1989),with small numbers flying above 5,000 feet(1,524 m). These altitudes are far higher than the 125 foot height of the tower and rotors. Except for landing and taking off, small numbers migrants are below about 500-600 feet(152-183 m). Mean hourly altitudes usually exceed 1,200 to 1,500 feet(366-457 m). The communication towers that are responsible for a vast majority of avian fatalities are taller than 500 feet(153 m) and have lights and guy wires. Turbines rarely exceed 300 feet (from literature and recent unpublished studies) and the LIPA turbines will be only 125 feet in height. The most recent literature surveys conducted by U. S.Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Department of Energy(Trapp 1998,Kerlinger 2000,Kerlinger in press)reveal virtually no mass mortality events at communication towers less than 500 feet(153 m)in height. The fact that there are no guy wires or lights on the Atlantic Orient turbines that would be used by LIPA, is also important,because it is the guy wires of communication towers that account for most of the collisions at communication towers and it is the lights that attract the birds (under conditions of poor visibility). Thus, it is unlikely that the turbine at the LIPA project will incur large numbers of fatalities of night migrating birds (perhaps none). Overall, the information currently available and contained in this report is sufficient to evaluate potential risk to birds at the LIPA-Farm Bureau Osprey Dominion Vineyard project site. The paucity of known and suspected risk factors at this project site, combined with what was learned about the bird life of the project site and surrounding area suggests minimal risk to birds. Several recommendations are made below that will further reduce potential risk to birds. [Note: A review of the literature revealed no collision fatalities of birds at Atlantic Orient or similar sized wind turbines. It is likely that individual mortalities have occurred,but that the numbers were so small as to go undetected or were judged to be unimportant. As with wind turbines and communication towers, collision fatalities were first noted by accident,not as a Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 18 Summary and Conclusions The habitat and topography present at the LIPA—Farm Bureau wind turbine site at Osprey Dominion Vineyard in Suffolk County,New York, as well as available literature and databases lead to the following: 1. The LIPA Farm Bureau site is a vineyard) and,therefore,not sensitive habitat,nor is the habitat suitable for rare, threatened or endangered species. There do not seem to be wetlands • within the turbine area footprint or within hundreds of feet of the footprint. 2. The LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Power project site supports a few common nesting bird species, although other species nest near these site and forage on these site. Red-tailed Hawks nest near the site as do Osprey and some heron and egret species. 3:—The closest important-Bird-Area-(Long Island Pine-Barrens)-is located-more than about-5----- ------- -- miles (8 km)from the project site. 4. Significant hawk, songbird,waterfowl, shorebird, or other migration is not known to occur over the project footprint or immediately adjacent lands and the habitat on-site suggests no major concentrations of birds (shorebirds,waterfowl/water birds,raptors, songbirds) stopping over during migration. 5. Few birds will be found on site from November through March because of harsh weather, resulting in little risk for one-third of the year. 6. The fact that a single turbine is proposed and that it is very small in size suggests no significant risk to birds. 7. Several recommendations were made to minimize risk to birds. Conclusion: Based on the findings provided above,the LIPA-Farm Bureau Wind Power Project at Osprey Dominion Vineyard in Suffolk County,New York, is likely to pose no significant adverse risk to birds. The present study revealed nothing that indicated the need for further investigation at the project site. Several recommendations were made to minimize potential risk to birds at the facility. • Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 �.J LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger _ 20 Kerlinger,P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology, 1995-2000. Report to U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Kerlinger,P. 2001a.An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg,Vermont. Proceedings of the National Wind/Avian Planning Meeting, San Diego, CA, May 1998 (www.nationalwind.org). Kerlinger,P. 200lb. Avian mortality study at the Green Mountain Wind Farm, Garrett, Somerset County,Pennsylvania-2000-2001. Kerlinger,P. 2002 in prep. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg,Vermont. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory,US Dept. of Energy, Golden, CO. Kerlinger,P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. www.fws.gov/i9iubmo Kerlinger,P. and R. Curry. 1997. Analysis of Golden Eagle and Red-tailed Hawk fatalities on Altamont Ownership Consortium property within the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report from Altamont Avian Plan for the Ownership Consortium and U. S. Fish& Wildlife Service. Kerlinger,P., and F. R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. In Current Ornithology, Vol. 6:109-142. Plenum Press,NY. Knight,F., and M. Wilson. 1998. New York Wildlife Viewing Guide. Falcon Press,Helena, MT. Leddy,K.,K. F.Higgins, and D.E.Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. Levine,E. 1998. Bull's birds of New York State. Cornell University Press,Ithaca,NY. Marti Montes,R., and L. Barrios Jaque. 1995. Effects of wind turbine power plants on the Avifauna in the Campo de Gibraltar Region. Spanish Ornithological Society. Nicholson, C. P. 2001. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird an bat mortality monitoring report: October 2000—September 2001. Preliminary report. Tennessee Valley Authority,Knoxville, TN. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity,habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989-1991. California ,Energy Commission, CA. Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 22 a , Appendix I. Summary of avian fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines at sites across the United States and Canada. The numbers presented are the results of systematic and rigorous searches beneath turbines. Some of this s derived from Erickson et al. 2001 and Curry &Kerlinger,LLC website(www.currykerlinger.com). • Vermont- Searsburg(near Green Mountain National Forest) - 11 modern turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted June-October, 1996; zero fatalities recorded(Kerlinger, 2000,National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III) • New York- Copenhagen(30 miles inland from Lake Ontario) -2 modem turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted in spring and autumn migration seasons, 1994; zero avian fatalities recorded(Cooper and Johnson, 1995,Proc. American Wind Energy Association Conference 1996) • New York—Madison(central New York)—7 modem turbines at farmland(hay and corn) site. Ten surveys conducted in June-November 2001 (ongoing through May 2002); 2 migrant songbird fatalities (Curry&Kerlinger, LLC) • Pennsylvania—Garrett(Somerset County)—8 modem turbines at farmland site. Seventeen surveys conducted in June 2000 through May 2001; zero fatalities(Curry&Kerlinger, LLC) • Tennessee—Buffalo Mountain Wind Farm—3 modern turbines at forested mountaintop site. Fifty plus surveys during 1 year-2000-2001; 11 songbird and 1 rail (migrants) fatality. (Nicholson 2001 in progress) • Massachusetts -Princeton Windfarm(Watchusett Mountain State Forest and Hawkwatch) - - 8 older turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted in autumn&winter, 1993; zero fatalities recorded(Jacobs, 1995,Paper presented at Windpower'94,Minneapolis, MN) • Minnesota-Buffalo Ridge (near Lake Benton) -200+modem turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted 1997-2000; about 80 fatalities recorded(35 species)—mostly songbirds, 1 raptor(Red-tailed Hawk),no endangered/threatened species (Strickland, 2000,National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III; unpublished data from other researchers) • Iowa—Algona—3 modern turbines at farmland site; 3 seasons of surveys, zero fatalities (Demastes and Trainer 2000) • Kansas—St.Mary's—2 modem turbines at grassland/farmland site. Thirty-three surveys conducted during two migration seasons and nesting season in 1999; zero fatalities (personal communication from Gene Young, Cowley College,KS) • Wisconsin—Kewaunee County Peninsula- 31 modem turbines at a farmland site with woodlands nearby. Surveys conducted for about one year; fewer than 20 songbird fatalities- recorded(information presented at conference and unpublished report) Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 I I I I IATTACHMENT C Archaeological kvuuras I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I Historical Perspectives,Inc. ,-Ay$ F:iriF SS''�`3'."ri:.k r-^• )^ .ng,- t�',r. - y{?, ti+:. .c' Y„��.t'.^YJ': ,k` _,mss.w,`- ;{fie '.*e•;�4. :Sr ,,,,,e •`". ..-'f` �''°. =„47y.,�,t1 ?, N. /),, 7 ,tr';,;i-/74,..:.'"'"e.,.. 74,...,-: •yea, -« `�rAV;r rib .W2.0' _” ;�• �Y: :,F 1440/1.• R kk': `.'- '«i"'d`rt .J..r` '+S•'• .1 ;A. �,,n .„, . •P°"+.Z+• a$?4 i2.. ' "+ ti a°q e `,{ - f`, ,:r,-.;',/- ,4 a +;,s .:."."+°'0, • - _+'•y_ '4� /tet. -rF`'";i"E,lavli'! �` � +Y�,du"`z'f+"'i-x�^G✓rC;k,.�S rt�1 ,,`�'�.�'S"`>'Y,%�� IF t {^ ¢ ' 4 is-r-N., 4t 1 air^,''q r:at .3:"4;+C" .• }'' .�::.,p;,n' `I a.4a � . w. y& 't `7/ -0,-„,,,.- '.vt s :;fie Y .»' 6t3- `z."` E,, �" '�;:• '�. .,k'r r'' ,.. � ��, .� •F� '�.-� •,� � j? 'g n,^% J9 a;,'[t ,,}-,,-,F.,..- +dry, lti -) 'fir▪ `�'ti.. ▪ • a k ,t,...:;,1,4;12;1.1 •'.r<``'. of 'y +`f> fr.i;;,• 1'or" 'J F �7' 4s�+1 '-.- --. I �. 7 + ' _ • T Y'•!',r w'.' `f;�,�- .+x n�^.�'«`f. ��'LL as t � �" ., •;,'. . 'p',`irr•.lt32z •r'� t.ari"o 7�.r�a � .,+''.`l d:?Y`� F s'`- �:.c .yam \,..,,,%4W. �V. 1,07, r�„'0fp Bil,�A2.F(('� .fv . iys r;� at -4/:''..\%."- ,/'".,tai,,�uZ \ - .'" --.+;'". a `:,, �"',i'.•'�o�a-3r,.• ^+J-- •'''''.;,-44;t, `'l a. y d✓_:=' • a. s y` �' i',%A.n.. � �, fi'„rV I {' .d x ;,4.,,ec 4" 4,&:.:-. i i ,a• .,, .. f% �' ..+ x>r,5's i..h' / y ^C.x��-} Vol" F '5 2-1, �y1i`k'y� 4s p�F,"'.''_T��'.'*'"�. -YF',f -t A` it't' .,Ll.�o y' • �-, ' �� is a k r'} Ni 9-; 14.'i.•,...-., p" ,..'Q•:..-•a.r"`1v,�;'::;i1,y�r:f„ + �S k ."'M ', ,. ..--- ,a.. ; ,S' • ' • ,7 fyi..; i _, ry ""51,�' f fly s til"i'S,f ..:c • '#-•',e,J z 5 3 y '-'" r 6 1,`` �„,�q ' '.,F ,'s , Peconic Site .\"'74▪ 4v' ... -.. „�;, �. ."43' -2,,,,„„,ate,>4.11.7„-iia;s- . •..,...' ,'", -• .,\v, ,,e• .:7,. V.I.,,'• ,• ,,,....„":1( ':','" ,,,, ., ,"i Zri,;,•,,,,,.s,hrs,4"...„, ,s,r,',7,1:pl-- • '11 - "*. '-,z,,,„,),1,„„ 7#.,?„•. -; ",' •'.-_,,*,-i\,-; : 4 r.. PLY691..�Q\'",/,"1 • ' a Rh�,\`'-`it:"t°rf "`1.}ra 5 •+i. Kt. ,. r . ', f} _ ,. ° k•ms , 1 , ` ,�r2t _.'�.�!'_ ..: ; Ata. '.. 4! hr t } __ +r r b;'Lf r - t aF - -,4\'".r -'-•` - e.-.,it -x ', •• t'�. 'Imo} '. .k. ,A f�.. t 4.^ '•..0 �4.1,. s_ ` '� ,,{� �y p�. y{�'y`�4�'{,•`-,�. �•1'r'',, ‘t......,-*tr..: ,•" } ," \,y. , i.d}A., !'.1�..v" +. {__.4 7r . _t, �..♦ ..,L$‘.•- ••••,,,—;.•!- -,-, '-..„-.1.,:.".Y,', •x,p� •gig � •�• ,.1,. ,`.,,° _ j S `•��l} V � j j '4S,• ,�:"..-2 ��� '(yy d'��� ! i � ��ii� }'!4. - .,-{.w" S't `�'S- '‘,.„1-c-,,, ,4.,.; „:.-'''''',.,.',,f,:-1 .i;,7='.�az+*`''" , ..r'r ,l 'y1a'' 'r ry - N• .'N-fr...7.-i� l+t.w .• ,+.. ~ ' "•+"]..-`r he '`,�'.+,,. -„r -, , ,, .7 _ \ ,,,,;„„.,:N%s:?y' it 4 . ?—t , ,oma d A>§ - ~,r ._:':'- -,• e.� ' ps a' •••••• -*,`:�,' „ ,,y.' �i _'. , naZ it -,r,'....1.;10-44., `[f 8$3,.'" :i .,•g* ,•�'r y .f E 1 S '•+', _° • :'�L, • 4'n '� '* ‘,;`,I--.A,4,5' � -- ,;., r• f, .,47,-,.;. i„la f y qF 'S i, z r� ri3 •i °�. " •r:-:"L''P 2--,x^•..�i [^ t y,• f +�i-. s, s x ��b-J `' ..','� y �y`yt�,� yq•,;i t e f' t .--. :•t-c .�-' .r'. • ''F;T"4`j 4 r"�G' ^,7".*;•tar„,-,.f9'- ,,t.'s e...„ ,„,..2,e4„,.:;:,:,,,,„... v `� � y • f ; y• ,.S>, �..1�`q..- F§'..,-.4 .,,,:p..,-, ,: .. .• ,¢ 0 '- 06, vnXy ',, •:-...4,: r^,,,,�'�yi�,�ji. { °+1 � T "� �$' y6�rry� � • {t. 'T a� 33" I^�cc ,C,,�� ' ,,,, i" f 1 ;'f'7 ••'tr. •+ y+�X'' i-p --�,�Si _, ,,,-. ,'tIFr 1;., "''+.' + 334 ,�,,,.., ' hl,`%,..,,,,,,,•**; ''' 6'ad`,:�'' ��� t rtit Sy, d,c, •`i t _'�•. "i•- - : i.'4! , s -wpm -:"tr 4 - ,. F ,,,4, *7 +v PS •,' `kay. 'y '- i.,. =,.tea. �ya y6—ryk._,s,,�� 3 r �`i'cS�r,?'-., ,.,a -Y�h ty bY`Y�., r�,b :„i° '''''S.--:—.7 '`-` 7y r''• '''0,"‘"-';' -}`. 4 :'Q- .i ,�, "�n ; h`Y `N:':''i' ks ,'� ''^.r'�a•'?` . „ T.n :s �,,° a •. •''",a,'.-,1 K VIA ,v4-7 `Z'r*t,,4., FJ "'P s ;,,,,,_,y s a_'`a;1 bt.$. a,'4y,�x w. �.5! �, ;%i • '' A" a�("m:r ? = „^•;:-.. , + •,` s.X� a'r >-▪` as --‘?\71k, '^.-.{ ! �... 4 � ,yC' .,a.,w.., a •,3s s-. '-[".$ '9 S.!- Z �.y . qA I_.'- Y.• -S,A,./-Yen „S-4`' : �^'- ' 4el3�•7 y . ., .r. ql, �XI \ ',.-ti;, i, 4,,..'., .Xtb j;«s^▪)'`�+"+`c.:. 'amu, '':.,; ,`J r"4`.r';2`n fr's^ tt .r ---44-,,,,,,„. ..-w.,-,,,.'''..i.,:.-1. , • .?-•rt* ` � ? `>_.- .' ,_,--•, `.-V.f S ,(~'+>..t ,°'.",.y .a ',„6,4i,„.,,,,,,,„,..),"- J ``Sy � '•z a �! afi,3' ' t%: ,`,� } s...,' ."'x :4k.i..b''4. ' y .A• a,ar„ - '°,• x'`.. caM r}'`- , t , .a,'4.. 5yrw-t,,. J ` `"G��,_-+3.4•k•-•,•,•..A,,•9---,-, . . . ' ' .,,, ..s i,+ w• S�; ` �, r >r,.s Y-.'•-• 3r it s`rroi' �-.Yln'2'4.?2F•`•?i`+ '••=k•� '. • ;- doF.Taws'` '=Sf ° .-1, f i .h' , r F" ";r' vy',., 4%'*;§'.c`.5.4. i.,11, "''W-y,` , ,,y ,Bt1• .; 'j -''''...#,-"r=:-*`-' ^v r„ } - -..,� a f^,- ti.. ``�°t '&77 F�,`0 : - ,a�.1v,}"zc ,?i iii"lit4r".':i '[ ' i , a•`J.. .ati".:—.. .,,,,'''. riC, , ,„ 3. Z. 3 L-"'rr<'47'tf- 7sF•Zi,`: rr-i'. )eme ' ''.........• '--#.r- k_ s 4a .t,.r '^�,, ,''',._,T--Net,„ If"f t-,,��'f�.Siv iyA4 Y",' �4'd..rc t rq 15�• � t° + �,_„ri ` L' �5i45 T S3 ,:,,, p,,''',...'4{ g p m 'v 3 ° ,ia" C''.•-:1 ,W,„ �, :"a`'�°d r `ter w } £ fiC °�� `< w , Ft p `L �'.n ha{t r,F t'.C✓$t.�`."�tY�•z,,:,,i,,a:4 tk �,, � •`�i^ 'T � .', "A," �I `rr l.j a �x'1d ;,�`''^d'v,�,gs!d;..� r u :rota4 3 1 • .,Z. j S •r ', i,,,. `�i744.4,% 7,.";. t,t, ,fir*d:`i*'S,r .-w-x3: �G�^`kie/rq~I 'v4 µ w” ` • (' yrxSSf ",,.«'P'4si" '.,.:.�,t n wE>+'F -cti>f- '-,",'Y''‘'', , , • i „..,,,,„.„z- j�7 =•_c',f,:' 4:. c k"''+dr' {r r i -' ... .c'c i�j.. . ,. �:. . € , n`3' °z M��' ! w•:r+ Y 5. �1 •C :<., 'rs �,P':s� ''f +�'t`.,e�•�,.t�,.i. '� vC«. isF:„_ 'E,•`cw, a.'.`.••.t�...�w`'^•°—,ti'...�41a�`-:'�r,�',`.'=- }�.'r!-�a �,k*��'.+r�.>ej` �9�iy.;;`w,�'a, r'�rt"�.t?;..».,*ti�+,'t2zC.•..yi��✓ ,d;)., rt•y_..,� '"�.Fb,.r•�., 4 `+ >x-e',w'j-,, q�,•,•,�" 5, tlw” G �+.ss �.�k.�n,x"'x1v v✓s 'y:"K��'•• 'r'a;'i+-^ ,,�a'- -i") 2' • ,..›,.1-..„,„,„ :„:„..„ - .,* -r £ti fc=1 �y- 5 ;� va P ,'1 i4s "VSs S, ' ;;,,(-_ . a:y^.. . r .�. �'d 'i' ='3c,t v r,..Ir. c'a` a. 3 �.s-r .,f�, � � e�fi:;11.,.-,,,F.',-,,:t.-7r.:$- -..,:;".. "....rJ _ � � I.,.,k.� �rr ��'A' ,."a f(.�.v -^{"�'.' d�.•c,.,�,t.: 1'� '{�,>,yy , ',.•..1°•`C � u' X.s,.. ,t? �*.•ra Lua. .� '�t�'. \��"q�ry"4}� •/ ',N s Y''`ya'7 ..,"0,,,, ..'f r a�r<Srt,°a' 4,. °g Y�si..` 1 ak ; cki,$"s.'v°ie. - �+ 4..i.* 'a 'r 4f96....,:eSD•'10 _ Y''.�• i s „<`• .",.r.ye•.,,,o,.4.-,x",1-4,,,,...,-,,,-, F_,"C .L.+.ak};<i' ,>!4%i _ a' -S•h w. i K -' ,`rd' !. Rah£ •• sr` ,:a. '"3d ••:t•,,, �.o;{!?{",1 ,t, ^�,� •j�s'•+"+. t. >`F '•i��V. ,.-Tyy��y��'!:'" v°":;t'r�n',��' ..rl i rte. r:N, �f.�. �' YtA�, -^4. �� A. ^A.a,° •"• S ";r"."�t �•� 'r'•�t4.-. `w1'3�V "y /'�,r,£.:5,w�'.4r' X'�". �,'?' Y014 ,,>.14,:-*' �+` `�,*. 4 ."'r:�>:' • `'.' t�+..0.,,a• a..1:. , ILI ,t� tr'L 4�, `�z 3y r� �y 4y 5 3,n Fes` ,(:ro. ,Yw`,� _• '_; Historical Perspectives,Inc. • Irf 4. T 1 c ' 5 .mss" , • •i;�-y � � ,..� ::'aF. =- ar vh.z -' , „' ' , = ., `Al' - ,.4,.I {'o ,."4d 7,J, , ,e; � , ;: r' k i - e ..-„ sY �� " <`r*- � .s,.'"u +y ^' 7R s -, .G,s..y ,,,,,, :,74, e r i ,—..; , Y ,,3" 1:'''''''4,111'."',g--- '.';',14-4-34.-,, "'46", •, 4.-, g.k`bi a,t -'-''-a'.1,‘-f2",:-.7A7.::„`,27)._ .. :.+ ;,.q _<t.,4n•` a. 1 �p.4'xr - -.-w, .er,it-Y' t `-Lamu. ".�: y�t$s - -+c.t`oR +<T'.`rl"z: ,; '^^ :~ _ .. i,-d9:i '' C . i� • 'wa �A? ,„�,�, : .` 3;4 g` f+Sd -' C'f-ZA. -YAItt:,,,• .,, ,-”9•c;x, 4',, vt` -*." 't' F".t4Ai'i4;f43,:4 '5 ,, pN.2t.r a.,1,4,"'4.,..6.'''',- @. q}...• G::"-C . ,4",- 1'4. t'1` � � + '' +'.";�; Y ` yps.ibdF " '°--k ,p , er;.,Y" StsUxPEd C � .:10,1 T �„ `EA,„e; r:".•1.t=,• , .„t„. .� s' yj3ta1,jr+ ?, t,�ir r¢ J .a V ,,'� � ;v ' i ' . r - „ - r'. '" : - C. • 4••••41.'1r4,-.4.0.4.41- r-.4-'-,i -,. .,,e + ,,- . - qr #02:&^4„,y + 3==:,Q. .�W <� a 'I,�♦ -�:'rLt;-' ,° .•'''''.y_0.;e' - <;�tst �,�i5C,4,rfc. 'f0°< f�e,$ -'e < !'_ 4�f> . v 1 r " `,,-e*i"m`' "� ir„ '.'9," _ "`--" '.q‹ ' «; f'‘21- ."; +' » ye.r rd 5t I» 44e--0/,',s, �x , d .s." ',- • °..,',-.. ` aw. t ' � ,*,J' + :,!' " ' t,..9, . ' i" ' s--, '.,-„, ,-,,xo . F � kF:. a . el � ,.,45,,,:,*' 4 -t, .h #§ x �yyr :� ` .tEdF'f � �». eAf L '''tffy . ,�j' ��s' « , - a 'fjyk-7A.-- -yk%10-fa ,-,”� -$-. •� ' ,W.a' 3' . is xa4. ply,'4,,,Zs . ,�-�•0� F� - Yfi .��'.r ^ � -'--'-- — x54 s- `p, : u Historical Perspectives, Inc. ❑ STP 1, 5M NORTH 0 0 STP4, 5M WEST STP2, 5M EAST I ' 0 STP3, 5M SOUTH FIGURE 3 Location of Shovel Test Pits, Phasel B Field Investigation. Site 1, Peconic, May 2002. Approximate Scale: 1 centimeter= 1 meter APPENDIX A SITE FILE SEARCH RESULTS i Itti- ut7Li9 ,inVi I Lvill ulLHl- HJJUL., II` ie. .I) L' LJ A `9)1 L D e LIQ. LEt.0 Ll TLA._ CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALISTS 1744 Washington Ave. Extension RENSSELAER, NEW YORK 12144 ')"" 5 t JOB NQ.2r- e (518) 283-0534 Fax (518) 283-6276 i ATTF_NfION �_�_/")�/`T-1� E-MAIL: hartgen@hartgen.com ( 7 2 ,�O-��—/4y >p TO . ; RE I LI Or 1/()/ "Jubir 1 (fieCni ' _ Crtele. I WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached E Under separate cover via the following items: Shop drawings ❑ Prints 7. Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications E. Copy of letter E Change order oPiEs DATE ' NO DESCRIPTION I I t `, r\�•j cr s ., 3 I s-S. 4.--i-fr'')/—\ di\r\ 1 PA.( 'e_ t_.:'c L... )c 1„--,1 \,' : i L(.7. ----------?<_p I K.7.`e_i--- . 4k..-.,'e---1, _ c-‘ I,-..2c t i (c.( tAc‘-, i (\Ler\ hy--)eis 1 k- i c �- ! ,-- - - liktri-------1 IN--- —ki.)E. ----' , - -- _ • __ •_, _ • I n il I I: -• ( I( ,(.. . _ _ Prniod Name k-_LI i i 1 :‘ .1• , 1-1-';11,1 j I IAA 1)1•6ject Nfinther (-4.-•'- ) -7?""i' Client - , ( -, ,—, i'; - Vill.ige Town ' '. 'Jr 7 it t (.1. - County ,__ ‘t., ---•/--::•fr) j ( 'L., • ,...- , 1 • I 7' - • . Quadsheets )- ' ,i -.1- i i ri ' i' 1 , 1 i ' —i ' • 1 " ' . „,-• . - I I ' NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM # Sites V SIIPO i # Sites (0 .. r i'dt •:.:i' In.ooni-r.7.,%?-.)‹ - . 1 111 il,--Til(1. Alt)rt?.;? IX/ , Plir-,) In. AT i )12-1 1)( f •\ 'e '.,' /411180• (120 i--) 11111),74/6. , . • . . . , . , . . , ! . . . - 1 1 - I I 4 • , - - • . ' - --- - -----, . . , , . . . . .. NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Eor Office Use Only--Site Identifier x/03 -/v -OZZ7 - S.< r r-rik�oo:i,>y /".-r-b�.-. `iG r.e/0S';�./ 5:4;ray July, 1980 i Dject Identifier 6,. /--/s---! J!,. :,--- L‘,.,� ,4- J ,1 ur Name Edward J. Johannemann I Phone (516) 246-8615, 6T45 4ddress Anthropology Department , S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook Zip 11794 , )rganization (if any) Long Island Archaeological Project Site Identifier (s) Edward Jchannemann S;,r, ,w. 3s J , 2, County Suffolk One of following: City . r Township Pee ►ic --5-a.0-/o / Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet /ie-«.,« • , ? Present Owner Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Address P.O. Box 144 • West Sayville,__N..Y. ___ -__ __ —___ _- _ _ - -- — ITT- 11796 — } Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : . Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident_ Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident 1 ; Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible • Buried traces detected ITst construction //materials (be as specific as possible) : • 27.:rn. -A, c �%•rCT / - c. 7" kee 4,1taf;e•'7 . Grounds - - _ Under cultivation Sustaining erosion xWoodland Upland --Never. cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain _Pastureland Soil Drainage: • exceilent good fair X poor Slope : . flat gentle moderatex steep . Distance to nearest water from structure Tpprox. ) , Elevation: 5fft, Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : Surface--date (s) July. 1980 • xSite Map (Submit with form*) --Collection - Subsurface--date (s) ' 9/4/80 Testing : shovel x coring other unit size 30 X 40 cm. no. of units 1 (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation : unit size no. of units (Submit plan or units with form*) . - * Submission should be Q'i"xll" , if feasible , Investigator - Ed Johannemann & Laurie Schroeder • Manuscript or published report (s) (reference fully) : Pr, sent _repository of materials Anthropolog De.t. S.U.N.Y. Ston Brook --' -.,'w=' -.. - +.* :7_--^ar - -- —•,,Y'�.._ x.---m1 -?'Y�'� F: _ - ':.- :Si' SD 14a i" NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Only--Site Identifier A (03 /0. OQO01y" Historic Structures Survey Project Identifier (for Town of Southold ) Date ' October, 1986 Your Name Town Hall, Main Road Phone (576) 765-1892 ; Address Southold L. I. , N.Y. 11971 Zip Organization (if any) Southold Town Community Development Office 1. Site Identifier (s) "Great Western Mill" - 2 . County Suffolk One of following: City Township Southold Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet Southold 3 . Present Owner unknown Address- _ - ----- ---------------- ------ - - - — - - - Zip 4 . Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident x _Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected List construction materials (be as specific as possible) : wood Grounds _ _Under cultivation _Sustaining erosion Woodland Upland Never cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain Soil Drainage : excellent good fair _ poor _ Slope : flat gentle moderate x steep Distance to nearest water from structure (approx. ) Elevation:- ' 5 . Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : Surface--date (s) Site Map (Submit with form*) Collection Subsurface--dates) Testing: , shovel coring other unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 81/2"x11" , if feasible Investigator none known Manuscript or published report (s) (reference fully) : Hafner. Windmills of Long Island. 1983. Pp. 52-55, 79, 107. • C. P1hitakar. Whitaker' s Southold.Amereon House. Mattituck. .Pp. 84-5. :9arr�n Hell. Pagans , Puritans , Patriots. 1975. P. 58. Historic Sites of Southold Town to 1815.Tercentenary Committee. 1983 U.S . Coast Survey. T-55. 1838 ej6 Present repository of materials ' none , known (cont. ) v• SD 14a (cent. ) 5. Manuscript or published report. Mary H. Wells. The Story of Jockey Creeks "Small Building". Manuscript. 1957 I1 1 I I • / (Z"', (`I N f•: • \\...,10;'%.- g:,,,;,H-- eir k I, ,y,§-7..../;,Y :-/,'2' \ "...:,/ts, • : ,, ,r. . ;9 44 ,..z.,:i.:\ .}:414... •.7. V / z„ z , i Pine Crest Dunes. r- Q • ••• .1_ ,s•-!:;..r.', 1 (Bois Camel•-> ¢`�' • /• \<) .7 \� �,.►\'. aZ�• ,�: •. ‘.c. • r \: 1 •r .:. ••' . •,,: .. ;. 2/ / 1_' , a \F ` moi•:• •. /1 •l27 \9L •..:%���• •' '� • ••• •• • • '� • ;err j• _.�n '1,...,-, -`-ir__- 'Y<• •••'•r,C _'• - • Ir etl : _ • j • __ • t - �••i , W,I'ow ,• •. '. C Err,.• _ .3� j " '...?;:14. NEC . K zi• ` • (4 _�/ ° 251 ••.\ ,', — ..-=.--. -*.--.1 •An , ��'7 • "' ••r.•• 04 _ �J u 1 r• / 9a --.„ • /�• T•y /fiT; H ,7.`, T'1i•• `�n:11 `� °rt/:1•:C2-r;L:/ ,�ZJ�/ - lit 0 CI .:1E m/ l'• :,,: ,�, `t\ 1 !• /�.-\; , ; • 21. • i � ..t• g • ° • ;� aa ,s N....\,;) / bLaughi ' -r G • Waters��'A. .i •/ \ \-1'0. � South 14Foorj•:� : v o �v r Park1 • /. a., .e' �G,r ek • °.c2_53 ° •. ' P --_"�• Hog heck =_ eM,/ P•� _ Bay •Jy29 • — , • 27. _ ....• •• �•v \ s • 9 \\ a /'.\• 0/%:'i• fir`•^ 19=:, �u f3 • East I. / ', \N'(5,`",•',.,„,V,-s`,\ •' . 9•,;/' :Cutchogue.V( V . °1,'% 2• e �� 1 • 2 ,`. /7'4 I •••., I' /s -. %1C\' ,/ \,•.E: •u�: 15-55%1 _N� , - A oD.i - • 1 V - •'•\• 21 1 ''�� , W-1( k\,..iiv,,, _24 1 \--t 11 1,12 I: E ,] �• ,� • _ _ ,b!!•=Y_•A- - •- _ %wn._�.•a ., ...•%•••.-•. " v. 1-----.7-1 ..U� .,. \ ---7.---1'.. 11 - .• .. r _ ci•'rA �: N. Y. S . DOT Southold Quad •, , ; jiW I.''':Vs.4:- -:•-• ' ''''''''-'-'. '`.--'4'4'...:- '''''''gf41%-••-,t-W•ZYrr''' 4'.."7-A',--.7-"'T''• ''W '':!‘ ft,tt`-'r-17.77..-'`,0.,.k,- .-.,..,..;,-,,...... --•,:•-,.......--...... -- ., - .. ,- -.._. ,...- . , % _, ,,.. . 17:1 -7?-::1W- i f'Ai rroa_Align, ;rs,I.17Tr - Or , • •-•:'1.4..-,-T4g'iatV.•• .,,, ,,,.'•`g4-4,;_. .f k- ',,;',,,..11- --4*.0_,,,k,_:4--4 "4.:.-'''''.„1",l'tt141714.,.,,,:g.n.‘ri,6', ''..::,:l.':-•'44744:41.-C,r'r•:.A4P. - '-''.- Vr".34:,-4. _:74e.,?'„AZ.,,,-4 .," lifireA;r7-4„Ti4,'...-,ti,i4::::;,,,fart* ' SD 14a evi i,":14:-.Qe-4s-- ,-,-„„,,..4.,..,,,-7.•... '.,.; ,,,Wqi:,.. .:,,,•,,,lit,'4.W-V-P.stsre".„ ,,,-..--'":''..t,d.S2. 1.7.W4,•1?. ....'1,1"..- '--7f.s•;•. ',‘,.-1.', . '" `•-•4.%• 70, .4 "..4?-•";;''f";74•AnP•i:,,,,.%*14•:-•;•,- 4,'„,.:-.11kk•'•41.-fggies; ;- • .' .7:-..-• ..., . -'reZ i . -:'''llici.""7'.i=1‘... 4 a:'•:' f-•-` ;f 1, ---."',..:AC.• '.w. .-. ,.N•-,,,,,,, .- --4, .-•, ,,-..,,..A.A-.7AW.;......t,.. .t.„, ..,_._ •-;±-,...-- ,,,, ......,.:..,,,,,,,r&::::. .4,-,.,..t.- ,, . 0. .,,i,..,,,,,1-,, .... ...,,2...,„. ',..,.....z • i-• ---r- ,,,.;;! •... .4-3,, ..,;..,,..t., , - :kr.:,0.L.?`''',.....4riiit,..%.*, "'Or Z.44.4i..,Ver,.111.1rD:Utic,,,,,',:..,,,,V r. i .,;,CA,;I:. .4.- •.1,'1/4f:'-.. • 'it-' ....: - A •.r ••• '"VI-t.',*'-1-,'''',V!1...... - '7-.-E-4...".4---'-,z-,4..-‘'.y.-5esk-if• ',i , I. ---. . ,.._4"-' '1,...''''''.',i'z'74e,f,AZ";r:41:'1.c."'" f • •:-,-,7 41-.1'Stb-tir';',..-'-:.:- .••*1:-F*41,.. -t. -,.:•,v,v.".•43W.14,k• -a. Wilk-*-.1 -,ti•.P.1,...... .Vrft7 '.f.•,:. .;•-r-:,••;.....::Ii.-;-, •.71-..-•• ••.‘. „1,,..1.-_,._:, .,-"te••::;,'.A.,,..oatt4:fi.-.., -.,....,:.-*,of .-1.....t„,,..,..,,,..: ;.;:,,..:- ..- .-„.; . - ,..,...,,,. ------,--...;.,..41.,--P-Ip., e:.., 0.7- ..," „,-;_:-- • '..-,,. ...ia-:--. .,74 -1.1rn-.0t, il:s.t. .-"-`,1:4--fl-44--.74; .- 4i--6-fat*•.-,"T•'" - ••....3t,s-"---lc.- -7.,e'r.....-'-'"---k4e.P. ,44-',-'fa,';',4;z•.,-,4:''' Q.P.y.:A•g•-ir- is".2,14,0•!.4.ktAt-'4,--Oir" - ,:,.. --.4 •";.• :.•''',3r1..lat,•••4rAric•:-W/...7•••, ..a:• -•,••4.3-,Z.,-.Afg.itfiir-4,:a. `- -:-''•' --s-'-' -",P.-;,•••4411-' :,-,".• .--::„4:1--• • - • , 4,,•.,-1,-,•44,...44.,-,,,s1...,-*,--..,7.,:p4.,".-,e4.,,,.,N.,,,,,.. tt----' • ''''*„.-,"'AL :".,•-•.i,4*.i:'..{.-;•• ,.., ,e ., „IA. ' ,.,., _:'.,...t!,...,‘0.4;k7-7A-st-- , -A, -;-'ir.t...*';i- L.s<,'=:17:•:*•‘[.- .417,*2-A:1--'...r.;zr,gi;;;:.fe.,,. ...:•-:.'-.'*•,.'-eirr:,.;•:-.4.,,,...- .3..v,,:.--•- ""`"--:•Az:...4.0.I.,,e.r.;.;;;,.:','4'..v --or7%.', --'••'1 --t.-Algt*-401 .r-:`;Fr •:' •,_,I. ..-=',Al.-7 '''4k; - --- -0'''',"i-1;-=(--r`-i;,-"..1:1( ,.-1-;:,.:- -::-.-i-4-V::-,.; ';:.g4,-.1:--.4.,,'_-i ',.1:0:-:11;,... T.-..''''.i.,:.-'--•it%-.4' -.3- .,.:9.---' ?;-ti',---""-.: --:-;.5.V-2•:"'W:''''''., ..'..i:.,,... ,7;.*:,44(-:;Z-' /01,' ,74-..;..Wr5',"-....'.1.-.'''• , . •' '' ''.''.',,'"144-'2;11;','‘ ,:,i.%..-7--1";•t - ••• . J 5 :-4,•:. .. .''''ir se5tONI:41,:- •. •• • .:- ''•\::--'.-',:i.V..-:-'fq..-21 :r..'r.,--.:-.-,•. • ' ' •.-•:..:,) -..-.....,:-....,_ - . , -.,:ire.... :t-..-,4,F,,,,,41.-,-.....-',.:: . , -- I • ' ' --4'.-••-"".4'poll ....1- ,,,frio- .114614414- - -- , - Z .is---q '''-----..--;*'lc( ...a.- -1,-'.. I ' -••,..•:-..z••••.:.A. - .'''.:19r.,•• *sat - - • itok,,,.. 4,....- .. g,r1M.......,.. .,..:, . . '-----.744,, .A.4L‘ cgaLlt.*11•0;40..11A,-,..;:...? •."4--4 6;:: ••..*.,,;;•,-.:-.1.1- -:. IOU If- - ,... , 3411WILtii.__0.4.-4.1•:,,,•"..--:.,, - -, . , ••-4. Do .,i.• 4 'i 3- .. . '4114 •1,..1r r:-:.."'I:A'•:;•. . . 1;;;Z: 17i... "I TO fn-.17.' - ,a.'Y.IP .""44 .Cirr.;''• '‘.s ' 4r1r %.,44 .... .. ,.-,u4,,, ,. -3 - - -.•j. - •IL,,,,,-• A41116,3).1„,,,,,,-,,,"•.:.• C.f.; , /•••:,, •, it-t•-•-•:_ -%.' - ,,,. -'4M-.*111-0-441. ..%-.1i,. ''Xie".1•?; . II•. .-1,51,--1; -• • -. • ,r,. .,. • AIX; ..4.;....a.,..P.e, , .A15'... .:11:41.21 -...".•, :., ,.--, • ,.1" ' .' , ..rtf, %as. ..- ..1/4.415-Okra A ‘.. . , .4=:j4-).itn"'"11 ,.!,'r?‘iec, ra.;-;'.'' - 9r- :' -4,,, . ..;,-,. 1.,A • • -,:i at6,.. liViie?'5'''' :':: ::44:Ai:'c'-' ' I -- - --....,-,- • '#' ''': .-- 1"'.*:.- it ','%,'•'7:1-P'.%;•-'1/47trig• , _. ,ki,...';,-,:. .7, i')PF-7:::;t74%*',:t.•,,r-,"i"1""'.:: ,. A- - ' -:...? '- -, :,,..14.1.:-. ••-•Tr'- _ .toprakikzkimix.2militti-ii, Iii...Vii,Z.'.4.:•.i.,;,4,.. , -,•-. .. .liiirlamitramarna ib-4,•' ' '-:-.-----i.44 Z;' •,, •-9)...?...- - .--,„'''.C.',u..- ., - , '' 4-:- -• .., ' ' AIMMailik- ,...r.,,,_..,t i' :.4:e.;',-,7...,-, , ,,,k,._:;-,•,-.;,--„,,,.:.-1;--r-.4...-,A:7Wfigk-A_.j- - ' -, '''. . lira • • :1P '''...:-, ts.r.•=,'4-05:' ,--: y19,•,." -- , v , ,*-4,,-.101, •,--,,-'-,i•tZil• " ,-.. ,,, •"•*4:i.v•• ' ";'• • •;4.` " _ - •- r‘..2.1avamil • - qui. ,- '-• e..•-••:...411- . I A...1.4“4..„..r.,......t":.."..;;;...:v.L;Tiil i', ---- .,....t.3..,..p.,,i,,_t.,.T. , , -.- _-:.7,• :::::4,-....."-,,---, t,Or i---- . I ;."..`,77 -..Nes" ...,err,r,r,t. ;441,•‘' : ,-1.-44. ..,:• -•••'..:7,7?-"F.:172.-.7,..-.i-1,-'...:;;,=:.:41;t:-.37.•=7-73in.1.,,C.,,,I'''"-StWit4"'".4;-"°.c.'1"r",/.1rif---(77..41•-,:7'4A% ...1'. .f..-C--4.Z:1?.;"1•IA';1'-' 21.-Z:,-1:-TAt.°9-t.V:gif.774'nidgil-7,3kW.Vi'a---.1,-Y.4i:40. '';'• ',"'Zf..,.,e-,.,'..? .4) 1 -ev:_s-,.'......r...z.,r.,:-:-/,-.5,: z--P_-_,--',,P**-"-,6.1..iai-,-.7j-2-ii‘---=-4.1n-17,--V,-,--'1',,--•'1.Z.-xerit,-- -- '-. were" •,1..- - . , - ..r,:..,,,-.:.• .•_;:.--.::. .-,e-: ,=, n,-;;:c ,-a`:------;":-:,-...›i:ir-:Ii.-Ii4'!-=';1'1' f 414.0:21.':e fiete'1"-''..'.. 24 :' 1 .‘;‘.,..1,,.;::?..‘:.4:-:,,,,k.,-,,..?.7?:_;:r.,..•-.....,-,:;..,....?,:,:::,k, --14.ks,;,..,,,,_,,,.-.-0- ,,,,,-..):::,..--..,-4::,•,--,...- "-7.;--2,-,z,:.,;6 ......iw,.-- .„" . 41 Shelter Island Windmill.The sails and 3,•-:•,::,..77.c...,-,ft!.., ,-,..:14z-Zi.,,,;-tilv-F,"•',"03:,-,‘,:7,-.-,y,:_i-R, '. '..-.;;-t--„.;.;•liT:t;:::.47„iwpr.,'4,3:5/ ArA;s1....as;*:-.57iy,.'..t, -',:,'.."".::•'44*16:.>-:/2.';:-`..;•:;g113.:PNife,M=Vir›^I',:;4,,,•4.1`•,.-; •=4:If.:`:7:1•:-,• 1`.....' ..•:%:,9=*4.taa;4 stocks have been removed from the rotted lis-4 •'; pi..:7-4.,*.•e;c4.,--Ar45t-4.5 '...,-,•ro...;*..i,.,...-FP,_ ..... ..-.*:.-t:-L.r--2. .4%.:=,,t- -V' -'4g31•W: -.1-- -,&43=ia--,...,- ,--._ -....,•,! . ..:.-,... ptne windshaft. , VC upon.bur.if you conclude to have the bridge beams he on those girths which support the upper floor perhaps the lower store,:had better be as much as 10 feet high-3rd The- ,t.,had better be enlarged as much as the bottom or the arms\\ill come too Moved from Mill Hill, r eur-4th The stone beams may be 2 Feet&10 Inches apart&the posts under them Southold ,:-.-Ind riu-:h v.i r_h the inside of the beams&3 Feet between them the other way-5th Thep.,st.n center of'.\till ma\ be from 18 to 24 Inches and long enough to rise 4 Feet , S Inches above the stone beams-6th The plank rim to be in 6 pieces-7 Cogg \X"hee1 to he S feet diameter-&..Spur Wheel 5 Feet 31.with 52 Coons each 31/2.by 1•- ,n...1 1' Inches loni:-Can ES of spur wheel 17 inches wide&.4 chick-Facing of n.,7 Inches v.ide and 3 thick-the width of arms 9 In.&41'z thick-The Wallower 3 tee- IC Inches diameter of plank 2 Inches thick.each head to be double thickness and the rlailk to cross-23 Rounds 14 Inches be:ween shoulders and 3 Inches d larne::.r-The rim that holds:he coggs for turning the top of Mill mac., be 5 Inches 1:,..19 or IC\\ide-Stocks 34 or 33 Feet!,,n,,, S Inches thick and 10 deep at cente- ':-.d the ends rt- portioned so as to 1.11,..-:he points when hewed 5 Inches one , th, ther and the thickness,,1 the stock about 3112 or 4 Inches at end- , : SI:.:• Burr'-:t,,r.,n 4 Fee:4 Inches Jtameter-and the rock Stones 4 Feet 8 or 9 I I:.ches....:a me t..:r and therunner 17 or IS Inches through the e\e-N B. the Post in C.::: :r ma\ be crotched i,n one of the Sleepers.-nd a large stone placed under the end-.. ON&A: , ,i,,,- \-I. ..,,CI,..eiand- N.,thi I)‘'min\ p.ini-14 ?. . J. Hofnar. Windmills of Long Island. 1983 ---,,-,,,„-...-.. ,r.-,-,-.-.,-:.,-z:- --r------...--.:=i.';'ir--':Frr-r-'':':n-'-''-'''-'..TLP'.t'- -'";.'rtr.',5,-- ri,s=,-”--,'-j::-l'.:---- ---7-- .77-":"7------,...-.. ..-..,- ...-,,..A,-,- .,.....- • -., _,. . , ,,,,,,,..,,....,,. __,,_.....,.,,------z.,.. 11:-,2_:.z;lia_2_,:_.-‘',-•'---,;.. .-,-1:''`'`'`-''''''I'-'--%:''le-'1.-1.'41..31 .g•rlIZI--1`16-21:r 4.--' .. .4tTW'4.814''''''''‘'''''".le-''-'-' ' '. :-... "1 --- --''.=•.--,..-- --- --'‘ •- '.-‘-...7,,ri:.."....-4... ...,,,,se-.' ..,...k yx.i.s.,'-, p..r.,:‘, ,.i -,,--,..4-4,..A,,,;,,,i/iti,,--,...,42,--7 eix...,.....,-,,..6...„;;-4614.1......4,....., _ i ''' '''."--4 - --* - - ''''- - t•'''.-. •'!‘4'.', -ers:%Vo.4...51-../' • •$ lam•--('j, j^t�v-�, '�t [•‘ - - 1 • I 9 SD14a 71 Isaac Edge's Windmill.Isaac Edge's windmill was probably the most sophisticated . :- --/ ' one in the New York vicinity at the time. Charles H.Winfield's 1814 History of the ' • j County u%Hudson,Vett•Jersey, gives the o. } history of the windmill.Isaac Edge came to • 1'�� America in 1801 from England where his • it s- ` "i-�" 1 - father operated a windmill in Derbyshire. In r r . _� 18li,Edge commissioned the millwrights .' .. Burmley and Oakes to build a windmill at ,'4 a -,Rt • r 4,- _: Paulus Hoeck on the New Jersey shore across ,r - .7... ._` ,• from Manhattan Island.Winfield states chat , "' •r J4.1- ''t all the machinery for the mill was imported ,v- mo,-sir !V ,1 ="'- - t,`L c�c -.r , F ;-; from England and that the windmill«as ;fir'-.•;- %:aa F IfJ ,.t ' '',(4'-r,*' f 2. f z-. -iiia•, t 1 conducted in all particulars like the mill '' \ '~ -_� ={ iiP • s,' of Mr.Edge's father to Derbyshire."This s.;• .--7,--7.1-- s windmill,with itsclirectconnecaon to - — iv, T - - .-;`i,' ,•Y.~� , . � ----_-.---- -=- ---- --`zL - �J';• England,may have played an important . •- 7t°�, _ '- -'; � _- ~ role in the importation of the new windmill `�TM F-= • technology to America.The etching , .`• -` -__T 4t4'. .-- _ accompanying Winfield's account shows �` �• - r`F' '' .• - . a windmill with a four-stony tower ona -�` _= µ ` •.:- - : . --- ' - two-story stone base.The mill has a fantail .a,•H X ^nt. -,, ,UP ,2i,.-'n \.i,1,“,..I,i4 , and patent sails. . Dear Str. Rensselaerville April 15th 182 2 The letter written by Charles Mulford to ` I i..some e''ect to build a•.c and-nal:1-us season at Albany f,‘r;r,nding Corr'&rye Nathaniel Durum V in 1522 contains for a distiller and in case I do, I_houlJ like exceeding well to have some informa- further substantiation of the sophisticated tion respectin-,certain improve—tents said to have been made on that kind of mill machinen of this windmill. Mulford - , since ilc.ed'with'00.ot'ah,ch'ME- '•erncrts\cuare undoubtedly acquainted describes a windmill he has heard of as being with. i and t.'Id windmills arc n,,'.\ zonstructed so as to.:ontinuei\ face the wind b} "near New York on the New Jersec shore said the w Inds ,w n power also to reef and regulate the stone.3s to regulating the stone to be on a yen expensive plan that almost I am: me..c.ivainted v\:th:he-,r::1CIC.e of the opera tion. having seen something tells the time of day,but holy far this multi- !. machinery is profitable I don't know I of the kind at Fiat Blush N hen I:t'.,.._i\,1:h N.ou, I wish to be Informed if you please am told that it is built very high grinds very w herder cou chink this kind of machine[:is protitabi\ used and if so what adds- fast...."Isaac Edge's windmill.was the onk tl nal e\pence in comparison ::h the plan used when I lived with\ou, I wish to • one of this type known to have been built on kno" ;fl-e‘.el nears are use..r,r--:,,r zoo.:tic heel&cro\%n wheel and if,:o who ` the New Jersey shore Mulford's account - has cast them for I:bank the\ resgui:e casting a different angle trom the common indicates that the windmill was equipped bevel ge fits and•.,.I1.'e\'er has cast:filer.:r,r\%,find mills probably have patterns,the with many auxiliary and automatic devices :nam that I expect to hudd for is.,Illinv 7,.have:t cost him about 1000 dollars it This windmill was dismantled in 1839 and , reuuires no bolt alth',he wishes:.,ha'.e u geared eared and then when he chooses shipped to Jouthold where it replaced the he can add an.'the;run.of stones I should like to have yin'give me a particular Dvmuny V windmill built there in 1bIll. description of the must impro,e i Clan if it is convenient and it not some general Known in Southold as the Great Western Flouring Mill.it was destroyed by fire in 1310. • de-cripr iorl and w hat null.ou'.c.,uLi recommend me to take a draught of, lilt should • be necessar. I understand.tr_chef:Inger has built one at Brooklyn different from ' those at East Hampton and that the top of that turns with the wind hut whether it i is J' utile;Care or not I ha'.e n, -le,rr ed there is one near Ne'.\ York on the New iersc. sh„re scud to be on,I N.Cr'. expensive plan that almost tells the time of day. But iso^. tar till,multmri\111;;miehlrCr. is 7r,qtrable. I'.h'rlt know. I am told that it is built .en. high grinds very fist and d,nes work t') I should like to have your opinion .1 the V..,Ind an.lot stone to d:''.••'r \1'l[h the greatest dispatch I have not heard _ 1 ,it\our h.rc Irl,'built a mill w here the t.:p turns by the vv old, but perhaps you have, .lr ld-1 it not,\ou ha\c some general idea of them and perhaps have an improvement that..ou can-'Iggest to me on ills se no•y in use ail',communications that you will Pica e'mi`t..n.'11 k Cilallktall\ rete:'.::i'. Iil:li\\ho i,thankful for man'. instruct- ' nor,,il-ead\ received ini. respects to<ili n1\ oId friends in East Hampton particularly \o:- '••\:s•,"oil•. tel firs Dom I _- ,c r I-r,%'!'.erott:.,don't kn,'w but they are all • or I.."l_Isl.in.'he.e fir; ., e . ell t,u`ii.ilin\ brother Fd'.\andthat v'lusaw f s',:1,-,•:r i` 'i,,. •a. .::n. ;, „ 't . :n...,Pc"•go,.,.I as: ars\'.er cru,. :r,'.,:h r apccr&esicein Charles L Mulford 79 '') R. J. ut-_nr,,r, Windmills ss of Long Island. 1983 --------- A SD 1 -`k -.a — WHITA.KER'S SOUTHOLD _ _ _ TIIE TIMES OF THE FOUNDERS • 85 •l ,a ct well knew how to make vice and crime pay taxes and not when it burned down a few years ago. The site is still known . ? cess as a heavy burden upon the shoulders of the virtuous. It . as Mill Hill. i s. . one of the lost arts. The early records also disclose how On the I I lh of March, 1667-8, there was an adjustment of ander was punished, and how the place was kept free from boundaries made with the Town of Southampton.* ii ie bodies and odors of dead animals, though I find no law On the 13th of March, 1670-I, John Budd sold to Isaac '! i relation to the removal of dead fish from the surface of Arnold one-eighth of the ketch "Thomas and John" for 1 ie ground.* forty-five pounds of current pay. Said ketch was on a voyage ai .4 The Records make it plain how the town street was main- to Barbadoes. The burden of the ketch was rated at forty- , 'I .ined in good condition and other highways kept in order; four tons.f There were few men in Southold at that time who Dw proper regulations were made for the wharf which John severally had an estate worth as much as this sloop of forty- it 7 oungs, mariner, was permitted to build at the Head of the four tons burden. Two years later, and probably at this date, `arbor, near the present residence of Mr. Francis Landon. the price of merchandise or produce often used in barter was 1 Vow the site of Town Creek Park.—Ed.] in Southold as follows : ;!j The following is a specimen of the local legislation as well Barrel of pork £03 — to—oo ',il j ; an illustration of the record thereof: Barrel ofd beef 02 — 05 —00 `'I 1 "July 1659. It was then in like manner ordered that from • Bushel of summer wheat oo—04—o6 :1' i ie publicacon hereof no working cattle bee put to foode on- Bushel of pease oo—03 —o6 Q �e c011-1'011S to disturbe the Cowes, and for the prevencon The Town Records also made known what laws were en- 111 Lereof they are to go under the hand of a sufficient keeper, i Id in case any doe otherwise they are thereby lyable to pay acted for the preservation and control of boats, canoes and reservation )r one ox so taken every tyme 12 d. The same to continue skiffs, as well as for pasturing cattle, sheep and goats, re- •1 itil the 'nd of Indean harvest, this yeare and every other straining hogs, prohibiting sale or gift of dogs to Indians, ,� " I :are hereafter from the beginninge of cow keeping till the and also rum and arms without an order from a magistrate i 1. d of Indean harvest under the same penalty until a pasture and a full record of the whole transaction. They also show t. rovided to p yrevent the aforesaid inconveniency what premiums were paid for killing wolves, foxes and other • p kinds of "varment," and that thesepremiumsyear byyear The Records show that on the 3d of April 1679 the Town ! Voted a site for a windmill to Joshua Horton, Abraham made a conspicuous figure in the financial estimates and ex- penses and Daniel Terry, the mill to be at Pine Neck upon the penses of the Town. h; it over against Peter Dickerson's house. That is, the mill ! The local enactments on record also prescribe the way in I„�as to stand where the windmill of Mr. Rene Villefeu stood which the ratables must be presented to the proper officer by • each inhabitant, and the payment be made within fourteen •I' The use of fish for fertilization of the fields, efficient but highly days after the publication of the rate. 1 .orful, had only recently been abandoned when this humorous comment ° j - ' 3 !, is penned. For a full account of the spring fishing see my Mattiluck, ! *Printed Records, Vol. I, p. 278. i 228.—Ed. Whitaker. Whitaker's Southold.Whitaker. p. 293. to Rev. F. b if. # Amereon House. Mattituck . 1882 1 r.,..rWile •r-v...I ,..9,.ak...... t. .),.. • ., ::5-J % t , 4 •.:I..4.C..7...1. i ,....4 joegay CreekA-G-crrt-e-4,-. P. 2 S \--r• ,,,,,,* • .:•44., f, • . ,- S 1 1 [areal Peek a 'where it serired as oouthold ' a f_i_r_s__t... meat market,conduCt......L.i7::. •e: •-•.14g 1 • - Simeon B.I.iorton. err Lonv since it was 003.4 oTed to the rear or_ • ';,%;1'..at a there where it lif as photographed in August,1955. • ,--;ta • • .._______ . __________ _. __.. ....__ __._ , .-1 __-- .....0{ , . . • , . , ••-F.. . , • ;,, ,.....-. . r -:1: - .',.h 4 • , - ,i,-...Fie,-.,-.1 , .-:,'. • . .... .. . i '-' • 'i-s.c '.' 4 ._ •,:'k , .' 4 ••••Its ,.-• , .• .-,- . e • . e A • ••••••••.t.• KL. ' e 4 • ri*.i?.-,li'4'.1:•-•Y 14, % i•A , e i .. ........b ....,.. -... ..." - ---_ 4- e . • .• ••... • 'hiL • ..., ,'"`,.., ...., ,Lo P... •••.. • • '.4.4(.. •>. / ' •-: -. -C • -a. .. ..tS.4ii ••• • :2 . / . •' f,4 .• . Ig..„4:;•••• ,44;k ,.....4ft.,t,r.V ..,1,. ..,... ••• • 1-Ati*3-0. '' '''-`4'"- r -....2',1.11' . . ).• *,,--. Pr:. , ,e• . .... • 101.111 P4A411-,,, '....'%S.,474..,- •,...?try:4:s 1/ 1'"A„,. ,,,,. g"' ' ,,p?!..-„,„,,,p, , -t, • :4-1, • ,'".'-'w ' .4. 4 , •, .. -1•-'•, .5 4..-*V4r r . le .. • ..0,..... . - .. ' ``...Xiik -.:. .., -.44-,-.:9 , >,..0.• .&--:-•:40 • . •, 4.4, ..„vs.. - - ,. n•-r.-.. - „"`....../....,;7.0,• :'4, ,;•,: .,s,. t 1, ' ' ..; • ' •'%...,1,.. ... ' ii 1:+V4'.4. • t•:c-r";,-,%t7 441.4.••''''.,.7.1 .. .11z.? '' :.- -;.- .--' - ''' 4; .-i-' . - •• + , Cs,.N.,. f t',..1',...' . .... '. .r.5''- -'. •:•••• --,1.71•4 ..,.,- -..#• •••: - • •-•, . ,. ---• 1.• , ., --I, .t.•-•,..,1y4t-it'.-••• '-- -' -/ --,4"=°.•••4 ---;•-• •••••• ••..•_.e,- e W`-:`&.-.44-.1.',.r.V..,, ::#-`11-SAP-''-gc.a.-_ -‘... .,:*.41-0...'''... 15*-: -'• f I -.1-'',. '--. - - ".----;• 2... 1 "V-'l-A!tir`•.., -▪,•;.VA-.:rtft,,w,.'-<A4s- b.4.,'.,.--e--,,.'..140..',-,;-'4.'4.-7tz,,,t:-tr•7.1..'--l-,iE.1.t,.,.:,_--:•--:,i"rs t•'.,-. / '-.••.,',•,,.•;,.r --, •". ' , -v- .:-r---.;I,II I','..-.-1-'1II r''2'j4„r.:.;•2:,:;4,-.0.r•7,,,AZ..,tr,:'''---4-1)•,-i,,-. .,;*; .,."i,',r.:5se='?..;-.f.:••"Pt' .. • !.r., L , e -- fr z.d.- .4'r•.:!'„k., „ '-irt'• .,,'ofe'r--- =',,...-44+92.".„.1-'-'- , •, ,.....A. . ,,,,, ,.. .1.4..:.-:,_,,,,t4 r. , ?...V. • .4t.;,-til...",-etep,5 :0i71.-:_r c°1"1... • ',R .A.":tr-'- ' • ••.. tr, ,!----,10 ,''', - :%.,,-..,. „,-.."4,,,,,,_ '-'..- 7,..•,,.,n.,„',',,,,.•,-;i Arl , - ,-, e• t'4' - .- k's"- .`,.v.-1!`r-0,"--4.-5"".- '1,-0-:i•t r.1"SrejoPe. . ' • ' .-t4•'Iti0 'W-•.'s-t-t•••-*'-A- t••.!;•.•:•.•. ,...-s, -_-• .,.-..._ $10- -54--''',,,--• ''' - " 4.1.. .1,,,s-,,...-;•-,,-- „.•.:W.-.. " :.-r..,..:9•11....ft'-..-17rrr.."`""- "• '-• - .4: -€..- "...g4 - ...I) 6--...e.r• -'1`...S.itr...t...M., 4•"" • . . F.;(;" Alar.14..o.aroliraora.. .-. A • • ' ••'.•'-_.'.'7.9' . . 12:1 k... ..11- \..-N -Z\ \r`•?-4•. ... .-...,:.0.i'• np.• - • , -,z-4. . .• ... ,-, ..4- t-.1-'4iN.1 ,c\* • :••t-i*Art' 14... ,4...,:z...1,..... V,\kze....4:7 ...L\fte'j1/4•4 N. :.‘IN% k \ T, - . : .,---....ws ...• ;....- . , .,...,.p.,„ .. . . ,-,,,,,,,, • • :• -•-.*, .:_,......„:, . .,,,,,._ , :•,... Ifiri- '-- P•-•-:, ., _. *.,,,,,..,.... ....••••,-.14-4,-P-1-•-----"-"°"'"'"•°"""."."..."..---''---"e."---e- .... tf '.:;‘.•sgc.-:-.••-iV ....... '.1 .-:•:4••;-.t" . , •• araai. • a:',7,0 a,.ar 4. •Z car fl•i•• ... -. .. , .....14-1 , ..1! ie17k. XIX.r-41 --- • r ; ,0 .... ••'''•4. ___, . .,. ,t,... ,f, ... k , .143. 01. . / ,• •....;C•I -: 4's : . I.•' ., . ----.''`'..--- '''i. /.... g ‘',1 I tra •.• ,* •• • .....4. / 4.i.- .. %. T • . . _,,,.4 .. -r••••,:‘.-di , .• ••1:.•-, • •••• _ ••=5,„1/4„,..„„c •Vjr‘'., ..g.2 i, •. :414,47,1;„Am.!....,..L..... 1. • . _r.p.t.,..-'-g".47.0•'-rx44',',.., de . ,r51-4.,44,r.,=, .-.- 3.- i- . ,3 - 1 "1.'1"c eA:•-•-„,:-..-_,T6.5-,--4.:::-,!-,;-,,,,.!.%.„.:45A...1-:_,I. , --..t:-,:-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•z-„-, •• $. . .1 --• •s!q,• , ,,,•:•:,,,,,---,,,,,,4..---7,1,:„...cetkeaft,4.a4-3,...Alf-;--;;;__;,*V-, :. -..,. ,.. ,-.., '-?.., s 41,4 40 I / 0 0,, ,R4...,Vzgi',KtIta,`@ig. ,r.,•_•vx.t1 ...••• ,_ 4z,..--tr•R,_,Ats., .!: •?',,,A,-4-4171_.* .:4Ari:-..QiiT!ggl'Z'3,1r-er..,t: '11,,,i-& 'a-ilip. --,-1-r---,0!-::•: -,---:, -ik ...-i-; 4;ir't•arr, fr,' • 23- ...s... 5 • 1r . . ''...,'cif.'7 4 • . 'II •'.".' .7, .1. -''' ''' J'1)..., 5 "'47Z.-%1"tir •S? '' ' s -•:rc: . .:Irting • i •I ••,, * A-A. -Or k.„,,A Et .., -, ''W„ :,•"... 'Y'A''''P ' ''CO 14' I..<4.'...irc7F., .• / ' .: We'l•'• -ZIT.: ca•. ..='....aeSe4..-,•-:,..,...,:'..,. - -..,_ _•.,,,,...'"',.,. 2;1" . - ''''•;, •*4., ,' .-•kr.,,"..?.• 4,.Vd.i.,. k",,-,`':*, ,v-IF.t".,.,,,...1-p,z.it=t,...",',Ar-t,i,g,..-•:,:-...74;•..z.,;,i4.4,40 .••,,,,-.-,,t.k.:,;,;42.,4,4- 44,t,11•4•rf,:'..'!-gl*:-:,•;:,....,-a„,„.144, =•••;.. ,..1•11,-0 ..,..:„...::::::,.,....t...i ,1 t-s-rurtW'-6*-...•.-1;.:::::4;,T.,.:0•:4-1.,.__r;-T,irv-e,„•,..tiV,-;;_,:5...t.,,16,,:ct,r,,,_za..7,%,.1 pg,,-..v..g,‘7,1:7-0.. -,,, _•-, -r...,„-v,p. ,-4;.,oz.f.,•c•:;,-N;1-...,-,....1..,-,,,,,,., , ‘...,... .., ;..p..,. ., , 4.,.4.- .,...A,,. -...4..4*_•,-,- t--. :-:- ..2,:•5,,,A ) . 1..,.. ....-. ' i 4 g4'''''''''ielP's-'4?' ..1,"*4•114 -v r:'"N rel t4-. --,..r., , " -r-• ;•-•.-5Y'''."- ,• -•;.--',:.-';.f.--4":•.1'.•-,s-tc,f.--';•,-r:•••:...-li...::,11,,3-i_••,.,• -., •,•• i ii....re• kg,---2",.., ----4,0,..„-.w4-14,-.4,,,...;41-4,---A,,,4;,,,4,5,11 4, ,,,,,,, . .. .„.•„a.„*„.„:„...,,,,,...c-„,,,,„., . • ,'' ' •. ri.,4,"-74,1• ,.--al ti..1-',7-.; =- 0":-----•--4---45"...ir-',.. .-;-..-..;-../. 4., .-=',...11-A...- il`.•' : - fz; .-', -AC,-AZ.`ktr,,--"---4-,-;,.... ,-;1.*,..,,,t• .-.• ""14;14... .4-,...,...3.c.i. :.1...."+„Vp..!..,...-,,-,- 5. ,,,,K,„...,,,,,,• ,., ..,...!,,,r,,1,3j,,-.,---,.e',fr4.1114,f 1,„...,,,,14. lgt.Nr••••;,,ra,.;,:kia.A., x'•,,,I.T. I `2.e•LI-i'i-411S..1'ka-•.',1*:-Ii.":-.4',Zir4-IZ:NAN:44:-:..V,3..3:3V.:4;::6N,41-4'r3:37,13.i-4•74;4.•14.1V._.4.y . : --*4. -2-''''M--`'.,4 Z''::•:ri...-;" rtY,r - • .:9,••,P...,=,...2,y....., .:.-` . r7 ,-1-..,*i..,;..1:7-^`4.t-..... ..,57; ..1,A.,...4.4.4.r.w.,24.....;,:,4*. ...rap,......fx:k4:... '..,:.. ',',,,,,vi...›1,14ittr.41,,,,t.,„.„4,,,,,.-:,-, ) • :::. ••••'- .--''':-a-P-.--„Netit' .. ---*--s.----;,-----.:-----4,,,,,,..L.e.,--%'-e--40,-„x-9•C;.,.,s,14-411-4.,"=k-f,6,,,,,,ft..Vaitat• 4. 2:,../5_,,,' ,,'"'''- .1 / kol'''-ci-YCgs4f`k...;.-W5--4C,...;•`- ' ,- e ,. 1"-- .:*3-S- -5.14gtr-..t-.2-......,---c....- -.#4*• -ii-,-,i ;:..-- .4;;;- •#._!..,..!.c• j :." -73'.• C ' " i4 ,,..,z°A.--': il::,,-.1,--,,sielic.4.. :;, :-.;-4142u.-,',,w_ 6..... r.i. , .1.41-z• -...„-,•,,A4.*.t.T.11,-;..,•,...,,,.,„;.-7-. ...;;;-.5.,-i,..::•,./.„--•-,,.-,,,,.....Z.,,24-c.A•i....,- -,, ..•• -4,..ii,•,.., „-,4- .,...,;041c7c2:1:-.....f*:. .,`.,,,..i.it 1-•r.C.... ,..,tr. S •r . ..1%. .• `, ,--',- -• '‘' •1::“-,:1:"..--P'*=-ti,'LL l''...7.1-,..' e.r-f.42-',,,i,..: "t'''. -"'.. s •-'`. 2' - •--"`T-- - " ...ZZAlrt e Z.-11.2.%.4......... . __, ri:"Yr.-.•...z...0,3,..,.... .... • 'al..-;r;',`..LI'"P. „rt. • L -.' ' • ;• C' f .: I dr ' 1 .•.r-k b .tt•,. .. •',...4% , y % 74 --- iti\--"atl,L.L., -. YlAtl.--...\-Als, +A-..,, tr-h.•10,k ,v I ef •..'•''.,;/'44‘ , • •:_./...,r; - ' ,--1•-•,_.7-•i . - .. '...r;Jr .r., l 4 7....... ..:.: a ..../../ ,.._. --rvasrsamlimINICRICIGP,PS:Milla,37e7,.... NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM } For Office Use Only--Site Identifier 4/o3 - /D •-0030 r , ' Project Identifier Richmond mot Farms Date 12/81/86 Your Phone (51 t 2Z6-8615 Addressme Bi iI` (.1_4.2=1/.2 ry TNY Stony R,•ook . N. Y. Zip 11792 -2/ 00 Organization ! (if any) T ,,,� To.' m,-,-1 OrnnannlnEinql PrnieCt 1. Site Identifier (s) ,`;, Lo„.1 c,-e,,k /-=K,.,,,, s7b-..... 2. County Si,r fo l ,,- One of following: City Township .0,4714,a/ei Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or - Hamlet pAnnni-n 3 . Present Owner Long S'nnre flp rP1onm?n+ Corp r- - ------ Address --600 Pi re " -- = - - --- Rd . ,,P�le? car+ rill ? , \� - , Zip 082=2 . '� • 4 . Site Description ,(check all appropriate categories) : Site , i X Stray finds Cave/RockshelterWorksho _Pictograph `Quarry- Mound p (lithic) Burial Shell midden Village , 1 7 Surface evidence Camp Y Material in plow zone Material below plow zone Buried evidence Intact occupation floor Single component —Evidence of features —Stratified Multicomponent _1 Location - Under cultivation Never cultivated X Previously cultivated ( Pastureland !Woodland Floodplain _Upland Sustaining erosion Soil Drainage: excellent _ goody fair poor _ Slope : flat ` gentle x_ moderate _ steep Distance to nearest water from site (approx. ) a eek to west) Elevation: 0 to 1 Q.....T:LL- 1 5 . Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : Surface date (s) Decemper 1986 y Site Map (Submit with form*) a_Collection Subsurface--date (s) December 1986 Testing : shovelcoring other unit sizei . 5 X 1 . 3 ' no. of units _ 6 ' (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation : unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) .= Submission should be 81/2"xll" , if feasible InvestigatorEd Joharr+oma,-,n Laid i vL_y --�----- e Rippe!-Erikson, _.r.s a___e Byrne L• .—.q- ':1„_"F'T.';r•e�.n-"'Y,.".,.yr.+-�.�1Y��Z-o--;?.-c% --4?'y Q^=_u•se*- r�.� - . r r - •_r .. .."♦ ^.],i. 3 - '" 4.7'y--r'.C.•..n�."�r ^.�:�i'.�1J� ~..5~ �y, A°7- t::• ; - • r I ',rr • L,1 _ - -r-.-'..t.-",/ idsmith .• ./..>.•t----".1,V / '' -/ 'v> `/ •,.e,.,,,,$•, `_t Iln• `-• f I LJ li-`J ° �: Si' . NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Ic!". For Office Use Only--Site Identifier A / 03i0. 0000 30 . Project Identifier Richmond Creek Farms Date June 1999 Your Name David J Bernstein Phone (516) 632-7615 --- Address Dept-of Anthropology. SUNY-Stony Brook . Stony Brook, New York 1 ; - Zip 11794-4364 Organization (if any) Institute for Long Island Archaeology 1. Site Identifier(s) Richmond Creek Farms • 2. County Suffolk One of following: City Township Southold Ii Incorporated Village .- Unincorporated Village or 1 Hamlet . i ! — — — 3. Present Owner Peconic Land Trsst — ,_ Address 296 Hampton Road Southampton.ton. New York Zip 11969 - , - 4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site Site _Stray find _Cave'Rockshelter XWorkshop _Pictograph _Quare- _Mound _Burial _Shell midden _Village _Surface evidence _Camp X_Material in plow zone , X Material below plow zone X Buried evidence _Intact occupation floor , Single component _Evidence of features Stratified _Multicomponent Location t9,, _Under cultivation _Never cultivated _XPreviously cultivated Pastureland Woodland _Floodplain _Upland _Sustaining erosion Soil Drainage: excellent_good X fair_poor_ Slope: flat_gentle X moderate_steep_ i•y Distance to nearest water from site (Approx.) 10 m Elevation: +-2 meters 5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets. if necessary): 1 Surface--date(s) May 1999 ri Site Map (Submit with form) - Collection May 1999 ' Subsurface--date(s) May 1999 Testing: shovelX_coring_other_unit size 40cm dia x60cm deep no. of units 115 '' Excavation: unit size lx1 meter no. of units 3 Investigator David J. Bernstein. Ph.D. - Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): Bernstein, &Lenardi(1999):A Stage 2 . 1.7',; Archaeological Ei aluarion of Lots 2 and 3 in Richmond Creek Farms, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Institute for Long Island Archaeology, SI:NY-Stony Brook. Present repository of materials Institute for Long Island Archaeology. SUNY-Stour Brook ,..1 i ' . I 1 r., ,'1-7''-'47'7::"--"-a-:- : ; ; -,•.,..,-4,.:T=- NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Only--Site Identifier 4/o3–/a –o2_2_-/ S., r Lu h..ra lam. ,c. l ✓ SinrC Project Identifier G-:.:/.4-(11....t-Z, J/�!�r �� f� fL Date July, 1980 Your Name Edward J. Johannemann Phone 516 ) 246-8615, 6745 Address Anthropology Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook Zip 11794 ; Organization (if any) Long Island Archaeological Project ' 1. Site Identifier (s) Edward Johannemann 2. County Suffolk One of following: City • Township Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet «.• 3 . Present Owner Suffolk Co. Deoartment_of Parks, Recreation -and Conservation Address P.D. Box 144 West Sayville, N.Y. • Zip 11796 - 4 . Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Site xStray find ' Cave/Rockshelter Workshop _Pictograph Quarry Mound Burial _Shell midden Village xSurface evidence _Camp _Material in plow zone _Material below plow zone _Buried evidence • _Intact occupation floor Single component Evidence of features Stratified - -- Multicomponent • Location Under cultivation Never cultivated , Previously cultivated Pastureland X woodland _Floodplain —Upland Sustaining erosion Soil Drainage : excellent _ good_ fair poor _ - Slope : flat — gentle — moderate _ steep x Distance to nearest water from site (approx. ) 130 ft. Elevation: 5 ft. 5 . Site In_vestiaation (append additional sheets; if necessary) : Surface date (s) July, 1980 xSite Map (Submit with form*) XCollection • Subsurface--date (s) 9/4/80 Testing : shovel x coring other unit size 30 X 40 cm. no . of units — 1 (Submit plan of units with form) Excavation : unit size no. of units of Units :with form*) * Submission should be 81/2"xll" , if feasible in-lesticator Ed Johannemann & Laurie Schroeder ; NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM or Office Use Only Scite/Identifier /,I iv3 -10 o zz4 r-c/c. C-t.,�✓ r�.-jp Al ic.h..ec 14.1ie-. I S t-e• eject Identifier 6-4.i6:•s-:-44 f'l, ,� s��)Date November 11, 1980 kvur Name _ Edward J. �6117aT l"eli�an I ,f Phone ( 2.46 - /<- 6 715 'ares a ni halnnnl n0 ncnf I i Zip 117 /I._._. 1-ganiz?tion (if any) L.I. Archaec?ocical Project i ! Site Identifier (s) Ed Johannemann _-I • 2. ,County Suffolk One of following: City v Township P Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet a. Present Owner Suffolk Co. Deot. of Parks, Recreation & Conservation Address P.Q. Box lad • Zip 11796 i Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial collapsed - not evident Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected gist construction materials (be as specific as possible) : . Grounds Under cultivation Sustaining erosion X Woodland _Upland Never. cultivated Previously cultivated x Floodplain Pastureland Loul Drainage: exc NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM .)r Office Use Only--Site Identifier 4/0.3 Identifier C// % � oect Date July, 1980 tar Name _ Edward J. Johannemann - Phone (516) 246-86D, 6/LO Address anthr000locv Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook :4 Zip 11791 Drganization (if any) Lana Island Arrhaeoloaical Project • Site Identifier (s) Edward Johannemann " county Suffolk One of following: City Township -Feee- ic- Sgu�� /c1 Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet Present Owner Suffolk Co. Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Address — P.O. Box 1L4 West Sayville. N.Y, = ` Zip 179 Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : , ? Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident j '; Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected Last construction materials (be as specific as possible) : Grounds . Under cultivation Sustaining erosion xWoodland Upland ' I :Never- cultivated Previously cultivated _ Floodplain Pastureland Soil Drainage: excellent good fair x poor Sloped: flat gentle moderate x_ steep Distance to nearest water from structure TYpprox.) a00 ft. Elevation : Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if, necessary) : Surface--date (s) liil 19Rn — Site Map (Submit with form*) I , �"-Collection SuFsurface-'--date (s) ' 9/4/80 Testing: shovelx coring-__ .other unit size 30 X An rm_ no. of units 1 (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation : unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 81/2"xll" , if feasible investigator PH l'I^^ m2nn 4 4, 1. nuscript or published report (s) (reference fully) : _ I,r ent repository of materials Anthropology Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook - •-•--: -•- ----.,- •__ - ...r_�••,�r -. - - r-s. '. S;'S'r',=k,_ -�• -.:. o-. • .sem ,Z1 1 ' I ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION UNIQUE SITE NO. NO-3 — NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION QUAD. S"' IX ALBANY.NEW YORK SERIES /..' 4.7.r. 7%L ! 518 474-0479 NEG. NO. REPORTED BY. YOUR ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: ORGANIZATION (if any): DATE: * * * * * * x * * x * * * * x * * * * * * * * * * * /` 1. SITE NAME: : �"'�_�✓_ ?. COUNTY: _�/!•<.-��f-��':`j� TOW�i CITY: ' `; •,,/%- VILLAGE: - 0. 1cC� 3. LOCATION 4. PRESENT OWNER: S. OWNER'S ADDRESS. 6. DESCRIPTION, CONDITION, EVIDENCE OF SITE: ❑ STANDING RUINS ❑ CELLAR HOLE WITH WALLS ❑ SURFACE TRACES VISIBLE ❑ WALLS WITHOUT CELLAR HOLE ❑ UNDER CULTIVATION ❑ EROSION ❑ UNDERWATER ❑ NO VISIBLE EVIDENCE ❑ OTHER 7. COLLECTION OF MATERIAL FROM SITE: 0 SURFACE HUNTING BY WHOM DATE O TESTING BY WHOM DATE 0 EXCAVATION BY WHOM DATE ❑ NONE PRESENT REPOSITORY OF MATERIALS: S. PREHISTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATION OR DATE: HP-3 —•- litStiurit.ts INVENTORY: S.C.A.A. Site Nemo Bowery j S.C.A.A.Map No. Other Names 722Z Village I Town Southold Southold Location Probably on Bowery Lane Co-ordinates U.S.O.S. 7W QUAD. Southold 41° 72° �ulture Period approx. 3' 20" 26' 1 Ctt Type of Site J Excavated by Whom When? Booth DESCRIPTION OF SITE: - ONDITION OF SITE: 1 2JLLECTIONS (description,location,cat. =): ' C :FERENCES: SOURCES OF INFORMATION: , -i Museum at Southold ) REMARKS: t576 F130 (4.78) •'i`': ^-;1T'.- .�n ^.^�mn;•'-_•=,r arc-..�*sF�a p;r,•..•�,,..^y...,.r-�iw^•-a-«�,ay. PECONIC SITE #1 - N 41 02.862' W 072 27.073' NUMBER STP# LEVEL DEPTH (CM) MUNSELL SOIL TYPE CULTURAL MATERIAL OF BAGS .I - 5M NORTH 0 0-13 FILL W/GRAVEL 0 0 1 13-40 10 YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE SAND MODERN WINDOW 1 GLASS, GREEN WINDOW GLASS, CLEAR BOTTLE GLASS, GREEN PLASTIC, SHELL, CHERT POINT BASE 2 40-80 10 YR 5/8 YELLOWISH BROWN SAND 0 0 2 -5M SOUTH 0 0-21 FILL/MANURE 0 0 1 21-67 10 YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE SAND PLASTIC, GLASS, 1 SHELL, CHARCOAL 2 67-80 10 YR 5/8 YELLOWISH BROWN SAND 0 0 3 - 5 M WEST 0 0-20 FILL W/GRAVEL 0 0 1 20-50 10 YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE SAND PLASTIC SPOON, 1 MODERN GLASS, SHELL, MODERN CYLINDER BLOCK 2 50-80 10 YR 5/8 YELLOWISH BROWN SAND 0 0 NOTE*STP 5M EAST NOT EXCAVATED DUE TO LOCATION IN WETLAND AREA KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP itdr\) 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER ASSOCIATE PARIS TEL (212)715-7775 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 FAX (212)715-8000 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 kmintzer@kramerlevin.com FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 March 5,2004 I OF PIS 11, MAR 0 8 2004 BY HAND Ms.Ruth Oliva !ZONING aoAR® OF APPEALS Chair,Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall , 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Oliva: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and operate,a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Southold. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as"lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice,LIPA assumed lead agency statuts and directed its consultant,AKRF, Inc.,to prepare an Environmental Assessment("EA")analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated • to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson, Pope&Voorhis,LLC ("NP&V"). In response to those comments,LIPA has revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF,Inc. for your review. You will note that the revised EA contains additional analysis of the potential visual impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. This additional analysis should address your concerns regarding the views of the wind turbine from Route 25. LIPA intends to make a SEQRA determination of significance regarding the proposed wind turbine by March 15,2004. Accordingly, to the extent that the ZBA has any comments KL3 2324904.1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan*Borne London"Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Ms.Ruth Oliva March 5,2004 Page 2 regarding the revised EA or LIPA's environmental review of the proposed wind turbine,we request that such comments be provided to LIPA, or its counsel,prior to that date. Very truly yours, • k (// ....__ _ Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Ms.Jerilyn Woodhouse Ms. Linda Kowalski(w/enclosures) KL32324904 1 rt 5AIKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants 222 Middle Country Road,Suite 314 Smithtown,NY 11787 tel: 631 265-0735 fax:631 265-3796 www.akrfcom March 5,2004 Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse Chair,Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA—Proposed Wind Turbine, Response to Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC Environmental Assessment Review Comments Dated January 19,2004 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We are the environmental consultants that prepared the October 2003 Environmental Assessment(EA)on behalf of LIPA in connection with the proposed wind turbine to be constructed on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. We have reviewed Nelson, Pope, &Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) comments on the EA, which were submitted to the Town of Southold Planning Board on January 19, 2004. On LIPA's behalf, we offer the following responses to those comments. The EA has also been modified to reflect the responses to NP&V's comments. The new text has been highlighted to aid in your review of the EA enclosed herewith. Figures: NP&V Comment 1: In Chapter 1, Section D it is stated that five (5) sites in Suffolk County were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Figure 1-3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered one (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional site omitted from the total. Response: Figure 1-3 has been revised to show that five sites were considered as part of the initial LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project. Section B Land Use, Zoning and Community Facilities, Probable Impact, Land Use, Project Site page 2-4¶1: NP&V Comment 2: It is stated that the proposed wind turbine would not conflict with the character of the general area immediately adjacent to or within the general area of the project site since historically,wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. While it is recognized that windmills have been and are still located on the eastern end of Long Island their use has been partially or directly related to the activities occurring on each farm which with they are associated. It is apparent that the placement of a wind AKRF, Inc. • New York City • White Plains • Long Island • Western New York • Baltimore / Washington Area Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 2 March 5,2004 turbine at the subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Dominion Vineyards with the exception of an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kilowatt hours(kwh)issued to the land owner.In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with windmills historically utilized on the east end of Long Island. Several of these structures which still exist in village and hamlets of Long Island(i.e., Sag Harbor, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer a much different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice tower wind turbine would not offer. As a result the proposed structure may present visual characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic normally associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sections which state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical use of windmills on farms within Long Island. Response: LIPA acknowledges that the proposed wind turbine is different in appearance from historic windmills. However, as analyzed in the EA, the proposed action does not pose significant impacts with regard to land use and zoning or visual resources. The EA has been revised accordingly in response to this comment. Pages 2-4 through 2-10 NP&V Comment 3: Analysis of probable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a new-type of windmill structure, different in context, design, and function than historical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions). • The setback to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual character,noise, safety, and aesthetics. • Setback to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflicts. • The configuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and future use of the subject parcel. Response: Long Island, according to "The Windmills of Long Island" author Robert J. Hafner, is an ideal place for harnessing the steady wind from the ocean and bays. Many windmills were built and still exist on Long Island, particularly on the East End and are part of the wooden technology of the past. In fact, the South Fork of eastern Long Island contains the greatest number of surviving windmills,in the United States. Windmills were a vital necessity to early settlers of Long Island just as electricity is to current inhabitants. The windmills were constructed to produce energy to mill grain, saw wood, pump water, and do various other jobs. The wind turbine is being proposed as part of LIPA's Clean Air Initiative to create needed electricity for modern day technology without burning fossil fuels. So while different in size and design,they share a common theme. The wind turbine is proposed to be located on a 4.5-acre lot which is part of a 50-acre site owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. Development rights for approximately 46 acres Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 3 March 5,2004 of this property have been sold to Suffolk County ensuring that this property adjacent to the proposed wind turbine will remain undeveloped. The nearest residential zoning district is an R-80 zoning district, which is over 600 feet away. Lots in an R-80 zoning district must be a minimum of 2-acres. Setback requirements in R-80 zoning districts, as in other Southold zoning districts, are designed to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses by requiring appropriate distances between developments. The location of the proposed wind turbine on the central portion of a 50-acre site, in conjunction with the setbacks required for development of properties in adjacent zoning districts, ensures that the wind turbine is an adequate distance from any residential development that may occur in the future. Accordingly, there are no potential land use conflicts. The EA has been revised accordingly,as indicated above,to address these comments. NP&V Comment 4: The statement on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surrounding the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned" goes beyond a rationale conclusion based on the information presented. It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A-C zoned properties. Response: It was not the intention of the statement on page 2-6 to draw the conclusion that the proposed use fosters the preservation of the agricultural use solely because it is a historically consistent structure. There were a number of factors which resulted in the conclusion that the wind turbine is consistent with existing land uses and encourages the continued use of agricultural land. The Long Island Farm Bureau, a function of which is to preserve agricultural lands, and LIPA jointly identified potential agricultural sites for placement of these facilities. A requirement of the program is that the wind turbines be located on agricultural property. It is reasonable to conclude that the Long Island Farm Bureau would not support the wind turbine demonstration program if the program was incompatible with agricultural uses. The statement on page 2-6 has been modified to address this comment. NP&V Comment 5: The statement on page 2-7 referring to four(4)vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generation information on page 2-22.This information should be reconciled. Response: It is anticipated that a maximum of four vehicle trips per month would be generated as a result of this project.This comment has been addressed on pages 2-7,2-10, and 2-22. NP&V Comment 6: With regard to the information presented in response to "Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate, and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof' the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Response: No expansion is anticipated. Comment noted and addressed on page 2-8. NP&V Comment 7: Statements on page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further support as indicated above. Response: Comment and prior comments have been noted.The EA has been modified to provide the necessary support. Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 4 March 5,2004 NP&V Comment 8: With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously indicated. Response: Comment has been addressed as stated above on pages 2-7,2-10,and 2-22. NP&V Comment 9: Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located within the boundaries of the property, "...which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Response: LIPA has committed to providing landscaping on the publicly visible sides (i.e., southern and western) of the proposed wind turbine. The northern and eastern sides face the vineyards, which are not accessible to the public. Though different in size, structure, and materials from the typical wooden windmills historically associated with Long Island farms,the proposed wind turbine would be a modernized structure consistent with current farm land uses.The EA has been revised accordingly. NP&V Comment 10: Page 2-10 indicates that the facility is "...consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Response: The proposed facility is consistent with the existing development on the site and will be located on only 0.02 acres of land that is now vacant. The proposed wind turbine project is not inconsistent with agricultural uses or the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Specifically, the project would not degrade or consume natural resources or features, or prevent the opportunity to continue the use of farm practices in the area.This comment has been addressed on pages 2-11 and 2-30 of the EA. NP&V Comment 11: With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with the architectural features of"... the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood." Response: While different in size and appearance from historic windmills, the proposed facility would be consistent with adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The wind turbine, while visually and physically different in height and appearance from windmills historically associated with agricultural uses, does not conflict with the existing site uses. This comment has been addressed on pages 2-8,2-10, and 2-11. Section C Historic and Archeological Resources, Archeological Resources, Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-15,¶4 NP&V Comment 12: It is stated that the proposed location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P 1B investigation and that no archeological resources would be impacted by the propose project since the tower still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil types.Upon inspection of the site, it was observed that the Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 5 March 5,2004 proposed tower will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether this portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farming activities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find the information from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage 1B Archeological Assessment. It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage 1B assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Response: The shovel test pits, while not at the exact location of the proposed footprint for the wind turbine, are believed to be at a close enough distance to warrant the same conclusions for this location, which has been cleared, graded, and planted with turf grass. No archaeological resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. To ensure that there are no unanticipated impacts during disturbance of this area for the purpose of constructing the wind turbine, staff from Historical Perspectives, Inc., will be on-site to monitor the excavation for the purpose of identifying any possible archeological resources. Section D Visual Resources,Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-16 NP&V Comment 13: Visual impact assessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar facilities in the context of the area and/or corridor subject to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, sensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area,but the exact height and location of this utility are not provided, and the zoning, surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different from a Police cell tower. Finally, the pre-existence of a Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape,particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural,A-C zoned location that may be different from other more intense use areas. The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings" does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements at the end on the section, "...the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility" and "Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely affected"are not fully supported given the information requested above.It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent or similar to a Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 6 March 5,2004 flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the tower to be of a different character and larger than that to which is being compared. Please provide additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind turbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Response: Section D, "Visual Resources," of the modified EA, has been completely revised to follow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Program Policy (DEP-00-2, July 31, 2000) entitled "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts."The modified EA addresses each comment listed above. Section G Waterfront Revitalization,Town of Southold LWRF,page 2-20 NP&V Comment 14: Insufficient information is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. Response: As concluded in EA Section D, "Visual Resources," the proposed facility would not significantly impair the visual landscape as experienced from any scenic or historic resource or interfere with or reduce the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of any inventoried scenic, historic, or locally significant resource. Accordingly,the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. NP&V Comment 15: With regard to Policy 12, please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Response: A review of Policy 12 does not indicate other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural land surrounding the wind turbine. Section H Infrastructure,Existing Conditions, Sanitary Sewage,page 2-23 NP&V Comment 16: It is stated that since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However, the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a visitor's center which discharges some volume of sanitary effluent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site and method of disposal. Response: The project site is proposed to be sited on 0.02 acres of an approximately 50-acre site. The existing winery/visitor center currently contributes to sewage flow, however, the project site is an existing grass field that does not currently contribute to any sanitary discharge and would not in the future with the proposed project. This comment has been addressed on page 2-32. Section I Traffic,page 2-23 NP&V Comment 17: It is stated that the turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that there would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Please provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. Response: The trip generation figure of four vehicle trips per month is based on LIPA's experience with the existing wind turbine facility in the Town of Riverhead and from the Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 7 March 5,2004 recommended maintenance schedule provided by the wind turbine manufacturer. This documentation is included as Attachment D to the modified EA. Section K Noise,Noise Prediction Methodology,pages 2-27 and 2-28 NP&V Comment 18: The basis for the maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the source of this approximate sound power level, and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation.Noise monitoring station locations and receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aerial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information concerning methodology for decibel addition and support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exists,based on zoning. Response: (See bulleted items below) • As identified in the EA on page 2-37,the source of the sound power level was identified by the manufacturer based upon field measurements of existing installations. • Design specifications for the 50 kW wind turbine are included in Attachment D to the modified EA. The AOC 15/50 has been designed as a low-noise emission turbine. The sources of noise are the drive train and the aerodynamic emissions of the rotor as it passes the supporting structure. A diagram of the drive train assembly is also included in Attachment D. • A new figure,Figure 2-10,has been included in the EA which depicts the location of the proposed wind turbine and the noise monitoring receptor. • Predicated noise level calculations have been included as Attachment E to the modified EA. • Based on the existing zoning,no residential structures can be built any closer to the project site due to setback and other site requirements. Additional Information NP&V Comment 19: Mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA. Mitigation to be considered would include the following: • Modified tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or provide more appropriate historical context. • Modified location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or,an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the facility within the parcel.Property configuration,receptors,wetlands areas, and future potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Landscape screening at base of tower to"soften"mass of structure, screen fence, and partially screen base of tower. • Conditions in balance of property within proximity to tower,to maintain access control,and improve safety within"fall zone"and immediate area. Other mitigation which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary. Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse 8 March 5,2004 Response: SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Since no significant adverse environmental impacts were identified in the EA, mitigation measures were not included as part of this analysis. In addition, several of the mitigation measures suggested are not practicable or are unnecessary. For example, the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested as the wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. Also, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process, which is described in the EA. The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to safety, the wind turbine would be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly,no safety mitigation measures would be necessary. Miscellaneous Comments NP&V Comment 20: Inspection of the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where occasional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at the winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discuss any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design,or institutional controls to protect employees and/or visitors to the winery. Response: The EA has been revised to include the specific safety measures that LIPA intends to undertake as part of the proposed project. Such safety measures, identified on page 2-1 of the EA and illustrated on the proposed site plan submitted to the Planning Board on October 20,2003, include an 8-foot chain link barbed wire fence that would be locked at all times with the exception of maintenance and emergency visits. The fence would be screened from public view with landscape plantings. We trust that the above and the modified EA are responsive to NP&V's comments on the EA. Sincerely, AKRF, r C. /1 es P.McAllister vice President cc: Ms.Ruth Oliva(w/enclosure) Mr.Bruno Semon(w/enclosure) Ms.Linda Kowalski(w/enclosure) Mr.Mark Dougherty(w/enclosure) Mr.Frederick Peritore(w/enclosure) Richard G.Leland,Esq.(w/enclosure) r(, ii )0\ C, 5L+ a 5 Ma 7 R. :874r', V7� 4 -- zoN,NGacA� ff . ALS „, Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Demonstration Project r Environmental Assessment of One Site Located in the Town of Southold 1 I , L' I ; March 2004 Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority Prepared by: AKRF, Inc. Ps FeENVF MAR 0 8 2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ONE SITE LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority Submitted by: AKRF, Inc. March 2004 Table of Contents 1: Project Description 1-1 A. Overview 1-1 B. Organization of the Environmental Assessment 1-2 C. Purpose and Need 1-2 D. Site Selection 1-3 E. Project Benefits 1-4 F. Public Outreach 1-4 2:Peconic Site 2-1 A. Introduction 2-1 Project Description 2-1 Site Location 2-1 Agency Actions,Permits,and Approvals 2-1 B.Land Use,Zoning, and Community Facilities 2-1 Methodology 2-1 Existing Conditions 2-2 Land Use 2-2 Zoning 2-3 Community Facilities 2-3 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-4 Land Use 2-4 Zoning 2-4 Community Facilities 2-11 C.Historic and Archaeological Resources 2-12 Historic Resources 2-12 Methodology 2-12 Existing Conditions 2-12 Archaeological Resources 2-13 Methodology 2-13 i LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project • Existing Conditions 2-13 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-16 D.Visual Resources 2-16 Methodology 2-16 NYSDEC Guidance 2-16 Balloon Test 2-18 Existing Conditions 2-18 Project Site 2-18 Study Area 2-18 Inventory of Resources 2-19 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-22 Project Site 2-22 Study Area 2-22 Conclusion 2-26 E.Natural Resources 2-26 Methodology 2-26 Existing Conditions 2-27 Site Conditions 2-27 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-27 F.Hazardous Materials 2-28 Methodology 2-28 Existing Conditions 2-28 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-29 G.Waterfront Revitalization 2-29 Methodology 2-29 Policy Analysis 2-29 Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program 2-30 H.Infrastructure 2-32 Methodology 2-32 Existing Conditions 2-32 Water Supply 2-32 Sanitary Sewage 2-32 Solid Waste 2-32 ezu MAR 0 2004 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-32 Water Supply 2-32 Sanitary Sewage 2-32 Solid Waste 2-32 Energy 2-32 I.Traffic 2-33 J.Air Quality 2-33 K.Noise 2-33 Methodology 2-33 Noise Fundamentals 2-33 "A"-Weighted Sound Level(dBA) 2-33 Community Response to Changes in Noise Levels 2-34 Noise Descnptors Used in Impact Assessment 2-34 Noise Standards and Criteria 2-35 Southold Noise Code 2-35 New York State Department of Transportation 2-35 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2-36 Noise Control Act of 1972 2-36 Impact Criteria 2-36 Noise Prediction Methodology 2-37 Existing Conditions 2-37 Selection of Noise Receptor Locations 2-37 Noise Monitoring 2-37 No Build Conditions 2-38 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2-38 L. Construction 2-39 Methodology 2-39 Preconstruction Site Preparation 2-39 Unit Assembly and Site Finish 2-40 • Utility Connections 2-40 Potential Impacts and Control Methods 2-40 Traffic 2-40 Hazardous Materials 2-41 Ill LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Air Quality 2-41 Noise and Vibration 2_42 Erosion Control 2-44 M.Environmental Justice 2-45 N.Cumulative Impacts 2-46 Environmental Assessment Form Attachment A: Archaeological Resources Attachment B:Avian Report Attachment C: Coastal Zone Management Attachment D: Atlantic Orient Model 15/50 Design Specifications Attachment E:Noise Calculations iv List of Tables 1-1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Initial Four(4)Sites Selected 1-1 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program 45 Sites and Their Initial Ratings 1-5 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Eight(8)Sites Considered 1-6 2-1 Identified Precontact Period State Historic Preservation Office Sites 2-14 2-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels 2-34 2-3 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels 2-34 2-4 FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria 2-36 2-5 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With An Adequate Margin of Safety 2-37 2-6 Existing Noise Levels Adjacent to the Peconic Wind Turbine Site 2-38 2-7 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment 2-43 2-8 Vibration-Induced Risk-Criteria for Buildings 2-44 2-9 Peconic Population and Economic Characteristics 2-45 I ' V I I List of Figures Following Page 1-1 Wind Turbine 1-1 1-2 Power Output of Facility as a Function of Windspeed 1-1 1-3 Regional Site Locations 1-3 2-1 Project Site Location 2-1 2-2 Peconic Site Location 2-1 2-3 Peconic Existing Land Use 2-2 2-4 Peconic Zoning Use Districts 2-3 2-5 Peconic Community Facilities 2-3 2-6a Existing Landscape Conditions 2-19 2-6b Existing Landscape Conditions 2-19 2-7a {, Photosimulations 2-22 2-7b Photosimulations 2-22 2-8a Potential Views 2-24 2-8b Potential Views 2-24 2-8c Potential Views 2-24 2-9a '' Photosimulations 2-24 2-9b Photosimulations 2-24 2-9c Photosimulations 2-24 2-10 Peconic Noise Monitonng Location 2-37 2-11 Peconic Census Tract and Block Group 2-45 i vi Chapter 1: Project Description A. OVERVIEW In June 2002,the Long Island Power Authority(LIPA)issued an environmental assessment for a proposal to site, construct, and operate a total of four (4) wind turbines on farmland in Suffolk County, Long Island. The locations of the four wind turbine sites examined in that assessment are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Initial Four (4) Sites Selected No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Area/Section Town 3 Christopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 Sound Avenue Northville Riverhead 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel Riverhead 27 Kurt Van deWetering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow Riverhead 38 Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton Riverhead The environmental assessment of the initial sites indicated no significant impacts. The assessment stated that a fifth site would be selected at a later date and would be subject to its own environmental assessment. Together these facilities are part of LIPA's program to: • Demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation; • Demonstrate the applicability of distributed energy sources; and • Expand green sources of electricity on Long Island. This assessment examines a fifth site, located in the Peconic section of the Town of Southold. As with the previous environmental assessment, this site will involve the installation of one (1) Atlantic Orient Corporation Model AOC 15/50 wind turbine. Figure 1-1 shows a picture of the wind turbine. The center of the three-bladed rigid-hub rotor would be approximately 100 feet above the ground.The tower supporting the wind turbine would be a relatively thin, open lattice metal structure. The rotor blades are approximately 25 feet in length. Consequently, the top of the rotor blades would be approximately 125 feet above the ground. The AOC 15/50 is designed to operate at wind speeds of 4.6 meters/second(10.3 miles per hour (mph)) and greater, and reach its rated output of 50 kilowatts (kW) at 11.3 meters/second (25.3 mph). Its peak continuous output of 66 kW is achieved at 16 meters/second (35.8 mph). Figure 1-2 shows the power output of the AOC 15/50 as a function of wind speed. Assuming 100 percent availability, this turbine is calculated to produce approximately 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kwh)of electricity per year. The wind turbine would be located in an area approximately 25 feet by 35 feet. For safety and security the area would be fenced to separate it from the surrounding land. The wind turbine/tower ensemble would be located on a concrete pad approximately 6 feet deep and 21 1-1 1 . . . . . . . > < . � :\ . . , . : . . . . ��� . � ©w»2© w«»«®« ,s41: � \ 2 ' / � � ��«ma: \ v. �\? , \ \. \ \ � \ . $ �} 2. §� , 2 7 •- \ II ' . . Wind Turbine LONGnLANDPOWER AUTHORITY w6DTURBINEROJEC Figur 1-1 Calculated Power Curve 80 70 - � 60 a • 50 O• 40 _60 Hz • 30 0 20 O 10 C'3 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Speed (m/s) Power Output of Facility as a Function of Windspeed LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project feet by 21 feet. Besides the wind turbine/tower ensemble, the wind turbine area would contain a control box and transformer. Energy produced by the wind turbine would be transmitted via underground wiring to a nearby 3-phase distribution line and into the LIPA power grid. In selecting the sites, LIPA worked with the Long Island chapter of the New York State Farm Bureau(FB)to identify suitable sites and interested landowners for this demonstration program. The FB sent letters to its members to solicit interest in the program. Forty farmers expressed P interest in locating a wind turbine on their property. The sites selected for this demonstration project were selected from these 40 farmers'properties. As part of this project, LIPA will enter into a 20-year lease with each of the landowners for the approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land needed to site the proposed wind turbine facility, for an easement for the underground wiring from the wind turbine facility to a nearby distribution line, and for access to the site. LIPA will site, construct, and operate the proposed facility, and will be responsible for maintaining the proposed facilities throughout the 20-year lease period. LIPA will reimburse the landowner for any increase in tax and/or insurance resulting from the proposed facility, and will provide the landowner with an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kwh of the energy output from the proposed facility on the property. A wind turbine has already been developed at the Calverton site at 375 Middle Country Road in Riverhead. B. ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Environmental Assessment(EA)evaluates potential environmental impacts of the proposed project(i.e., the siting, construction, and operation) in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA),6 NYCRR Part 617. This EA is organized as follows: • Chapter 1 is the Project Description, which contains an overview of the project, its purpose and need, site selection criteria,project benefits,and overview of the proposed facility. • Chapter 2 is the Environmental Impact Assessment,which provides a discussion of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project by specific environmental analysis discipline (i.e.,land use and zoning,community facilities,cultural resources,air quality,noise,etc.). • Attachment A is a detailed archaeological report regarding the site of the proposed project. • Attachment B is an avian report detailing potential impacts of the proposed project on birds. • Attachment C is a detailed discussion of coastal zone management issues. • Attachment D provides the design specifications and maintenance schedule for the proposed Atlantic Orient Model 15/50 wind turbine. • Attachment E presents the noise level calculations discussed in Section K,"Noise." C. PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed wind turbine facility will be part of a demonstration project which is part of LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative. This 5-year, $170 million program includes funding for renewable energy programs, energy efficiency programs, peak management programs, and research and development. 1-2 Chapter 1:Project Description Renewable energy is defined as energy from resources that are not depletable or are naturally replenished when used at sustainable levels. Renewable energy sources generally refer to hydropower, solar, wind,biomass, geothermal, ocean, and landfill gas.Use of renewable energy provides a number of benefits including: • Increased energy diversity and security; • Reduction in air emissions; • Greenhouse gas reduction; • Economic development opportunities; and • On-site power generation. Currently within New York State, renewable energy sources account for only a very small part of the energy supply—less than 11 percent. Hydroelectricity accounts for approximately 92 percent of this renewable energy supply, and wind accounts for approximately 1 percent of New York State's renewable energy supply. In light of Governor Pataki's Executive Order No. 111, "Green and Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles, which mandates that State agencies such as LIPA increase their procurement of energy generated from technologies such as wind and solar thermal power, it is expected that the State's renewable energy sources will be significantly increased. The proposed wind turbine facility would demonstrate the feasibility of use of this type of renewable energy source for power generation on Long Island. This application of individual units at discrete farm locations would also demonstrate the applicability of distributed energy sources. In addition, it would expand the use of green (non-polluting) sources of electricity on Long Island. D. SITE SELECTION The five (5) sites in Suffolk County on Long Island that were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities were the result of a site selection process that LIPA initiated in the Fall of 2001 (see Figure 1-3). Early in the planning process, because the wind turbines require unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds, LIPA determined that farm property would be the best type of property upon which to site the wind turbine facilities. The bulk of Long Island farmland is located on the East End of Long Island in Suffolk County. The land in this area can generally be characterized as flat and windy terrain and, therefore, presents favorable conditions for the operation of wind turbines.LIPA then contacted the FB for assistance in identifying farmers that would be interested in having LIPA construct wind turbines on their property. During December 2001,LIPA and FB sent a joint letter to bureau members requesting that those members interested in having their farms considered as potential wind turbine sites submit an application to LIPA by January 21, 2002. LIPA received applications from FB members identifying 45 potential sites on 40 farms. LIPA then visited each of the proposed sites and determined whether each site was feasible for the development of a wind turbine facility based on whether the sites: • Were agricultural lots in agricultural use; • Had unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds; • Were located on farms that were at least 2 acres in size; 1-3 r0711.7 rovih-- Area of Detail rihd �.��/- ':' J II ° _A,\ P-con./ .141.-tit•-• - Ai-V.10 Aka 40 V: , ``v� , Niel 1 0 4_04 I. d S° ��� Ming, I , .A,...., 441116....,,,, 7 . . ,ii: -17,A,0,. r- -,i y,. ter• 6,4,4\Ni •a� r / *0 ��1� '1.t-Z-s.o 1\I..•. \; . '.'.1 , •� �,II ,;, °7r. fib: 491) 1 �•i*41 fir! 4..6 \.. 4 . 114,1 Air VA _,,1 / ' o,--:).)4Nt. ," 4 ,`":,y � i3aitina Hollow orthville �• `: ittj ,ii,,,,,-4,....,, ' ' `, , , 011":"4 '0 -Z=. - . - \ GV11, • to. : _,A1P 4 "•:'.* , ,_..„,, , ,,,111. 111 rrlli Urj.`.i_ 111 r t1 10 btv Ill �III_��!li 1!l'rr i1 4�ii��illAC ,ii:lid! { 2. � , a`� \ • ^ sprvi �,J !/11111hi a 4111 VP, J'�nm!nm� II 1`C11 �I@�%% >=i.�'llll y�j�/ L`' . 1 a \ �� �,a ., ` , ‘41r& iR .�h 1'ei 111�1..m 1�p)V' =`r-Er.„_,—,.--te n,vitt illi ' 1 • •s AvTap&ei,---..--,47,,ru, +7 -,k• \„?.‘,10,„4 ,r-,0.,-� ' +�0 , 11;1, E�— i glir 111■ • � ` ' Ie ,���i��•�`�*��\^ ��lt � $i$41111` �� 41F 1 14.vor.,,I.11). .00 -4 -, r�fiiitl,r4. i....4 4f4r(iiiiittv� ilit. ftfill'i r ■ -exult ,tismailka olif x_ �` ' ... Am, 1 111 Ile -1. s . i : _AA\ II 0,444.01_4,40,31 .... "1"--', rili3Ual mr.M1010 u .•4.. 01 �� 111 �►� ���01,,‘ �, yti��• „loll�` .: .Zl �r3w � , a.) / 0 Wirell011111‘' **211) ....i /111111111111-, ,,,, ,*- 11Y Mitt 1 Pik- .4 1 tipr figs. I ,- ,,tri ca.A J -Als,.... .....so. i filt me _ /blot kr:;"**-- 12W- ': ' 41111411. -4' ItOr..411"14 l'%#. it„,,,. ..0111611C14011 ' Aiii7 �` iii ”, ----* g # i CO --,, ..01 ....1.-,,,,,,i . . 0 :. ;1 . , 10111111111 ��iii' ..... , , ,, Ili 11111111 �. Aviedii Adal \ 8-' 111111411110 "� /ii% �)`li tfh::.t.:!7" ''-'1"fit- e >- '-'- : ' 4 , _,I.: s� 111 1 If wuuupmn 1i. Q���11111111�—m a'- �i ga ' AU41,71/ It A IF t ` noun°II 1.41"111164 SII%' �,.` \III o,Hulk, I► --141$11111—'11111°r44*: � Z��fRI 117 �_' ,J1�� N fasir merit* ,A1,-t, 1 ..idt, ��til`IP I 'As A ■ 10�``to_iti,1n;�1Y11. 11r- i 1 14tot, ,A.A..-111 lip, _if,._____,._mil . lesprUnk xi .� i```Ii Iii I 1,,; , lit I ` � i'f i Miles 0 1 2 3 4 0 New Project Site 0 1 Mlle Study Area Street Network Regional Site Locations ---- Town Boundary Figure 1-3 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project • Were a minimum of 400 to 500 feet from the nearest residence; • Had access to LIPA's power grid (i.e.,no third-party easements required for connecting the wind turbine to a 3-phase distribution line of the existing LIPA grid); and • Were located on farms with intact and unfettered development rights. Based on these criteria, LIPA developed a grade for each proposed farm site: A (highest potential), B+ (good potential), B (feasible),B- (somewhat feasible), and C(not feasible). Table 1-2 lists the 45 sites and their initial gradings. (Note: Five of the sites are multiple sites owned by the same entity, which were given the same number, but a suffix was added to differentiate between site locations.) Of the 45 sites considered, 9 sites were graded B+or A(i.e., 4 sites were graded B+ and 5 sites received an A grade). One of the sites that received an A grade, Shade Trees Nursery located in Jamesport, was removed from consideration by the farm owner. Table 1-3 lists the 8 sites that were considered in the next step in the site selection process. As part of the next step in the site selection process, a team of environmental specialists visited each of the sites, and discussions were initiated with officials in each of the communities where the potential wind turbine sites were located. These field visits and discussions were performed to determine the following: • Sites for the proposed facilities did not have any significant environmental constraints (i.e., wetlands or sensitive ecology issues, endangered or threaten species, major contamination issues,visual quality concerns, on-site historic or archeological concerns,etc.); • Sites are geographically dispersed; and • Sites are selected, where feasible, in areas where there is support anticipated from the local community. E. PROJECT BENEFITS The major benefits of a wind turbine are the production of electric energy without burning any fossil fuels and emitting any air pollutants. A wind turbine is a renewable energy source that would produce electricity without consuming any fuel resources and without generating any pollution. Over a 20-year period, each wind turbine would eliminate the use of approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas, and would eliminate the emission of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides,and 240 pounds of particulates. F. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach to generate community support for the demonstration process began with the town supervisors of Brookhaven,Riverhead and Southold, in whose townships the top rated sites are situated. In Southold, the town supervisor and town board have provided guidance on group contacts in the town. Southold Town officials were invited to visit the existing wind turbine in Riverhead. Two members of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals visited the existing Riverhead wind turbine with representatives from LIPA on Janua 24 2004. Contact with Southold town officials and community leaders will continue during the development of the Peconic site. 1-4 1 Chapter 1:Project Description Table 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program 45 Sites and Their Initial Ratings i No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Locatiollown Rating 1 Frederick W.Koehler Osprey's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road-Peconic Peconic B+ 2 Richard Girards Flora Nurseries,Inc. 6900 Wickham Avenue Mattituck B- 3 Christopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 Sound Avenue Northville B+ 4 John Grodski The Long Island Perennial Farm 159 Reeves Avenue Riverhead C 5 Harry Hanley Eberhard&Hanley 198 Head of Neck Road Manorville A 6 Richard&Catherine Ringhoff R E.Ringhoff Farms CR 51/CR 111 Eastport C , 7 Thaddaeus Hill Timothy Hill Children's Ranch 298 Middle Road Riverhead B 8 Bradford T.Reeve 891 Main Road Aquebogue B 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel B+ 10 Thomas P.McGunnigle McGunnigle Farms 30255 County Road 48 Peconic C 11 Robert R.Samolewski 7800 Alvahs Lane Cutchogue C 12 Randy Scott Shur Soundview Nursery/Randy Scotts 4050 Soundview Avenue Mattituck C 13 Walter&Ellen Godzieba 189 Barnes Road Moriches B 14 Patricia Pugliese Pugliese Vineyards Bridge Lane Cutchogue B ' 15 Alfred M.Popp Whispering Meadows Farm 524 Tuthills Lane Aquebogue C 16 None Provided Northeast Nurseries County Road 48,P.O.Box 1158 Cutchogue B- , 17 Joseph R.Agoglia Justin Purchasing Corp. 4080 Sound Avenue Riverhead C 18 Reginald&Connie Farr The Farm 156 Youngs Avenue Calverton C 19 James J.Hoffman 39 Middle Island Yaphank Road Middle Island C 20 Phil&Mary Barbato Biophilia Organic Farm 211 Manor Lane(Jamesport) Riverhead C 21a John Verderber VerDerBer's Landscape Nursery 369 Main Road Aquebogue B- 21 b John Verderber VerDerBer's Landscape Nursery Peconic Bay Blvd. Jamesport C 21c John Verderber VerDerBer's Landscape Nursery Sunrise Highway Southampton B- 22 William&Marianne Savino Salt River Farm,Inc. 363 Railroad Avenue Center Moriches B 23 June Croon The Plantage,Inc. Elijah Lane Mattituck B- 24 Reynold F.Blum Main Road Southold B 25 Mark Zaweski MKZ Farms 506 Church Lane Jamesport B 26 John C.Filasky Flower Bam/IGHL Greenhouses 1 Montauk Highway Moriches B- 27 Kurt Van deWetering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow A 28 Russell Weiss Kurt Weiss Greenhouses,Inc. w/s Chapman Blvd.,s/o Sunrise Hwy. East Moriches C 29 Harry S.Ludlow Fairview Farm c/o Mecox Rd.&Horsemill Lane Bridgehampton C 30a Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 1st of 3 sites/Herricks Lane Jamesport A 30b Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 2nd of 3 sites/Herricks Lane Jamesport C 30c Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 3rd of 3 sites/Herricks Lane Jamesport C 30d Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 1 site/Mill Lane Mattituck C 31 Erin Wells Conklin Breeze Hill Farm 340 Scuttle Hole Road Bridgehampton B Fuchsia Garden Design _ 32 James J.Stakey Jim Stakey Greenhouses 324 West Lane(P.O Box 950) Aquebogue B+ 33a Albert J.Krupski,Jr. Krupski Farms Youngs Avenue Southold B 33b Albert J.Krupski,Jr. Krupski Farms 2790 Skunks Lane Cutchogue B- 34 Henry Silverman 4654 Sound Avenue Riverhead B- 35 Kathryn Kresci Pindar Vineyards LLC/Cabernet LLC 7045 Oregon Road Mattituck C i ' 36 William P.Stubelek Ponquogue Marine Basin 86 Foster Avenue Hampton Bays C 37 Paul W.Vigliotta Northeastern Landscape Design& 240 Frowein Road Center Moriches B- Dev.Corp. 38N Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A 38S Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A 39 Frank Zimmer Zimmer Farm Main Road(P.O.Box 355) Orient 40 Richard J.Magg 33-05 Oregon Road Mattituck B- 1-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Eight(8) Sites Considered No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Location/Town Rating 1 Frederick W.Koehler Osprey's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road-Peconic Peconic B+ 3 Christopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 Sound Avenue Northville B+ 5 Harry Hanley Eberhard&Hanley 198 Head of Neck Road Manorville A 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel B+ 27 Kurt Van dewatering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow A 32 James J.Stakey Jim Stakey Greenhouses 324 West Lane(P.O.Box 950) Aquebogue B+ 38N Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A 38S Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Country Road Calverton A In Southold, LIPA and/or the Long Island Farm Bureau have contacted and provided project information to the Sustainable Energy Alliance and the North Fork Environmental Council.Both , groups expressed their support for the project. Information has and will be provided in multiple formats, including via telephone conversation, in-person meetings, written (correspondence and printed versions of Power Point presentation) and electronic (LIPA Web site and e-mail). In addition, the community will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed project at town hearings. Follow up contact with the above groups and new contact with additional groups will be made, as appropriate,before and during development of the Peconic site. 1-6 Chapter 2: Peconic Site A. INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION This analysis examines the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposed wind turbine facility to be sited at the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard,located at 44075 Route 25 (Main Road),in the Peconic area of the Town of Southold in Suffolk County,Long Island. The Suffolk County Land and Tax designation of the property is Section 75,Block 1,Lots 20.1 and 20.2. SITE LOCATION The wind turbine site, i.e. the project site, is located in the southern central portion of an approximately 50-acre parcel of land owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyard, LTD that is divided into two lots. The project site is located at the northeastern portion of the smaller 4.5 acre lot desi t ated as Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.1 which is currently improved with a winery/visitor center. A vineyard is located on the lar er lot to the north designated as Section 75, Block 1, Lot 20.2. The 50-acre parcel is bordered to the south by Route 25, the Long Island Rail Road's (LIRR) Main Line track to the north, and additional agricultural parcels to the west and east(see Figure 2-1). The proposed wind turbine site is located in a flat, grass-covered, open field, adjacent to,planted grape vines in the center of the site and northwest of the winery. Figure 2-2 depicts the view of the proposed site looking south at the winery's storage buildings (see Figure 2-2). The .ro.osed wind turbine .ro'ect site would be surrounded b an 8-foot chain link barbed wire fence and landsca'a .lantin.s that would be .rovided for screenin'. This s le fence has been standard .ractice for LIPA to .revent the 'eneral .ublic from obtainin' access to electrical substations and other facilities. The area would be fenced and locked for safety to prevent unauthorized access to the wind turbine facility. AGENCY ACTIONS,PERMITS,AND APPROVALS LIPA must comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act.(SEQRA).LIPA must also obtain site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board, and a height variance and, a s•ecial use .ermit for a .ublic utili facili in an A 'cultural-Conservato A-C zone from the Zoning Board of Appeals. B. LAND USE, ZONING, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES . METHODOLOGY This section describes existing land use, zoning, and community facilities in the vicinity of the project site and evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project on these features. 2-1 ,a. �'4 y�jy,""-,' '-i...-.144/ # yy xe? i _. Q - N ' �w% 9, S * y�1'i� ��c 2`', 9 GLENN no .s Z y P x,,, s r Q It w w C LP tit' t,•44N1 •.bFn^r'''' i Source:New York State GIS Clearninghouse 2'n 1= C • Project SiteFeet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0.5 Mile Study Area L 1 Mile Study Area Peconic — LIRR Tracks Project Site Location Figure 2-1 1 V,J l 4"`4 T Y+i yy T'fl4 7p4 R t x 'T. 1 jY # e 1 a .+ � spry ... �' �� — m� W Peconic Site Location LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Information relative to existing land use, zoning, and community facilities was obtained through several sources, including Geographic Information System(GIS), aerials, supplemented by field surveys conducted by AKRF, Inc. in April 2002 and September 2003, and the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. This section analyzes two study areas, a primary study area extending roughly V2 mile from the proposed site, and a secondary study area extending roughly 1 mile from the proposed site. These two study areas include the area within which the proposed project could reasonably be expected to exert some degree of influence on future land use patterns and neighborhood character. The 1/2-mile study area was chosen to assess the potential land use conflicts of the proposed project on the immediate surrounding area, and the 1-mile study area was chosen to assess the more indirect, or secondary effects of the proposed project on the surrounding area, such as compatibility with the general land use patterns. Since the project is expected to be completed by the spring of 2004, it is not necessary to conduct a separate analysis of the future without the proposed project since conditions are not expected to materially change from the current conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS LAND USE Project Site The proposed project site is an agricultural property used historically for farming. The immediate project site is a flat, grass-covered, open field located adjacent to an area used for cultivating grape vines and approximately 200 feet from an aluminum storage building (see Figure 2-3). %-Mile Study Area The majority of the %2-mile study area is used for agricultural purposes.There are residential and commercial uses, as well as some vacant land, along Route 25 to the south of the proposed site, and north between the LIRR Main Line tracks and County Road 48 (Middle Road). Additional uses west of the proposed site, along Carroll Avenue and Peconic Lane, include recreation and open space and institutional, the Peconic Lane Primary School,located approximately 1,450 feet from the proposed site. Also located within %2-mile study area are government owned lands to the north and west of the project site. 1-Mile Study Area The land use for this study area remains essentially the same as the Y2-mile study area. Within this study area, both agricultural and residential land uses are significantly expanded in all directions. This includes mixed-density residential uses along Harbor Road and Bayview Road to the east and southeast, along Wells Road to the south, and along Henry's Lane that runs perpendicular to County Road 48 to the northwest.Large parcels of vacant land uses also exist to the south, along Richmond Creek, to the northwest along Mill Road, and north along Sound View Avenue. Additional recreation land use exists at Goldsmith's Inlet Park northwest of the proposed site as well as east and southeast associated with various cemeteries. 2-2 lip / tiz" o A°tion t•PP $ O . , d ., 4.s r- ""■arw.'M o� • �'• ,v t . C? ~ ' /'Nt F1 # gl;" GLENN RA h Rh 9 .0, s , e ' J/\ yi /,, • ,o` U 01� 4 • v ' o *, ig k . o ;4 •• '"00 Ni., d ,. o, I1 z m i, N ® Aa h \ J / 1 A \ 1 , ---\\ \ ‘, .,. Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;Town of Southold 2002; Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003. \\ • Project Site Residential _ Recreation and Open Space Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2.000 !r'siesa 0.5 Mile Study Area Agriculture - Utility i..a" - Commercial Government 1 Mile Study Area Institutional Vacant Land Peconic t LIRR Tracks Existing Land Use Figure 2-3 Long Island Power Authoritywind Turbine Project Chapter 2:Peconic Site ZONING Project Site The proposed project site is situated in the Agricultural-Conservation Zoning District (A-C). According to the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, the Agricultural Conservation district permits uses that prevent the unnecessary loss of currently open lands containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils, and areas containing sensitive environmental features such as aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. Uses that are permitted in this zone include one-family dwellings, agricultural operations, and accessory uses such as irrigation that are instrumental for agricultural uses(see Figure 2-4). Dwellings constructed within the A-C district are limited to a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet (2 acres) and width of 175 feet. This district contains a height limitation of 35 feet. '/-Mile Study Area Although the vast majority of the land within the 1/2-mile study area is zoned A-C, there are an additional seven zoning districts found within the study area. The zoning districts include: Low Density Residential 40 (R-40), Low Density Residential 80 (R-80), General Business (B), Residential Office (RO), Light Industry (LI), Hamlet Business (HB), and Limited Business (LB).The nearest residential zone is located over 600 feet to the west,with the nearest residence at an even . eater distance. The setback re.uirements for this R-80 zone re.uirin. 80 000 s.uare foot lots are 60 feet for the front and 45 feet for both side ards and 75 feet for the rear yard. The R-40 and R-80 zoning districts are designed to provide areas for residential development where existing neighborhood characteristics, water supply, and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one dwelling per 40,000 square feet(R-40) or per 80,000 square feet(R-80), and where open space and agricultural preservation are not predominant objectives. These districts permit the same uses as the A-C district with the exception of recreational camps, farm labor camps, animal hospitals, libraries,museums, and art galleries. In addition, the minimum width requirement for the R-40 and R-80 districts is 150 feet,whereas the minimum width requirement for the A-C district is 175 feet. 1-Mile Study Area This study area contains the same zoning districts as the 1/2-mile study area. COMMUNITY FACILITIES An inventory of community facilities (schools, libraries, houses of worship, etc.)has been taken within a 1/2-mile and 1-mile radius of the project site to determine if there might be any potential impacts of the proposed wind turbine on these facilities. Figure 2-5 depicts the community facilities within the 1/2-mile and 1-mile study areas. Project Site No community facilities were identified on the project site. -Mile Study Area The community facilities located within the 1/2-mile study area include: the Peconic Lane Primary School (grades 1-3), located approximately 1,450 feet west of the project site on Peconic Lane; the Town of Southold Police Department, situated more than 2,000 feet from the project site at the corner of Route 25 and Peconic Lane; the Town of Southold Recreation 2-3 „,. r, -N, N A ) \- . \\-- V .77-' i y /gyp `,/,>`c �C�F��yA oti d Y 0°�Q. %0 �� r i+ �%, ! t-- Mqt Ro S.0 lb, ,, G G��p 4i 9Lc(, 1 t Fo yp)n ; °<<9 Ql Lh II �p GLENN RD �... s4/ * it , `` • Qs)?” 1 IIsI•v ` P� I < , �- "OFAe. i 1 „, j,,4, ♦ �i . ' s13 of ,, -\\\ ' m 'NI:. • 1 f I k Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;Town of Southold,2002; \ Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003. \ • Project Site Agricultural-Conservation(A-C) -General Business(B) Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 SWIM, Low-DensityResidential 40(R-40) Hamlet Business HB ���0.5 Mile Study Area ( ) Low-Density Residential 80(R-80) <Limited Business(LB) C3 1 Mile Study Area Pecon i c im Residential Office(RO) MI Light Industrial —+—LIRRTracks Zoning Use Districts Figure 2-4 Long Island Power Authority wind Turbine Project N i 7 A . _,Ir It. \ \--". le' 4 r 1 \ " // AOy ob 44 ,• ;:.1,,,,....... • # ...!• . ik Ro k •' •GoQO , • / /, 9 ' Ca�"- 316, yF �Ol! 1 / I' 114NR0 • /7-0 i \ 8 At) I#. • •f I 'I_ I 1191 \ I Q0.`\ ..006 \ ?' ,„ . . • 11 '( , ,"'' Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;Town of Southold,2002; — Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003. • Project Site 1:Goldsmith's Inlet County Park 10.Willow Hill Cemetery Feet ems, 2:Suffolk County Water Authority Property 11.Town of Southold Park 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 1.1.110.5 Mile Study Area 3:Suffolk County Water Authority Property 12.Custer Institute 4:Peconic Main Post Office 13:Southold Indian Museum 01 Mile Study Area 5:Jean W.Cochran Park 14:North Fork Head Start Development Service Peconic 6:Robert W.Tasker Memorial Park 15:Church of the Open Door t LIRR Tracks 7:Peconic Lane Primary School 16:Town of Southold Fire Department Substation Community Facilities 8:Town of Southold Recreation Center 17.St.Patrick's Cemetery 9:Town of Southold Police Department Figure 2-5 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project �- LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Center, located roughly 1,550 feet southwest of the project site on Peconic Lane; Robert W. Tasker Memorial Park, also located on Peconic Lane, approximately 1,600 feet northwest of the project site; and Jean W. Cochran Park,located on the west side of Peconic Lane, approximately 2,300 feet northwest of the project site. 1-Mile Study Area The 1-mile study area contains several community facilities. To the west of the project site is Goldsmith's Inlet County Park, which is a 34-acre nature park, located on Mill Road; Peconic Main Post Office, located west of the project site on Peconic Lane; and a Suffolk County Water Authority property, located northwest of the project site on County Road 48. To the east of the project site is the Southold Fire Department Substation and St. Patrick's Cemetery located on Bayview Road; the Custer Institute, a public observatory also located on Bayview Road; the Southold Indian Museum,North Fork Head Start Development Service, and Church of the Open Door, all located on Bayview Road; the Willow Hill Cemetery and a Town of Southold park, both located on Route 25; and a Suffolk County Water Authority property located northeast of the project site on Ackerly Pond Lane. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE Project Site The proposed facility would alter the currently vacant land on the 25 feet by 35 feet project site. However, the proposed facility would not conflict with the current land use or character of the general area immediately adjacent to the project site or in close proximity to the project site.The nearest residence is over 600 feet away(see Figure 2-3). '/z-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not alter the land use of the study area and would be compatible with predominant land uses in the study area. While the proposed wind turbine would be noticeable it would not have a significant adverse im.act on land use. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not alter the land use of the study area and would be compatible with predominant land uses in the study area. While the proposed wind turbine would be noticea.le it would not have a si: ifica t adverse im.act on land use. ZONING Project Site The proposed facility would exceed the height limitations and not be consistent with the permitted uses for an Agricultural-Conservation zoning district. LIPA is seeking a variance for height and a special use permit from the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, and site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board. To ensure a thorough consideration of potential impacts, an assessment of the proposed facility's conformance with the substance of the local zoning regulations has been performed. Specifically, this assessment considers whether the proposed facility would be consistent with 2-4 Chapter 2:Peconic Site the Southold Town Code requirements for granting a special use permit to construct a public utility structure in an Agricultural-Conservation zoning district, a variance for height and site plan approval. Special Use Permit Regulations: Under Southold Town Code § 100-31(B)(6), public utility buildings and structures are permitted in all districts when approved as a special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a special exception for a public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town, subject to such conditions as the Board of Appeals may impose in order to protect and promote the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of the community and character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be considered. No special exception approval shall be granted unless the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically finds and determines that(a) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health and welfare,the comfort, the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter; (e) the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance; (f) all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily assessable for fire and police protection. See Town Code§ 100-263. In making such determinations, the Zoning Board of Appeals must consider numerous factors, the following of which are potentially applicable to the proposed facility: (A)the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such permitted uses; (B) the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land; (C) the effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets, highways or sidewalks to assure public safety; (D) the availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment,removal or discharge of sewage,refuse or other effluent(whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use; (E)whether the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot; (F) whether the use will cause disturbing emission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise; (G) whether the operation in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, if existing or if proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies; (H) the necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located; (I) whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result of the use, or by the structures to be used therefor, or by the inaccessibility of the property or structures thereon for convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus or by undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon such plot; (J)whether the use or the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population; (K) whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof; (L)whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school,theater,recreational area or place 2-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project of public assembly, (M)whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use; (N) whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use; (0) whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate; and (P) whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. See Town Code § 100-264. In deciding on any application for a special exception use, the Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary or appropriate to preserve and protect the spint and the objectives of this chapter. See Town Code § 100-265. Finally, the Zoning Board of Appeals must also consider whether the erection of public utility structures would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state,and local laws. The following is an analysis of the applicable factors required to be considered by the Board of Appeals before it may make a determination to allow a public utility structure in an Agricultural- Conservation zoning district: The character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such proposed uses. The project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and agricultural land uses dominate the land within %2 mile of the site. Though the proposed wind turbine would be different in size, structure, and materials from windmills_that have historically been part of the farm environment on the east end of Long Island, the proposed wind turbine would generate ener' . similar to historical windmills on Lon• Island farms. Therefore the proposed wind turbine facility would be consistent in terms of land uses on and surrounding the project site. The conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land. The project site is only 0.02 acres of an existing aper. oximately 50-acre site The proposed •roiect is small in size and would not si' ificantl adversel imact the value of pro•e or the uses on the remainder of the •ro•e . In addition the site was s•ecificall chosen because it is located on land that currentl is ()se atint as an existin• farm use and the •ro'ect does not interfere with the continued use of this property as a farm,as presently zoned. The effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets, highways or sidewalks to assure public safety. The proposed facility would only occasionally create a small number of vehicle trips maximum of four per month), and thus would create no significant traffic congestion on public streets,highways, or sidewalks. The availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use. The proposed facility would not cause or create sewage, refuse or effluent or necessitate the availability of adequate or proper public or private water supply. 2-6 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Whether the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. The proposed facility would not give off obnoxious gases, odors,smoke or soot. Whether the use will cause disturbing emission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. The proposed facility would cause no disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light or vibration. While the windmill would create some noise, no significant noise impacts would occur due to the proposed facility(see Section K, "Noise"). Whether the operations in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, if existing or if proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. - The proposed facility would only occasionally create a small number of vehicle trips (a maximum of approximately four per month), and the nearest recreational facilities are approximately 1,500 feet from the proposed site, and thus would not interfere with or have an impact on public parking or recreational facilities. The necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located. The minimal number of vehicle trips generated by the use of the proposed facility (a maximum of four per month) would not require bituminous-surfaced space for the purposes of off-street parking of vehicles. Whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result of the use, or by the structures to be used therefor or by the inaccessibility of the plot or structure thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus. The windmill would create no fire, erosion or panic hazard and would be accessible to fire and other emergency apparatus. Whether the use or the structures to be used therefor will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. The proposed facility would be developed on land used for agricultural purposes and would not cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof Considering the current agricultural use, flat surface, and exposure to prevailing winds, the plot area contemplated for the proposed facility is adequate for the proposed operation of a windmill. Expansion of the plot area is not anticipated. Whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area or place of public assembly. The closest community facilities, a primary school, two town parks, and a post office are located approximately %2 mile away from the proposed facility and would not be impacted by the 2-7 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project erection of a windmill,which would create no significant adverse impacts to visual resources,air quality, or noise (see Section D, "Visual Resources," Section J, "Air Quality," and Section K, "Noise"). Whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use. The site was chosen in accordance with the site selection criteria, described in Chapter 1, "Project Description," particularly because it is flat, located on agricultural land, and has exposure to prevailing winds. The land based wind turbine demonstration project is a joint oro! am with the on. Island Farm Bureau. One of the main .u .oses of this oro! am is to demonstrate the feasibili and viabili of wind .ower for future use at a.. 'cultural lands while enablin. continued use of the surroundin. .rose for a. iculture. Whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use. While the oro.osed wind turbine would be noticeable it would not ha e a si. ificant adverse impact (see Section D, "Visual Resources"). In addition landscasin includin:_.lantin:s of ever= een shrubs around the exterior fencin. at the southern and we tern sections of the wind turbine site would minimize adverse visual impacts of ground-level electrical and mechanical control e.ui.ment from those areas of the site that are visible to the sublic i.e. the wine /visitor center). The northern and eastern sides of the site face existin. vine ards are not publicly visible. Whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate. The proposed facility would not generate stormwater runoff, sewage,refuse or other liquid, solid or gaseous waste;therefore there would be no provisions for their collection and disposal. Whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. The siting of the wind turbine will have no impact on existing natural features since the site has been previously cleared and graded. Use of the proposed facility would not generate any effluent and would not pose a risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. Whether the provisions of the laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of all state,federal and local agencies or bureaus applicable to such uses have been complied with. The proposed facility would be constructed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements. Based upon consideration of these factors,the Board of Appeals would be able to determine that the erection of the wind turbine on the project site would not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or specially permitted uses in adjacent zoning districts. The wind turbine would require only a small piece of property in the midst of farmland.The wind turbine would be connected to existing transmission lines via underground wires. Accordingly, the wind turbine would not interfere with existing uses or development of adjacent properties or zoning districts. In addition, the wind turbine would not adversely affect health and safety. On the contrary, the wind turbine provides an opportunity for increased energy diversity and a reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases, all of which 2-8 Chapter 2:Peconic Site benefit public health. Finally, as the wind turbine is consistent with each of the other required determinations, and is also consistent with historical agricultural uses, the use would be in harmony with and would promote the general purposes of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, the proposed facility would comply with the standards applicable for the granting of a special permit to construct a public utility building or structure. Height Regulations: The maximum height permitted in the A-C zoning district in which the project site is located is 35 feet. Therefore, the proposed facility requires a variance to exceed the maximum height by 90 feet. Southold Town Code § 100-271 grants the Zoning Board of Appeals the power to vary or modify the application of such regulations relative to the Town Code "so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public health, safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done." A variance for a use of land that does not meet the dimensional or physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulation may be granted by the Board of Appeals upon a determination that the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance was granted. In balancing the needs of the variance applicant against those of the community, Town Law § 267-b requires the Board of Appeals to consider whether: (a) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; (b) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the variance; (c) the requested variance is substantial; (d) the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and(e)the alleged difficulty was self-created. In the case of the proposed facility, the 90-foot exceedence of the permitted maximum height is necessary so that the proposed facility is high enough to capture the wind required to generate electricity. The proposed facility would not cause a significant detriment to the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding community. The construction of the proposed facility,while different in size and appearance from historic windmills, would not produce a change in the character of the neighborhood, and would not conflict with the agricultural character of the project site and the nearby properties. In addition, existing communications towers are located just west of the project site and are in excess of 100 feet. These communications towers were constructed on government land that is zoned R-80 residential,which permits the same uses as the A-C zone. The height exceedence that would be required for the windmill is substantial, however, at a lower height, the proposed facility would not be effective. Thus, there would be no feasible alternative to the height variance that would be required. The proposed facility would not have an adverse environmental impact; indeed, it would provide an environmental benefit by providing an opportunity for increased energy diversity, and reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases. While the proposed facility would create some noise, the increased noise levels are not significant (see Section K, "Noise"). Finally, the need to exceed the maximum height restriction was not self-created;the project site was selected based on a number of factors, which combined seek to maximize the success of the proposed facility by providing maximum access to unobstructed prevailing winds while ensuring access to LIPA's power grid and adequate distance from the nearest residences. 2-9 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Based on the analysis above,the benefit to the applicant would not be outweighed by a detriment to health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, the Board of Appeals would be within its discretion to grant a height variance. Site Plan Regulations: Southold Town Code § 100-252 authorizes the Southold Town Planning Board to approve a site plan if such site plan meets a number of objectives. The site plan requirements are discussed below. The site plan proposes adequate traffic accessways in terms of number, width, grade, alignment and visibility, relationship of location to intersections, pedestrian accessways and places of assembly, and are in conformance with overall traffic safety considerations. The proposed facility would only occasionally create limited vehicular trips (a maximum of four per month); access to the project site would be over an existing driveway. The proposed site provides adequate off-street parking and loading spaces to satisfy the parking needs of the proposed uses and that convenient access to such parking spaces is provided which promotes pedestrian safety and will not impede existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow. No parking would be necessary. The proposed facility would provide adequate landscaping and screening from adjacent residential uses. The project site is located well within the boundaries of the existing farm, which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties. In addition, the publicly visible southern and western sides of the site would be planted with evergreen shrubs. The proposed facility preserves the natural features on and adjacent to the existing site. The facility is .ro.osed to be sited on 0.02 acres of .reviousl cleared and . aded land now covered with f • ass and would not interfere with ad'acent existin' a. 'cultural uses. In addition the .ro.osed wind turbine thou•h different in size structure and materials from windmills that were historicall used on farms on the east end of Lon. Island would be a modernized structure consistent with farm land uses. The proposed facility would feature paved areas that are both aesthetically pleasing and a safe combination of pavement and plantings intended for use by pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed facility would not feature paved areas and would not be accessible by the public. Any sound that the facility produces shall be located to minimize sound to adjoining properties or on the adjacent street. The sound produced by the proposed facility will have no significant impact on adjoining properties or streets(see Section K, "Noise"). The site plan provides for the placement of lights and lighted signs so as not to cause direct light to shine on other properties. The proposed facility will feature few service lights to be used only during maintenance and emergency conditions. The site plan provides for adequate grading and drainage of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed facility The proposed facility will have no impact on existing grades on-site. 2-10 Chapter 2:Peconic Site The proposed facility conforms to existing public requirements and standards with regard to use of public utilities. The proposed facility would not use any public utilities. The site plan illustrates that the facility is consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. The proposed facility conforms to the existing development of an agricultural site and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. The proposed wind turbine project is not inconsistent with a! 'cultural uses or the Com.rehensive Develo.ment Plan of the Town of Southold. Specifically, the project would not de• ade or consume natural resources or features or •revent the o..ortuni to continue the use of farm •ractices in the area. The proposed facility would exhibit architectural features in conformance with the prevailing character of the neighborhood. The architectural features of the proposed facility would be consistent with those related to adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. As noted previously, the wind turbine, while visuall ay nd ph sically different in hei:ht and a..earance from windmills historicall connected with a 'cultural uses does not conflict with the existing site uses. The site plan and building design accommodate the needs of the handicapped. The proposed facility would not be accessible to the public and does not need to be handicapped accessible. Thus, the proposed facility would conform to the requirements of the conditions for site plan approval if such approval were required. -Mile Study Area The proposed facility conforms to the existing uses in the Y2-mile study area as presently zoned and,therefore would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning in the %2-mile study area. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility conforms to the existing uses in the 1-mile study area as presently zoned and,therefore would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning in the 1-mile study area. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Project Site Since there are no community facilities at the project site, no impacts on community facilities are expected. -Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any community facilities within the Y2-mile study area. It would not affect the ability of any community facility to serve the community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have significant adverse visual, air quality, or noise impacts on any community facilities (see Section D, "Visual Resources," Section J, "Air Quality,"and Section K, "Noise"). 2-11 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any community facilities within the 1-mile study area. It would not affect the ability of any community facility to serve the community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have significant adverse air quality, noise, or visual impacts on any community facilities. C. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES HISTORIC RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This section considers the potential for the proposed project to affect historic resources in the vicinity of the project site. For this analysis, the section addresses a study area of V2 mile and 1 mile from the project site. Within this study area, historic resources were identified and the potential effects on the resources were assessed. Effects are determined at locations where proposed construction activities may occur within close proximity to a historic structure to potentially cause structural damage, and also account for visual or contextual impacts. Historic resources were located through their listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, and as National Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts. Since the proposed facility is scheduled to be operable by the spring of 2004, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed action, since conditions would not materially change from the existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Site There are no designated landmarks located at the project site. 1/2-Mile Study Area There are no designated landmarks located within the Y2-mile study area. 1-Mile Study Area There are no designated State or National landmarks located within the 1-mile study area. However, the Town of Southold has approved the designation of local historic landmarks under its Landmark Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 56 of the Town Code). The law is designed to protect and maintain the character of historically significant properties within the Township. There are four sites on the local register of historic landmarks located within the 1-mile study area: Town Doctor's House located on Ackerly Pond Lane, Joseph Reeve House located on Lower Road, Abijah Corey House located on Main Bayview Road, and Deacon James Horton House also located on Main Bayview Road. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Project Site Since there are no designated landmarks at the project site,no impacts on historic resources are expected. 2-12 Chapter 2:Peconic Site -Mile Study Area Since there are no designated landmarks within the 1/2-mile study area, no impacts on historic resources are expected. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any historic resources within the 1-mile study area. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This archaeological assessment was directed at identifying whether there were any archaeological concerns regarding construction of the proposed wind turbine at the Peconic site. Existing conditions were determined through two phases, the first being limited background research designed to estimate the potential for precontact and historical archaeological resources to exist at the project site. A Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment, including documentary research and field investigations, was undertaken by Historical Perspectives, Inc., (HPI) in May 2002 for the Peconic site.Data were gathered to compare the precontact past,the historical past, and the subsurface disturbance record.Research to accomplish these goals included: • Identifying categories of potential archeological resources through documentary and cartographic research at repositories such as the New York Public Library (NYPL), the Suffolk County Archaeology Association (SCAA) records at Hauppauge Town Hall, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), and the New York State Museum site files (NYSM) files and archives (e.g., predictive models, regional studies,planning documents, and site inventory forms). • Examining the land use history of the project site in order to estimate the extent of subsurface impacts by reviewing atlases and/or maps at specified time intervals. • Identifying resource types which may have remained undisturbed. Subsequently, Phase 1B field testing was undertaken to establish the presence or absence of archaeological resources to confirm existing conditions. To accomplish these goals, subsurface testing, in the form of 50 x 50 cm hand excavated shovel test pits (SIPS), was conducted at intervals which formed a crucifix pattern over the project site. Where this was not possible due to topographic constraints,judgmental STPs were completed. All excavated soil was screened through 1/4-inch hardware cloth, and cultural material encountered was recovered and bagged according to natural stratigraphy.Relevant information about each test location, including depth, stratigraphy, anomalies, disturbance, and artifact content, was recorded. Any artifacts encountered were returned to a laboratory for further analysis. EXISTING CONDITIONS Precontact Resources Precontact Sensitivity: Long Island, and more specifically, the Southold area, has been utilized by precontact peoples for thousands of years spanning the Paleolndian, Archaic, Transitional, and Woodland periods. Archaeological work conclusively proves that Native Americans 2-13 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project occupied this area utilizing both coastal and inland resources (Lightfoot et al., 1985:61; Bernstein et al., 1996:126). A site file search undertaken at the SCAA records in Hauppauge, the NYSM, and the NYSOPRHP found four previously inventoried precontact period State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)sites, and eight previously completed archaeological surveys within 1 mile of the Peconic project site(see Attachment A).The following SHPO sites were identified(see Table 2- 1). ' Table 2-1 Identified Precontact Period State Historic Preservation Office Sites SHPO Site# Location Site Type Artifact Description A10310.000030 Richmond Creek Lithic Workshop Quartz points,blades,flakes, +/- 1 mile SW etc. A10310.000224 Mill Lane Woodland Adena,Levanna&Lamoka (SCAA#351) +/- 1 mile NW Qtz Proj. Pts. A10310.000225 Goldsmith Inlet Woodland NA +/-1 mile NW A10310.000244 Bowery Lane NA NA +/-'/4 mile NE Sources: Suffolk County Archaeology Association(SCAA),the NYSOPRHP,and the NYSM. Of the eight archaeological surveys, the first was completed at Goldsmith Inlet County Park in 1980 (Johannemann 1980a:2), and identified site A10310.000224 (SCAA #351) described above. Goldsmith Inlet is a saltwater pond near the coast more than 1 mile northwest of the project site. The second survey was undertaken at the Peconic Dunes County Park, about one mile north of the project site on the coast (Johannemann 1980b:1), where field testing was recommended due to high archaeological potential. The third survey was undertaken for the Richmond Creek Farms Subdivision, south of Route 25 near Richmond Creek, about 3/a to 1 mile southwest of the project site (Billadello and Johannemann 1987:27). Site A10310.000030, a quartz lithic processing station, was identified on the property in proximity to the Richmond Creek. A Stage 2 investigation of the precontact loci at Richmond Creek Farms found that the site contained a light density of lithics, the vast majority of which were found in the plow zone.The site was found to lack the criteria necessary for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places(Bernstein and Lenardi 1999:15). East of the project site, two archaeological surveys were completed in the Village of Southold, one for the Southold Villas Project (Barber and Bonasera 1991:6), and one for the Route 25, Highland Road, Cutchogue to Sixth Street project(Silver and Merwin 1995:1). Neither of these surveys identified precontact sites within their boundaries. Closest to the project site, a Phase I survey was undertaken for the proposed Middle (North) Road Wells in Peconic (Cammisa 2000:1). Phase IB field testing found no precontact resources within the boundaries of that project site (Ibid.:13). Finally, to the northwest of the project site, also on North Road, a Phase 1 study of the Agri-Business Child Development property was undertaken in 2001 (Bernstein et al.). Phase 1B testing at the site failed to recover a precontact material(Ibid.:20). 2-14 Chapter 2:Peconic Site The SCAA records reported numerous previously identified precontact sites along the shores of the Peconic Bay, but none in proximity to the project site. Two sites identified in Peconic were located at Richmond Creek and Indian Neck, south of the project site(SCAA#720, 721). In a 1978 report on the archaeological sensitivity of Suffolk County,archaeologists used existing cultural resource inventories to establish areas of high, moderate, and low precontact activity within the county.At that time, the current project site fell within an area of intensive aboriginal activity, or high sensitivity (Suffolk County Archaeological Association 1978). Areas that had intensive aboriginal habitation were centered around Peconic Bay and along inland river channels,but extended north as far as the Peconic site. Results of Field Investigation: No precontact material was recovered from any of the STPs excavated (see Attachment A). The Phase 1B field investigation found no potentially significant precontact resources within the Peconic site,confirming that the site has no precontact potential. Historical Resources Historical Sensitivity: In 1702 a cart path was laid out through the woodlands of Riverhead, facilitating travel from Southold to Brookhaven Town. Maps from thel 7th through early 19th century do not depict structures or townships in proximity to the project site; however they do depict a system of established roads (Ryder 1675, Southark 1734; Colton 1836;Mather 1842). In 1836, 1842, and 1844 the project site was depicted as vacant, with the closest development being a series of structures fronting the north side of Route 25 to the south(Colton 1836;Mather 1842; Colton 1844). In 1858 the project site was depicted as vacant, with the closest structures still fronting on Route 25 (Chance 1858), south of the project site and on Peconic Lane, west of the project site.The site appeared unchanged in 1873 (Beers 1873). Despite the growth of the region and increased residential development along Route 25, the project site remained vacant in 1906 and 1929 (Hyde 1906; Dolph and Stewart 1929). It appears that throughout the 20th century, the project site remained undeveloped and was probably continually used as agricultural land. The only historic sites inventoried within a 1-mile radius of the project site are SHPO Site A10310.000015, the Great Western Mill, located in the hamlet of Southold, and Site A10310.000227, a 19th century refuse midden near Goldsmith Inlet. The mill was built in ca.1679 and was utilized through ca.1870(see Attachment A). No features or signs of historical structures were observed on the project site property when the Phase 1B field testing was undertaken. Currently the site is under cultivation as a vineyard. The lack of historic features, coupled with the lack of historic development portrayed on maps and atlases, suggested that this site had almost no potential for historical resources. Fieldwork was designed to test these hypotheses. Results of Field Investigations: No historical features or potentially important resources were observed at the site, and none were found in any of the STPs (see Attachment A). Therefore,the Phase 1B testing confirmed that the site has no potential for historical period resources. 2-15 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed wind turbine would have no negative impact on any potential archaeological resources at the Peconic site, since none were indicated by research or identified during the Phase 1B field investigation. The location of the wind turbine facility has been moved slightly but still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil type. The shovel test .its while not at the exact location of the proposed foo print for the wind turbine are believed to be at a close enou.h distance to warrant the same conclusions for this location which has been cleared aded and planted with turf . ass. Therefore, no archaeological resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. To ensure that there are no anticipated impacts durin. disturbance of this area for the .u .ose of constructin! the wind turbine staff from HPI will be on-site to monitor the excavation for the p u .ose of identi in any possible archeological resources. D. VISUAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This anal sis describes the existin! visual character of the wind turbine .ro'ect site and the surroundin. area within 1 -mile of this site and assesses the effects of the proposed facili on the existin. visual •uali and desi• characteristics of the site and stud area. The anal sis examines buildin' ales hei.hts materials and to so. ash . In addition the wind turbine wa superimposed onto photo. a.hs taken in the field to further anal ze whether the turbine would diminish the visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. This visual impact assessment was conducted followm. the New York State Depai tluent of Envir s nmental Conservation SDEC Pro. am Polic DEP-00-2 Jul 31 2000 entitled "Assessin. and Mitigating Visual Impacts."The potential visual impacts were assessed based on field visits to the .ro'ect site and surroundin_ stud area in April and Ma 2002 September 2003.February 2004. and a"balloon test"conducted on February 27 2004. The analysis examined the potential for si• ificant adverse visual impacts from sensitive aesthetic and visual resources. Photo. aphs were taken from locations selected to de.ict .ical vie s of the proposed wind turbine. Photo simulations in which the proposed wind turbine was superimposed on ton of photo ra hs showing existing conditions, were prepared b scaling_a com p uter-rendered ima•e of the pro.osed tower a•ainst elements 'n the photo. ash with a known vertical elevation uch as the balloons buildin's or trees at a known distance from the camera. Folio in! the simile rules of .eome and similar trian•les the proposed facili can be accuratel set within the .hoto! ash throu.h use of s arallel conver.. n line vanishin. point perspective). NYSDEC GUIDANCE Accordin. to DEP-00-2, a "visual impact" occurs when "the mitisatin.1 effects of perspective do not reduce the visibili of an ob'ect to insi• ificant levels. :eau sla s no role in this DEP-00-2 uses the term "mitigating" or "mitigation" to refer to design parameters that avoid or reduce potential visibility of a project. This should not be confused with the use of the term 2-16 Chapter 2:Peconic Site cone pt" DEP-00-2_•. 10 . DEP-00-2 also provides • idance with res•ect to the de coition of an"aesthetic impact" Aesthetic im•act occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the s erceived beau of a place or structure. Mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should of be a threshold for decision makin.. Instead a pro'ect b virtue of its visi p ili must clearl interfere with or reduce the public's en'o ent and/or a•.reciation of the a•nearance of an inventoried resource P EP-00-2 s. 9 . The "miti atilt. effects of p ers•ective" are im•ortant to understand in the assessment of visual impact. While an ob'ect such as the pro posed wind turbine ma be visible over a on! distance "atmos•heric perspective" which DEP-00-2 describes as the "reduction in intensi of colors and the contrast between li.ht and dark as the distance of the ob'ects from the observer increases"and which is a product of the natural .articles within the atmosphere that scatter i!_ht serves to minimize the significance of the proposed structure in the overall viewshed. A second factor that reduces the •otential for im•act is the overall character of the surroundin' landsca s e includin! existin t ve'etation buildin._ and to p o• a•h . The effects of distance and contextual topography typically reduce the visibility of distant structures such as the nroi osed facility_ Thus hile a pro•osed •ro'ect ma be visi'le within a viewshed mere visibili is not a threshold of si! ificance. The si' ificance of the visibili is dependent on several facto s: presence of an desia ated historic or scenic resources wi hin the viewshed of the •ro'ect distance •eneral characteristics o the surroundint land case and the extent to which the visibili of the sro'ect interferes with the public's en'o ent or a sreciation of the affected esource. A si ificant adverse visual imp act would onl occur when the of ects of desi• distance and intervening topograph and ve•etation do not minimize the visibili of an object and the visibili si' ificantl detracts from the public' en'o ent of a resource. DEP-00-2 states that an action can be determined to be one that avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable b answerin in the affirmative to each of the following questions(DEP-00-2,p 8L: 1. Was the full mitigation menu2 considered? 2. Will those mitigation strategies selected be effective? 3. Were the costs of mitigation for impacts to other media considered and were those mltlgation investments itrioritTzed acco dingle? 4. Are the estimated costs of al miti'ation insi= i scant? 5. Were the miti•ation state•'es em s to ed consistent with previous similar applications? "mitigation" with respect to mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). 2 DEP-00-2 defines the "mitigation menu" as three general groups: professional design and siting, maintenance, and offsets. "Professional design and siting" includes a full suite of standard design considerations such as screening,relocation, camouflage/disguise, alternative technologies,materials, and lighting."Maintenance"refers to any actions that an applicant can take to improve the appearance of an existing facility. "Offsets" include measures to compensate for a visual impact through on-or off-site actions to improve the overall visual quality within an affected viewshed. Offsets "should be employed in sensitive locations where-significant impacts from the proposal are unavoidable, or mitigation of other types would be uneconomic and mitigation to be used is only partially effective." 2-17 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 6. Was the mitigation cost effective? 7. Were offsets and decommissionin removal of older structures or equi.ment considered? BALLOON TEST A balloon test was conducted on February 27, 2004 to determine locations from which the sro.o ed facili would be visible. For this test two 3-fo.t diameter balloons were inflated with helium and released to hei.hts of 100 feet and 125 feet. These hei!hts r-.resent the toof the lattice tower and to. of the wind turbine blades res.ectivel . Gu lines were installed to minimize drift of the lower balloon. Once the balloons were secured at the a..ro.riate hei'hts field observation frim .oints within the stud area was conducted. Photo. a.hs were taken from locations where the balloons were visible. At each location a 35 millimeter ca sera loaded ith International Standards Or.anizati. ISO ASA 100 speed film was secured to a tripod and leveled to ensure consistency and an even horizontal and vertical ah' ent. To establish human scale and a vertical reference point for the photosimulations, the first photograph in each series was taken with a person and a measured scale within the fie d of view.Three additional s oto a.hs were then taken in the same location with different aperture and shutter speed settings to account for any change in lighting conditions.The .est o these three photo: as as then chosen for the .hotosimulation. The latitude and ion.*tude of the photo a aph locations we e recorded usin: a hand-held GPS unit with an accurac el ual to o better than 3 meters. Com.ass readin's were also made to establish the direction in which the photographs were taken. The photosimulations are discussed below in"Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project." EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT SITE The .ro'ect site at Os.re 's D.mini.n Vine and is a relativel flat • assed area ad'acent to slanted ' a.e vines. Ornamental trees separate the sro.ect site from parkin' areas and buildin.s associated with the vineyard operation. STUDY AREA e stud area for this visual .m.act analysis is a Y2-mile radius on either side of the proposed wind turbine location see Fi: re -1 . II e entire stud area lies within the Town of Southold. This stud area is characterized b lar:a areas of open ay_'cultural land and lo - to me derate- densi residential and commercial use along 'oute 25 and Peconic Lane Tn_a�_dir;nn t o communications towers are present just west of the project site that are in excess of 100 feet hi:h. I e lattice tower su•.ortin: the blades of the wind turbine is ex.ected o look similar to these communications towers. A small section of the LIRR Main Line is also located in the northern portion of the study area. The southern portion of the study area includes the mouth of Richmond Creek. The tooaraphv in the study area is 'enerall. flat land with few hills. The maiori�r of the study area comprises fields and ve•etation includin. some stands of mature trees that line man of the 2-18 Chapter 2:Peconic Site roadwa s within the stud area. Views of the .ro.osed wind turbine would va t outhout the study area. primarily as a function of distance and the presence or absence of buildings and mature vegetation.Figures 2-6a and 2-6b de.ict the general conditions within t e landsca.e. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES An i vento of SDEC identified sensitive aesthetic and visual resources was ire.ared as re.uired b DEP-00-2. A sus.lemental invento of locations or resources identified b the Town of Southold a havint historic scenic or aesthetic a uali is also .rovided. Local .ark .oth active and passive) within the study area are also included in the invento . All resources within a ''Y2-mile radius of the project site were identified. State/National Register of Historic Places No known historic resources on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places (S/NR) 16 USC •4 Oa et se.. Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation Law • 4.07 were identified within the study area. New York State Parks No State Parks as defined by Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation aw •3.09 were identified within the study area.3 Urban Cultural Parks No Urban Cultural 'arks P as defined b Article 35 'arks Recreation and Historic 'reservatio Law are located 'thin the .rdect stud area!' New York State Forest Preserve All lands within the State Forest Preserve(NYS Constitution Article XIV)are located within the boundaries of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. Thus, there are no State Forest Preserve lands within the study area.5 National Wildlife Refuges o National Wildlife Refutes a defined b the National Wildlife Refuse S stem Administration Act 1. U.S.C. 668dd-668ee and amended b P.L. 105-57 a e located within the project study area.6 The nearest national wildlife refuges are located several miles away on Long Island's South Fork.Views of the project site from this location would not be possible. State Game Refuges and State Wildli e Management Areas o State Game Refute and State Wildlife Manatement Areas a defined b CL 11-2105 are located within the project study area.' 3 Source:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/d1f/publands/regionl.html;posted as of 02/11/2004. a Source:http://www.nyhistory.com/links/urban_cultural_parks.htm;posted as of 02/11/2004. 5 Source:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dlf/publands/landclass.html;posted as of 02/11/2004. 6 Source:http://refuges.fws.gov;posted as of 02/11/2004. Source:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wma/wmalist.htm;posted as of 02/11/2004 2-19 3.4.04 f; --- 1 /1 • ti View of existing lattice communications tower from Main Road looking west ° r • View of existing lattice communications tower and light poles at Jean W.Cochran Park looking southwest Existing Landscape Conditions LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-6a 3.4.04 "40/' "4, 4 0010 • i View of existing lattice communications tower from Harbor Road looking northwest toward project site Existing Landscape Conditions LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-6b LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project National Natural Landmarks National Natural Landmarks (as defined by 36 CFR Part 62) located in New York State are listed on the National Park Service website.$No National Natural Landmarks are located within the project study area. National Park System. Recreation Areas, Seashores. Forests Proertie within the National Park S stem as defined b 16 USC 1 c are listed on the National Park Service website.9 No National Parks are located within the project study area. Rivers designated as National or State Wild. Scenic or Recreational Rivers desiated as National Wild Scenic or Recreational 16 USC ha.ter 28 are listed on the National Park Service website.10 There are no National Wild, Scenic, or Recreational rivers within the project study area. Rivers desi ated b New York State as Wild Scenic or Recreational are listed in §.S15-2713 through 15-2715 of Environmental Conservation Law. None of the listed rivers are located within the study area. An ite area lake ese .it or hi'h,a desi. ated or eli•ible or desi ation as scenic Resources identified in Article 49 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) include State Scenic B a under the surview of the Des a it, ent of Trans.ortation I arA.a s de i! ated b the Office of Parks Recreation and istoric Preservation and other areas desi. ated b NYSDEC. There are no NYSDOT designated Scenic Byways." parkways,12 or other areas designated by NYSDEC located within the pro-ect stud area. Locall designated scenic byways . are found within the study area and are identified below. Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance Jul ''3 the New York State De.artment of State SDOS desi_ ated six Scenic eas of State ide Si ificance SASS in the Hudson River Valle as .art of its im s lementation of the State's Coastal Management Program (CMP).None of these six areas are located within the project study area.13 A State or federally designated trail State or federall des'• ated trails a defined b 16 USC Chaster 2 such as the A.salachian Trail a d Lon' Path are net located within the stud area. 8 Source: www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/Registry/USA_Map/States/Newyork/new york.htm; posted as of 02/11/2004. 9 Source:http://www.nps.gov/parks.html;posted as of 02/11/2004. 10 Source:http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html;posted as of 02/11/2004. 11 Source:http://www.dot.state.ny.us/scenic/scroad.html;posted as of 02/11/2004. 12 Source:http://www.dot.state.ny.us/scenic/parkway.html;posted as of 02/11/2004. 13 Source: NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, "Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance,"July 1993. 2-20 Chapter 2:Peconic Site State Nature and Historic Preservation Areas There are no State Nature or Historic Preservation Areas (as designated by Section 4 of Article XIV of the New York State Constitution)located within the study area.14 Palisades Park The Palisades Park is not located within the project study area. Bond Act Properties purchased under Exceptional Scenic Beauty or O en S ace Categgri There are no known Bond • ct .ro.erties located within the .rdect stud area.15 Other Locally Significant Resources Research and field surve s of the stud area identified local resources within the 'A-mile stud area from which views of the oro.osed wind turbine ma be •ossible.These resources are isted below and further discussed in"Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project." Local Parks There are three locations within the study area that provide recreation opportunities to the local community.These facilities are listed below and their locations are shown in Fi re -5 • Town of Southold Recreation Center • Robert W.Tasker Memorial Park • Jean W. Cochran Park Historic Resources No locall desi= ated historic re ources or landmarks were identified with the ' -mile stud area. There are however, four locations within a 1- ile radius desi• ated a 1.cal historic landmarks by Chapter 56 of the Town Code: • Town Doctor's House-Ackerly Pond Lane • Joseph Reeve House-Lower Road • Abijah Corey House-Main Bayview Road • Deacon James Horton House-Main Bayview Road Scenic Resources Several local roadways and the section of the LIRR Main Line within the '/2-mile study area will have segments from which the nronosed wind turbine ma be visible. Some of the r.adwa s within or 'last out 'de the d area have been identified b the To of Southold's Scenic a s Corridor Ms a'ement 'la . These road a s are listed below and discus ed in detail in "Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project." • Route 25 (Main Road) • County Road 48 iddle Road • North Road • Main Bayview Road 14 Source:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dlf/publands/regionl.html;posted as of 2/11/2004. 15 Source:NYSDEC,"Conserving Open Space in New York Sate" 1998. 2-21 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project • Long Island Rail Road Other roadwa s exist in the stud area that were no identified b the Town of Southold's Scenic Byways Corridor Management Plan but are in close proximity to the proposed facility, These oadwa s are listed below and discussed in detail in"Probable Im•acts of the Pro.osed Pro'ec ." • Caroll Avenue • Harbor Road • Peconic Lane • Wells Road PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT SITE The transformer and control box of the proposed facility will be located at ground level and will ionly be visible from locations immediatel adiacent to the site_ L1i,e public visiting the winery will be able to view the base of the unit from the south and west only. These sections of the base ill be s eened 'th ever• een shru. to mini ize visual imp acts at a ound level. The north and east sides of the wind turbine base face the vineyard on adjacent Lot 20.2 and will not be visible to the public.Even where the proposed facili would be visible the site landsca.in• will •revent it from •ecomin• the dominant feature 'n the surroundin• landsca.e. it the proposed facili _ the 25 feet b 35 feet wind turbine prosect site which is a..roximatel 600 feet n.rth of Route 25 ould be altered from an a• 'cultural parcel of land to a small wind turbine facility containin• the wind turbine on top of a support tower and some relatively small control equipment.The tower rises to a hei l ht of 100 feet,and the turbine blades are a•.roximatel 25 eet in len• h ieldin! a facili that has a maximum hei•ht of 25 feet and a maximum width of 50 feet. The remainder of the facility,includin! the control e.ui•ment and surrounding fencing ould not be visible from outside the prosect site. Photosimulations have been •re.ared that show two views of the prosect site with and without the wind turbine facili _ from a distance of a..roximatel 610 feet looking north from Route 25 the nearest and most direct view from a sensitive rece•tor see i• e 2-7a and from a distance of approximately 720 feet looking northeast from Route 25 at the entrance to the abuttin•_oro•e to the west see Fi_• re 2-7b . The photo imulations show that while visible behind the main buildi • of the wine on Route 25 e •ro•osed facili does not dominate the landsca•e with the context .f the existi a buildin• and surroundin• ve•etation. isibili of the proposed facility would diminish as distance increases. STUDY AREA A field surve as conducted to det- ine he locations from which the .ro.osed facili _ would likel be visible. As a result of the field survey it was determined that the stud area's to.o! a.h and vegetation would sig 'ficantl limit sews of the proposed acili from most o the location and resource identified abo e. This is .articularl true durin• the sea .ns of the ear when deciduous trees have their leaves,even in an area with few i n e stands of trees. 2-22 NhAt • • 4 a w^ View north from Route 25—Without the proposed project Atiti • qi _ ^ JUMPw..,arrc ----��__'�.�._._�a __�__... "�+*; �,�. _"x ..`�, _ �--- -�. _ _....a.��,..-.�... .tom"s_�m^➢� :w`�_ View north from Route 25—With the proposed project Photosimulations LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-7a 2.18 04 • r-..tet40 • ' %. • .' 101 • ' - litkOrli, • View northeast from Route 25—Without the proposed project r' • r, • 7Ass r, S ab_ i ` yr • View northeast from Route 25— With the proposed project Photosimulations LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-7b Chapter 2:Peconic Site Local Parks Three local larks within the ' -mile stud area provide recreati In o's ortunities to the surroundin. communi . Potential views of the .ro.osed facili from each of these resources were evaluated. Town Recreation Center: The Town Recreation Center is located on Peconic Lane a..roximatel 1 550 feet southwest of the proposed wind turbine facili .Views of the .ro.osed facili are not likel from the front of the recreation center since the building will screen the view. There is an area behind the recreation center with basketball hoops and a large open field see Fi: re 2-8a . Views of the proposed facili are likel from this location but the distance and design and coloring would prevent it from becomin! a dominant feature in the landscape. A photosimulation of the proposed facili _ is rovided in Fi re 2- a. As shown in this image, views of the proposed facility, excluding the blades, will be similar to views of the existing communications tower and other existin. vertical elements as shown in Fi! res 2-6a and 2-6b. Views of the 'ro.osed wind turbine facili would not diminish public en'o ent of this .ark. Therefore althou'h the pro.osed facili will be visible from the Town Recreation Center it is not exected to result in any significant adverse visual imp acts. Robert W Tasker Memorial Park: Robert W. Tasker Memorial Park is located on the east side of Peconic Lane a..roximatel 1 600 feet from the proposed facili . The 'ark has street fronta•e on three sides. A view of the .ark from Peconic Lane towards the .ro-ect site is seen in Fi. re 2-8a. The pro.osed facili ma be visible from this location but the existin. ve•etation light poles, fences, and electric transmission lines are expected to provide significant screening and prevent the nronosed facili from becomin: a dominant feature in the landscape. Based on the balloon test the nronosed facili would be siificantl screened b ye.etation alone the eastern edge of Tasker Park. Peak usage of the park is expected during seasons where screening would be even more si' ificant as a result of folia'e on the trees.Therefore although there ma be limited views from Robert W. Tasker Memorial Park, the proposed facili _ is not expected to result in any significant adverse visual impacts. Jean W Cochran Park: Jean W. Cochran Park is located on the west side of Peconic Lane, a..roximatel 2 300 feet from the proposed facili . A .hotoa.h from the 'ark towards the oro-ect site is seen in Fi. e 2-8b. :ased on the balloon test the .ro.osed facili i would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by the existing vegetation light poles, fences and electric transmission lines. Limited views of the .ro.osed facili ma be possible during winter months but an view ill be insi i icant due to the hi!I-1 level of screenin.. Peak usa=e of the 'ark is exected durin. seasons w ere trees would have leaves.Therefore althou•h there ma be limited views of the proposed acili from Jean W. Cochran 'ark it is not ex.ected to result in an si• ificant adverse visual imp acts. Historic Resources As discussed above no historic resources of National or Statewide si. ificance were identified in the study area. There were four local historic resources identified that fell outside the %z-mile stud area but were surve ed to determine if views of the .ro.osed facili would be .ossible. Town Doctor's House: The Town Doctor's House is located on Ackerly Pond Lane, more than 4 500 feet from the proposed facility. Figgre 2-8b shows tunical views toward the nr 'ect site from Ackerl Pond Lane. Based on the balloon test most views .f the .ro.ect site from Ackerl Pond Lane would be corn sletel screened b the existin• ve.etation and buildin.s. The proposed facility would be barel visible from onl a single segment of the roadway. A 2-23 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project photosimulation of this view is provided in Figure 2-9b. Therefore, the proposed facility would not result in any significant adverse visual impacts to the Town Doctor's House. Joseph Reeve House: The Joseph Reeve House is located on Lower Road,more than 3,300 feet from the oro.osed facili . Views of the .ro.ect site are not likel due to ve'etation buildin. s and to ash . Therefore the .ro.osed facili ould not result in an si ificant adverse impacts to the Joseph Reeve House. Abijah Corey House: The Abijah Corey House is located on Main Bayview Road. more than 4,250 feet from the proposed facility. Views of the pro'ect site are not likel due to vegetation, buildings, and topography. Therefore, the proposed facility would not result in any si! ificant adverse impacts to the Abijah Corey House. Deacon James Horton House: The Deacon James Horton is located on Main Bayview Road, more than 4,250 feet from the proposed facility. Views of the project site are not likely due to vegetation buildings, and topography Therefore, the proposed facility would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the Deacon James Horton House. Scenic Byways he Town of Southold has develo.ed a Scenic B a s Corridor Mana'ement Plan. Several of the transportation corridors in the proposed facility's study area are identified and discussed in the plan. Each of these scenic corridors were field surveyed to evaluate the potential for significant adverse impacts to their scenic character. 'oute 25 aim Road :Route 25 is one of the .rima trans.ortation corridors runnin. east-west through the Town of Southold. New York State Department of Transportation SDOT) Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts for the segment of roadwa in the stud area are available from 2002.These counts estimated that an average of 11,355 vehicles travel per day on the road segment between New Suffolk Avenue and Tucker Lane. Although the proposed facili is located close to this scenic roadwa im.acts to the roadwa 's scenic character are ex.ected to be minimal due to the existin' character of the surroundin landsca.e.The oro.osed facility will be visible onl when traveling east on Route 25. Based on the balloon test, the proposed facility will be visible from locations within 1-mile of the project site but onl in a limited number of locations where there are gaps in topography and buildin's. Furthermore man of the locations fro hich the .ro.osed acili would be visible would also have views o existin._ communications towers. ese existin• towers would .revent the .ro.osed facili from .ecomin. a dominant feature in the landsca.e. Furthermore the color of the proposed wind turbine facility and the lattice desi of the tower diminishes the visibility of the proposed facility as distance increases. iews of the .ro.osed facili from Route 25 become more .rominent when travelin' east a..roximatel 1 3-mile awa from the .ro'ect site. A .hotosimulation was ore.ared from the .oint on Route 25 lust east of the Ford dealership, when views become readily available. This location is about 1 740 feet or 1/3-mile awa from the .ro'ect site see Fie 2-'c . Views o the oro.osed facili would be available across the existin' vine ard. The oroosed facili is not expected to be a dominant feature in the landscape from this location because of existing mature ve,etation and buildin's that will be in the mid' ound see i' re 2-8c . Closer to the .roiect site, sporadic views of the proposed facili are •ossible where 'aps in ye'etation and buildin's exist. I ce distance from the facili is reduced to less than approximately 1/4-mile, the proposed facility becomes more difficult to view as a function of the 2-24 2 1 8.ua _ p; .✓r5mF4 View to the east toward project site from Town Recreation Center V.i y View to the east toward project site from Robert W. Tasker Memorial Park Potential Views LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-8a 2.18.04 A ,�,1,n,,,�£�r� ��� t.� a, ��� � � 1 ir�1�±, A � �� � t \ \� vf1d �1,11h��1, ,�� !'k�,, 1',(�'i''''11G'1111'i1 V,, '1 ,,,v��L11 ,1,'4\4% 0 '�d''\1\ZVI'\,,p t 1,, �_ ,,,,\,,,,,,,,61,44,0, P11h�d1i�1�,•Y� , 1111�AH ,1�A a,y,lR�1�11�i�.1��11v,g0o,,,,,op4ti��N�ko,'.�t1��yiiP1\t o.1��1�1�4�u1��ai1,1�A,.'4,N A�,�j1\�,�V;,,,',,,,,1 vii,�� A,,,,,,, , .:•° �1�Wahl` Fi �,"',,,''`.\,'.\% „i n1�1°� ��1�� pN�A����1 nd�1���11111q���b�) ��1�1'�1pA'���,��1��`��1�1�`1111�k�,�\`�1{4��II,ly,i'�i�l�wlp,Piq^u�u u,,•'�i;.�i � � ,,,,`,;4640•49*` ��yWd1',1H,,�h"''''.'U'�1WS'.\y\,r��rk.',4:iW,t4�,1,1'dd1Nilkki,�1�11pY,,1� ;ilt,1,,,,,A�,4,"t,l�, ,,Al,,1al��a1',�'J,, „,,,,���AF10\,,)1,,,„„,1A1,�,,K,,�,,,$,;y1 ,,: 1 1�1 �6 ,,.�eo j�i ,1„1,,,1,p\ �� �,,� l,„,,1`*\„ �1 q1),A �S„,J1,R.,11 , fffhlM,:`�P,f y,,1 �11'.,1\r''"�,1111,,'''.1�myr ,Za,iuiP hw .,.111\,�1S��h,:°��011�1u1 i,��� ,1�1\ ',444, AnAl�p�q , '..1 i i 1 ,' 1'pt �S� ,,:�° t "jJ ,, ,,„ ,-14,x”„1V''.A1*�ll'�w�,,,,,;'4�a,,.11 11,.,4,,it.�,+, yriA�1���,`l'��111�k\4u�i�4\\,,''k;ok,..111�`, W`d;,,-1 , ,,, 1 ill,th,1, -1�,4„,�111,t,1P ,,44,1 X11 ,., ',1,; 11,,,V41t� ,,, ,,,�1 °°[ x a ,, 1 "�e1A, 1�`V 1,''1,\,V�i'"�4iti\5�,'.,1,',V11 � •�� k ��V � 1� V �iA,A1111�1 ,„ a, If* 11 $ 1= 4 . View to the east toward project site from Jean W.Cochran Park ` wY,.� -,q ria Alt �� � w� ''‘''\ ' '.'ii744.‘: st it" ' Ilk. \III X.,,, ri..11\ i,I. 1 ,, ./I ;,' ' . I ;; ‘ 1.,,,, ‘‘‘, 1r, i , 411/4 .at \ oma,. �' w ft1 L, iii; 1- irts, /r ..y ,,..'.5e.,,,..,,t:,:-.6,,ritiii4 .‘”, . .;IN ISN�, y 7 ¢ C.4 ,0, ItY Via(i", ��.�.� J _ , Si) r-�, ', Typical view from Ackerley Pond Lane looking west toward project site Potential Views LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-8b 2 18.04 tf •�J�-P� ,o1,,111! I i, i!!C J! • trlq 1�Mi� IJIs , a{I rII t' ' t' � a' l ! xl I f( ( 4r I i i it 't q r J View to the northeast toward project site from Main Road approximately 1/4-mile west of project site Potential Views LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-8c T Cel \s' �\O y 1 � Q� o O xO Source:New New York State GIS Cleaminghouse,2001 • Project Site r I Feet ElNoise Receptor 500 1,000 ,,,,, 0.5 Mile Study Area Peconic LIRR Tracks Project Site Location Figure 2-9 View east from the Town Recreation Center—Without the proposed project View east from the Town Reu eation Center—With the proposed project Photosimulations LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-9a 3.4.04 ,7 vf, ,r g � � iy,{ e•..a do View west from Ackerly Pond Lane—Without the proposed project I 1, a I ' A '0 444 • .-s K View west from Ackerly Pond Lane—With the proposed project Photosimulations LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-9b \\\., ''.."'''--"--.'''''''-'".''''''-'''''''''''"---....,._._..,__,__.___.,,.,„,_,__..._._„s__...._.______________L i Ill rf.h.Ra:r..7-74'4,•.-. ......,„a-x t 4 ,,,e,,, . . 44, I '„,; rvx V yyy[ _w w3 L i 7„ 4:,:-,.r.-„,;;,,,,4,',,'',;;:..-. View northeast from Route 25—Without the proposed project o, w, i 4 474"---.40-0. . 44p_ Ad 1 L*4.. .�, '.A,,.rte' !fit d ' ' rte. r. gi • .Pisr' rte\ "=t i_",�`,mss...=_4LI." zitici ..." ' . View northeast from Route 25—With the proposed project Photosimulations LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-9c Chapter 2:Peconic Site existin' ve'etation and buildin s linin g the road which would .rovide screenin . A .erson travelin. on Route 25 may be able to catch glimpses of the pro.osed facility from a limited number of places where there are gaps in the existing ye'etation and buildings. Even where the .ro.osed facili ma be visible the bearin! of the roadwa com.ared to the bearin! of the view and antici sated s.eeds in excess of 35 miles .er hour will onl make the facili visible throu'h deliberate examination of the landsca.e. Therefore the .roosed facili is not ex s ected to result in any significant adverse visual impacts to the Route 25 Scenic Corridor. Count Road 4: Middle Road : A small se. ent of Coun Road 48 is located within the ' - mile stud area. Coun Road 48 runs east-west :enerall_.arallel to Route 25 at the northe edge of the study area.This segment lies just under '/z-mile from the proposed facility.Based on the balloon test views of the .ro.osed facili alon' the roadwa would be limited if at all possible, due to existing mature vegetation and buildings. Therefore,the proposed facility is not ex.ected to result in an si' ificant adverse visual im.acts to the Coun Road 48 Scenic Corridor. North Road:North Road is located over 1 mile from the study area and runs east-west.Views of the .roposed facility are not likely from such distances.The balloon could not be seen durin. the balloon test. Therefore the .ro.osed facili is not ex.ected to result in an si ificant adverse visual impacts to the North Road Scenic Corridor. Main Bayview Road: A small se• ent of Main Ba iew Road is located within 1 mile of the .ro.osed facili . The road i enerall runs north-south. At distances eater than ' -mile views are ex.ected to be minimal due to the effects of atmos.heric .ers.ective and the lattice desi. of the tower. Furthermore most views will be corn.letel screened b the existin. ve:etation and buildin g s that line the ma'ori of the roadwa . Based on the balloon test the .ro.osed facili would not be visible. Therefore, the proposed facility is not ex.ected to result in an si. ificant adverse visual impacts to the Main Bayview Road Scenic Corridor. Long Island Rail Road Main Line: A portion of the LIRR Main Line lies within %2-mile of the stud area. Passengers sitting on the southern side of both east and westbound trains will likel have views of the proposed facility. There is a large planted vine and between the tracks and the .ro.osed facili . Views of the lattice tower are ex.ected to be similar to views of communications towers and other existing vertical elements as shown in Figures 2-6a and 2-6b. Due to restrictions on .u.lic access to the LIRR tracks .nl LIRR .assen•e would have views of the .ro.osed facili and such views would be moment. since the train would be in motion. Visibili of the .ro.osed facili will also be somewhat minimized b atmos.heric .ers.ective with the proposed facility being just under '/2-mile awa . The color and desi of the proposed facili is ex.ected to minimize its .resence in the surroundin' landsca.e. There ore the .roDosed facili is not exected to result in an si ificant adverse visual im.acts to the LIRR Main Line Scenic Corridor. Other Roadways There are three roadways that lie less than %2-mile from the proposed facility that are not designated as scenic corridors,but they mayprovide potential views of the proposed facility. Peconic Lane: Peconic Lane is located on the west side of the study area and runs perpendicular to Route 25. The Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tasker Park are all located on Peconic Lane. Figures 2-8a and 2-8b shows photos from these locations. The proposed facility will be visible across the field between the recreation center and Ford dealer. There are approximately seven homes on the west side of 'econic Lane that would likel have 2-25 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project views of the proposed facility. Views from this section of Peconic Lane would be similar to views from the Town Recreation Center(see Figure 2-9a). Mature ve a etation and buildin,s alone most of the roadwa will screen the ma'ori of views of the proposed facility. These limited opportunities for visibility and intervening vegetation along ith the miti a atin: effects of .ers.ective would avoid an si, if cant ad erse visual im'acts along Peconic Lane. Carol! Avenue: Caroll Avenue is a short road that borders Robert W. Tasker Park. Mature ve.etation exists alon. alme st the entire south and east side of the roadwa . This ve•etation will screen views of the proposed facility. Based on the balloon test, the proposed facility would not be visible. Therefore the .ro.osed facili is not ex.ected to result in an si• ificant adverse visual impacts along Caroll Avenue. Wells Road: Wells Road runs perpendicular to Route 25 on the south side of Route 25. Existing vegetation and buildings on both Route 25 and Wells Road are expected to screen most views of the proposed facility. Based on the balloon test, although the top of the lattice tower and blades ma be vi ible above the existin. ve!etation and buildin=s the .ro.osed facili would not be a dominant feature in the landscape. The coloring and lattice design of the tower are expected to reduce its visibility in the surrounding environment. Therefore, the proposed facility is not ex.ected to resu tin an si' ificant adverse visual im.acts alone Wells Road. CONCLUSION e .ro.osed wind turbine would be isib e or .artiall visible from various see ents of the r.adwa s identified above but is not ex.ected to have an si! ificant adverse im.acts on the visual character of the study area. Recreational users of the parks may have views or partial views of the proposed facility,but these views are not expected to be si. ificantl different from existing conditions andould not detract om the overall eniortmnent O the nark. Although the hei ht of the proposed wind turbine would exceed the height of most other structures in the area it i ex.ected that the ve l etation and other buildin.s surroundin• the .ro'ect site would .revent views from most locations within the study area. In the limited number of locations where views are .ossible the narrow desi• and colorin= of the lattice tower and blades are ex.ected to minimize visibili . Therefore,even thou'h views of the proposed facili ma be .ossible,the are not expected to dominate the landscape or reduce the quality of any of the scenic, community,or historic resources in or around the study area. This anal sis conclude that the or..osed facili would not im.air the visual landsca.e as ex.erienced from an scenic or historic re ources or interfere with or reduce the .ublic' en'o ent an. or a..reciation of the a..earance of any inventoried scenic, historic or locally si ificant resource. Therefore the proposed facility would not be ex.ected to result in an significant adverse visual impacts to the study area. E. NATURAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This section addresses natural resource issues, presents information on the site's existing resources, and identifies potential impacts of the proposed project. Field surveys were conducted during April 2002 and September 2003 to evaluate whether any natural resources are present on the site. The discussion of resources was also based on existing information and data from the 2-26 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Natural Heritage Program. The Natural Heritage Program maintains a database of rare or state- listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats that occur in New York State. Since the facility is expected to be constructed and operating by the spring of 2004 and conditions would not substantially change from existing conditions, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed project. EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS The wind turbine project site is located within an existing vineyard, on an open, grass-covered field adjacent to planted grape vines.No significant natural resources were found on-site. The Natural Heritage Program database found that two sensitise plant species may occur in the Peconic vicinity. Woodland agrimony (Agrimonia rostellata), and orange fringed orchis (Platanthera ciliaris) were last seen in the Peconic area in the early 20th century and therefore have more than likely been extirpated from this area.The woodland agrimony is generally found in dry wooded areas. Because the project site is located within an existing vineyard, it can be concluded that this particular species would not occur on the project site. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The site is currently part of an existing vineyard and located on disturbed land adjacent to planted grape vines. The proposed facility would not have any significant adverse effect on groundwater and surface water. There are no significant natural resources or wetlands located on-site or within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, in conjunction with this assessment, LIPA retained Dr. Paul Kerlinger of Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, (C&K) to perform an avian risk assessment of the proposed facility, and evaluate impacts of this facility on birds. A copy of the C&K report is contained in Attachment B. The C&K study included a literature review and site visits by an avian expert. These sources of information were used to provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use the wind turbine project site and the area surrounding that site. This information was then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any, from wind power development at the particular site. The closest sensitive habitat for birds is at least 400 to 500 feet from the Peconic site. The project site does not contain sensitive habitats or even habitats where birds normally nest. Human activity at the site is considerable including farm equipment, earth moving equipment, trucks, and field workers. Nothing in the literature or from what was observed at the project site indicated that the site is an important nesting or foraging area for birds, including federally or state listed or sensitive (species of concern) species. There are no known hawk migration pathways or lookouts on or within many miles of the project site. The site is not known to be a significant wintering site for birds, so relatively few species are likely to use the site between mid-November and mid-March. In addition, there was no evidence that the wind turbine project site or lands adjacent to the site would attract significant concentrations of migrating or wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, hawks, or other species. However, small numbers of songbirds and other species are likely to migrate over the project site. Site visits revealed no evidence of endangered or 2-27 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project threatened species (federal or state)presence on or use of the site and the habitat did not appear to be suitable for such species. Birds observed during the site visits indicated that the species most likely to be present and use the project site are common birds of farmland,brushland, and residential areas.Raptors that may frequent the site and nest nearby are primarily Red-tailed Hawk and American Kestrel, and, perhaps, Northern Harrier, although in winter some Rough-legged Hawks are likely to be present.Also, Ospreys nest within a mile.Herons and egrets may fly near or over the site as they move between foraging sites. Use of the project site and the area immediately adjacent to the project site by all but a few common songbirds is very low. A review of the available literature on wind turbine impacts on birds did not reveal evidence that would suggest that small, single-turbine projects like the proposed project,pose any risk to birds. Studies have shown that the least impact tends to occur with small numbers of turbines, especially if they are situated in agricultural fields.No records of fatalities at small turbines, like the 50-kilowatt Atlantic Orient Corporation Model AOC 15/50 wind turbine proposed for this facility, could be found in the literature. Similarly, free-standing (unguyed) communications towers have almost never been implicated in avian collision fatalities. Because the proposed facility would consist of a single, small turbine and would be situated in an area where bird use is likely to be low, the C&K study concluded that it would be highly improbable that the proposed facility would pose any significant adverse risk to birds. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on natural resources. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS METHODOLOGY This chapter assesses the possibility that hazardous materials may be found in soil or groundwater on-site and evaluates the potential impacts associated with redevelopment of the site. To identify potential sources of hazardous materials, a site reconnaissance of existing site conditions was performed at the wind turbine site. This study included a visual inspection of the area to identify on-site hazardous material uses and to assess existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS The study site is located within an existing vineyard on an open field adjacent to planted grape vines and north of a storage/utility building for the vineyard.The site was chosen by LIPA based on its former and current agricultural use and has no known available history of industrial usage. No unusual staining or stressed vegetation was noted at the study site or surrounding area. No structures were located at the site or at surrounding areas that would impact the study area. Based on the location of the site, its current condition and the historical and current usage, the potential concerns associated with the proposed construction of the wind turbine would likely be the presence of pesticides and/or herbicides in the soil. Pesticides and/or herbicides have likely been applied to the vegetation over time to destroy insects and to inhibit the growth of weeds. However,no stressed vegetation and no unusual staining were noted on the surficial soil in these areas. 2-28 Chapter 2:Peconic Site PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The development of the wind turbine site would involve limited excavation and disturbance of the existing soil on the site. The construction of a utility trench may have the potential for exposure to impacts due to possible contaminants in.the soil. The exact location of the utility trench would be determined prior to construction. Construction activities may result in temporary increases in exposure pathways for construction workers to the potential pesticides and herbicides in the soil. Typically, concentrations of pesticides and herbicides used for vineyards are not sufficient to require a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) during subsequent excavation in areas where such chemicals have been properly used. However, to avoid any potential adverse health impacts, field personnel would be instructed to be aware of staining and/or odors. If any staining or odors are noted by field personnel during construction, excavation activities would be stopped and appropriate measures would be taken prior to resuming such activities. These measures would include the implementation of a construction Health and Safety Plan,which would detail appropriate testing and/or monitoring to assure that the construction workers, site abutters and the environment are not adversely affected by the construction activities. With these measures, and based upon the sites previous farming use and field observations, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the construction activities associated with the proposed facility. G. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION METHODOLOGY The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 sets forth standard policies for reviewing proposed projects along coastlines.The NYSDOS administers the program at the state level.The 44 statewide policies for waterfront protection and improvement address public access, recreation, development, flood and erosion hazards, water resources, fish and wildlife, scenic quality, cultural resources,and air quality. Each of the State's 44 policies is discussed in Attachment C of this Environmental Assessment. Many of these policies do not apply to the proposed project. Those policies that apply to this particular site are discussed below. POLICY ANALYSIS Policy 23: Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas, or sites that are of signifi- cance in the history, architecture, archeology, or culture of the State, its communities, or the nation. The proposed project would not adversely affect any structures, sites, or districts of historical, architectural,archaeological, or cultural significance. Policy 24:Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance. The proposed facili would not sit i icantl imp air the visual landscape as exerienced from an scenic or historic resource or interfere with or reduce the public's en'o ent and/or a p preciation of the a p p earance of an inventoried scenic historic or locall si! ificant resource see Section D "Visual Resources" . 2-29 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area. The proposed site is farmed agricultural land which is consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project site is 25 feet x 35 feet,it is not expected that the proposed project would significantly impact agricultural lands. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM In addition to the 44 policies set forth by the state, the Town of Southold has developed 13 policies which were adopted in April 2003 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). These policies are used as guidelines for development and proposed actions in the Town. According to the Town of Southold,the following is a summary list of the LWRP policies: Policy 1: Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location,and minimizes adverse effects of development. The proposed project would be developed on existing agricultural land utilizing existing developed areas instead of vacant, natural areas. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 2: Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. The proposed project would not adversely affect historic resources in the Town. The wind turbine site has been examined for this policy. In addition, no historic resources exist within %2 mile of the project site. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 3: Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. As concluded in the visual impact assessment, the proposed facility would not si_ ificantl impair the visual landscape as exerienced from an scenic or historic esource or interfere with or reduce the public's en-o ent and/or appreciation of the appearance of any inventoried scenic historic resource or locall si! ificant resource see Section D, "Visual Resources").The proposed wind turbine is not inconsistent with an o the Polic Standards. P.lic Standard recommends that co .onents o development which detract from visual quality be screened. Whereas Policy Standard D ecommend the a•pro.riate use of itin. scales fo s and materials to ensure that structures are c.m.atible with and add int- est to existin' scenic component In accordance with these Policy Standards, landscaping and fencin• to screen the view o the base of the tower are proposed and the siting, scale, and form are appropriate and necessary for the wind turbine to function. The materials and colors will be chosen to minimize visual contrast with the background sky. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4:Minimize loss of life, structures,and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Because of existing agricultural development and land uses, the project site does not contain natural features, such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, or other natural protective features.This policy does not apply. Policy 5:Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. 2-30 Chapter 2:Peconic Site This policy is not applicable. The proposed project would not involve the use or degradation of surface or groundwater. Policy 6:Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem. Given the nature of the proposed project site, agricultural land, there are no significant natural resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. This policy does not apply. Policy 7:Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. ' The proposed project would not degrade air quality in the Town or cause violations of state or national air quality standards. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 8: Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. The proposed project would not produce solid waste or hazardous substances or waste. Therefore,this policy does not apply. Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters,public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. This policy does not apply.The project site is privately owned and would not be located on coastal waters. Policy 10: Protect the Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water- dependent uses in suitable locations. The proposed project would not involve water-dependent uses. This policy is not applicable. Policy 11:Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Long Island Sound,Peconic Estuary, and Town waters. This policy is not applicable. Policy 12:Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. The proposed project would be sited on 0.02 acres of vacant land within an existing 50- acre site. IP• 's wind turbine sitin= fro. am was devel s sed with the Lon• Island Farm Bureau which has the mandate to .rotect a! 'cultural land. Because the proposed project site is 25 feet x 35 feet, and is located on an area slanted 'th tur It ass it is expected that the proposed project would not significantly impact agricultural lands.The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 13: Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. The proposed project is the development of a wind turbine, to produce energy. Wind turbines are an alternative, self-sustaining energy source. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. 2-31 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project H.INFRASTRUCTURE METHODOLOGY The proposed wind turbine facility would initially generate a greater degree of activity to the project site during the construction phase than what currently exists. This activity would ' primarily involve construction vehicles and equipment and would not create a new demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management. While the surrounding vineyard and wine /visitor center consume water and •enerate sewa•e and solid waste no new demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management would be generated by the proposed wind turbine. As a producer of renewable energy, the proposed facility would contribute electrical power to the existing power grid. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SUPPLY As a private agricultural site, the existing water demands for the proposed site are for agricultural purposes. SANITARY SEWAGE The wine r *sitor center currentl •enerate sewa=e flow. No ew ewa!e flo would be created by the proposed wind turbine. SOLID WASTE No solid waste is currently generated on the proposed site. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF TICE PROPOSED PROJECT WATER SUPPLY The proposed project would not generate new demand for water supply. SANITARY SEWAGE The proposed project would not contribute any additional sanitary sewage flow to the existing sewer system. SOLID WASTE • The proposed facility would not generate additional solid waste. ENERGY Over a 20-year period, the proposed facility is expected to contribute an additional 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electrical power annually to the existing power grid without generating any additional demand. 2-32 Chapter 2:Peconic Site I. TRAFFIC The proposed wind turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips. After construction is completed, the only vehicle trips would be, at most, a weekly or biweekly visit to check that the facility is operating correctly, and a monthly or quarterly preventive maintenance trip. :ased o o.erations at an existin t facili in the Town o Riverhead and the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule (see Attachment D), there would be no more than four vehicle tri.s tier month •enerated as a result of the proposed project. This small number of vehicle trips would not result in any significant impacts. J.AIR QUALITY The proposed wind turbine facility would have a beneficial effect on air quality. It would produce electrical energy without burning any fossil fuels or emitting any pollutants. Over a 20- year period, assuming 100,000 kwh of electrical power is generated annually, the wind turbine would result in the elimination of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates that would otherwise be emitted from fossil fuel fired power generating facilities. This estimate is based on information provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which compiled fuel usage and emission factors from a typical mix of fossil fuel fired utilities in New York State, as well as United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)AP-42 emission factors and LIPA system average heat rates.In addition, over the same 20-year period, the wind turbines would eliminate the use of approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas. K. NOISE METHODOLOGY The noise analysis for the proposed wind turbine facility focuses on noise impacts from the operation of mechanical equipment at the project site. The proposed project would only occasionally generate a small number of vehicle trips, which would not have the potential for significantly affecting noise levels. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS "A"-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL(DBA) Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dB). Because loudness is important in the assessment of the effects of noise on people, the dependence of loudness on frequency must be taken into account in the noise scale used in environmental assessments. One of the simplified scales that accounts for the dependence of perceived loudness on frequency is the use of a weighting network, known as A-weighting, in the measurement system, to simulate the response of the human ear. For most noise assessments, the A-weighted sound pressure level in units of dBA is used in view of its widespread recognition and its close correlation with perception. In the current study,all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted decibels. 2-33 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS The average ability of an individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented(see Table 2-2). Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most listeners, whereas 10 dBA changes are normally perceived as doublings (or halvings) of noise levels. These guidelines permit direct estimation of an individual's probable perception of changes in noise levels. It is also possible to characterize the effects of noise on people by studying the aggregate response of people in communities. The rating method used for this purpose is based on a statistical analysis of the fluctuations in noise levels in a community, and integrating the fluctuating sound energy during a known period of time, most typically during 1 hour or 24 hours. Various government and research institutions have proposed criteria that attempt to relate changes in noise levels to community response. One commonly applied criterion for estimating response is incorporated into the community response scale proposed by the International Standards Organization(ISO) of the United Nations (see Table 2-3). This scale relates changes in noise level to the degree of community response and permits direct estimation of the probable response of a community to a predicted change in noise level. Table 2-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels Change (dBA) - Human Perception of Sound 2-3 Barely perceptible 5 Readily noticeable 10 A doubling or having of the loudness of sound 20 A"dramatic change" 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound Sources: Bolt Beranek and Neuman, Inc., Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration,June 1973. Table 2-3 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels Change (dBA) Category Description 0 None No observed reaction 5 Little Sporadic complaints 10 Medium Widespread complaints 15 Strong Threats of community action 20 Very strong Vigorous community action Sources: International Standards Organization, Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Re- sponses, ISO/TC 43.(New York: United Nations, November 1969). NOISE DESCRIPTORS USED INIMPACT ASSESSMENT Because the sound pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment and because very few noises are constant,other ways of describing noise over more extended periods have been developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over a specific period, as if it were a steady,unchanging sound. For this condition, a 2-34 Chapter 2:Peconic Site descriptor called the "equivalent sound level," or Leq(1), can be computed. This is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and period (e.g., 1 hour, denoted by Leq(1), or 24 hours, denoted as Leq(24), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. Statistical sound level descriptors—such as L1, L10, L50, and L90--are sometimes used to indicate noise levels that are exceeded 1, 10, 50, and 90 percent of the time,respectively. Discrete event peak levels are given as levels. The relationship between Leq and levels of exceedance is worth noting. Because Leq is defined in energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is not simply related to the levels of exceedance. If the noise fluctuates very little, Leq will approximate L50 or the median level. If the noise fluctuates broadly, the Leq will be approximately equal to the L10 value. If there are extreme fluctuations, the Leq will exceed the background level by 10 or more decibels. Thus, the relationship between Leq and the levels of exceedance will depend on the character of the noise. In community noise measurements, it has been observed that the Leq is generally between L10 and L50.The relationship between Leq and exceedance levels has been used in the current studies to characterize the noise sources and to determine the nature and extent of their impact at all receptor locations. For purposes of the proposed project, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. Leq(1)is a noise descriptor that is widely used for project impact evaluation, including stationary source equipment noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels. NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA There are a variety of noise standards and guidelines that have been promulgated by various city, state, and federal agencies. A number of these agencies criteria are discussed below. However, none of these criteria are directly applicable to the proposed facility. SOUTHOLD NOISE CODE The Town of Southold does not have a noise code which would be applicable to the proposed facility and would provide noise limits or contains impact criteria. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The NYSDOT has noise criteria that it uses for projects subject to its jurisdiction.NYSDOT has adopted the noise criteria of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) (23 CFR 772).These criteria have two components:a"fixed"noise criteria and a"relative"noise criteria. The fixed noise criteria consist of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which are shown in Table 2-4.These NAC depend on task interference due to noise interruption of various activities involving speech, which vary by land use.By NYSDOT policy, substantial fixed noise impacts occur when predicted traffic-noise levels equal or exceed the applicable NAC from this table.The second type of FHWA criterion is relative to existing noise levels. Substantial relative noise impacts occur when predicted traffic-noise levels increase by more than 5 decibels (i.e., 6 decibels or more) above existing noise levels. 2-35 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-4 FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria Activity Category Les(1) Description of Activity A 57 Outdoors Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Outdoors Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Outdoors Developed lands, properties,or activities not included in Categories AU B D None Undevelopedorabove.lands. E 52 Outdoors Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, chur- ches, libraries,hospitals,and auditoriums. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NYSDEC recently published a guidance document titled Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (October 6, 2000). This document states that increases from 0 to 3 dBA should have no appreciable effect on receptors, increases of 3 to 6 dBA may have the potential for adverse impact only in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present, and increases of more than 6 dBA may require a closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing noise levels and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. It goes on to say that in terms of threshold values,the addition of any noise source,in a non-industrial setting, should not raise the ambient noise level above a maximum of 65 dBA, and ambient noise levels in industrial or commercial areas may exceed 65 dBA with a high end of approximately 79 dBA.Projects which exceed these guidance levels should explore the feasibility of implementing mitigation. NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972 As a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, a document entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, was published in 1974 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Table 2-5 shows these values. These levels do not constitute enforceable federal regulations or standards.Nevertheless,the noise levels identified by EPA represent valid criteria for evaluating the effect of project noise on public health and welfare. IMPACT CRITERIA For purposes of this project, the project would have a significant impact if noise levels with the project exceed an Leq(1) value of 50 dBA, and the project results in an increase in Leq0) noise levels over future conditions without the project of greater than 5 dBA. Both conditions would have to occur in order to have a significant impact. The 50 dBA criteria is based upon a consideration of achieving a 40 dBA interior noise levels.Absent any special window treatment, typical building construction produces 10 dBA of attenuation with an open window.Therefore,a 50 dBA exterior noise level would be reduced by typical building construction to approximately a 40 dBA interior value, which is a relatively low value. The 5 dBA relative change criteria, is 2-36 Chapter 2:Peconic Site consistent with increases in noise levels that are generally considered noticeable and likely to result in complaints. Table 2-5 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety Effect Level Area Hearing loss Le1(24)s 70 dB All areas Outdoor activity interference La„s 55 dB Outdoors in residential areas and annoyance and farms, and other outdoor areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time • and other places in which quiet is a basis for use. Leq(24)s 55 dB Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time,such as school yards,playgrounds,etc. Indoor activity interference Ld,s 45 dB Indoor residential areas. and annoyance Leo(24)s45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities,such as schools,etc. Sources: Report No.EPA-550/9-74-004,March 1974. NOISE PREDICTION METHODOLOGY Noise levels for the wind turbine at each receptor locations were calculated using the following formula: Lp=L,,.-20Log D-0.6 where Lp=sound level at specified location LW=sound power level D=distance from source(feet) The sound .ressure level varies ith .nd s seed and direction. AccordinI to the manufacturer based u.on field measurements of existin. installations the maximum sound power level for the Atlantic Orient Co .oration Model AOC 15/50 wind turbine is a i.roximatel 101 dB. EXISTING CONDITIONS SELECTION OF NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS A receptor site near residences or other sensitive receptor sites on roadways adjacent to the project site was selected for analysis. The receptor site was located on Route 25 (i.e., at 43000 Route 25), between Wells Road and Maple Avenue. The selected receptor site is representative of noise levels in the area, and is a location that has the potential for the largest increases in noise levels from the proposed facility(see Figure 2-10). NOISE MONITORING At the selected noise receptor site, a 20-minute noise measurement was made on a Saturday night/Sunday morning between 10 PM and 5 AM. The weekend late night/early morning period was selected, since this is the time period when existing noise levels would be expected to be low and, consequently, project impacts would be expected to be the largest. It is also the time period when generally any nearby residences would be the most sensitive to increases in noise 2-37 N, OPS �\X- ,,� 4/ , :; '4 N Alp 14''' ir.'l''',,,4'- ''''' ', •• . 1-,";- - : I 'y " ' ,'''''',N ' , ', 4 .,,,„„ , ,, ,,, ,,, ,, .,‘ \ -5 , - 7`,,, ,,,,' '44104 - -.. /,,' '.' c'(` -,1* .4 -.'L .,404 gli"L rP 4P • % Source New York State GIS Cleaminghouse,2001 } it Project Site I I I Feet G ',o0 1,000 Noise Receptor 0.5 Mile Study Area Peconic ---,'--- LIRRlracks Noise Monitoring Location Figure 2-10 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project levels. During other hours project noise impacts would be expected to be lower than during the late night/early morning period. Equipment Used The noise monitoring was conducted using a Larson Davis Labs (LDL) Model MK224 microphone connected to an LDL preamplifier attached to an LDL Model 700 Type 1 (according to ANSI Standard S1.4-1983) sound level meter. The equipment was mounted at a height of 4 feet above the ground on a tripod.The meter was calibrated before and after readings with a Briiel & Kja3r Type 4230 sound level calibrator using the appropriate adaptor. Measurements at each location were made on the A-scale(dBA)for a sampling period of 1 hour. The data were digitally recorded by the noise analyzer and displayed at the end of the measurement period in units of dBA. Measured quantities included Leg, L1, L10, L50, and L90 . A windscreen was used during all sound measurements except for calibration. All measurement procedures conformed with the requirements of ANSI Standard S1.13-1971 (R1976). Results of Measurements Existing monitored noise levels (Leq(1) and statistical noise levels) at the receptor site are summarized in Table 2-6. Measured noise levels at the measurement site are relatively low and reflect the relatively low traffic volumes on Route 25 and the fact that there are no significant noise sources in the area. Table 2-6 Existing Noise Levels Adjacent to the Peconic Wind Turbine Site Site Location Leq(1) L1(1) L10(1) L5o(1) L90(1) 1 Route 25 48.4 61.0 46.0 41.0 37.5 Notes: All values in dBA. Values measured by AKRF, Inc.,on Sat./Sun. May 11th/12th,2002. NO BUILD CONDITIONS Since it is anticipated that the proposed facility would be in operation by the spring of 2004, conditions without the proposed project would be the same as existing conditions (i.e., noise levels would be the same as those shown in Table 2-5). PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The closest residence to the project site is approximately 670 feet south on Route 25. Because this is the closest residence to the proposed wind turbine,maximum impacts would be expected at this location Other residences in the area as well as residential zoned pro.erties are located rther awa from the Drowsed wind turbine, and n.ise generated by the wind turbine, and .ro.ect ' .acts would be less than at t is selected rece.tor location. At this residence, noise levels from the wind turbine would be approximately 43.9 dBA. Without the proposed facility, based upon the measured background noise levels, nighttime Leq(1)noise levels values would be approximately 48.4 dBA. The proposed wind turbine would increase the noise levels at this residence by approximately 1.3 dBA to a background noise level of approximately 49.7 dBA. An increase of this magnitude would be an imperceptible and insignificant change in noise levels calculations are contained in Attachment E . Als. note the im.acts shown are a conservative estimate of.ro'ect im.acts.Maximum noise levels from the ind turbine •enerall 2-38 Chapter 2:Peconic Site occur durin. •eri•ds when hi•h wind occur.Dunn .eriods ofhi!h winds a •fent noise levels tend to be hi.her than the values used or this anal sis which to •roduce a conserva 'ye im•act anal sis ere measured durin •eriods of relativel low wind s I eed. Therefore, at all sensitive receptor locations, the proposed facility would not result in significant noise impacts.The above results are conservative, since they do not take into consideration wind noise, which would mask some, if not all of the noise generated by the wind turbine, on windy days. L. CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY The proposed wind turbine site is an open field located within an existing vineyard adjacent to planted vines.The site is relatively flat.There are no structures on the immediate project site and no demolition activities would be required for installation of the proposed facility. These activities generally fall within the following four phases: preconstruction site preparation; unit assembly and site finish; and utility connections(electrical distribution). Each of these activities, as well as potential project impacts, are described below. PRECONSTRUCTION SITE PREPARATION Pre-installation site preparation would start with clearing the site to remove any vegetation (grass-cover), grading to a level surface (limited grading may be required) and limited surface soil excavation. This would be followed by installation of the equipment slabs for the wind turbine units. Installation of the equipment pad would require excavation to accommodate a subbase and concrete foundation for the unit which would be approximately 21 feet long and 21 feet wide with a depth of 6 feet. The actual footprint of the site to accommodate a metal fence would be 25 feet by 35 feet. Excavated material would be removed from the site for off-site disposal. Soil erosion and sediment controls would be installed to reduce the potential for erosion and soil loss consistent with those in use by the Town and the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. It is not expected that there would be the transport of significant soil from the site. All soils disposed off-site would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. Construction of the pad requires approximately 98 cubic yards of concrete. The foundation slab requires a soil bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot(psf). Site preparation will require heavy equipment for grading and excavation and pad construction. This would include backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and concrete trucks. During this period, which should last about 1 week(on average), there would be an estimated 10 workers at the site. Trucks trips would be heaviest during the pad installation and would amount to a peak of 10 per day,primarily for concrete delivery. Pre-installation site preparation activities would be undertaken immediately, so that when all approvals are obtained construction activities would not be delayed and the proposed facility would be operational by the spring of 2004. 2-39 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project • UNIT ASSEMBLY AND SITE FINISH • The wind turbine tower would be delivered in five 20-foot sections for placement on foundations. An on-site crane is required to lift the components from the transport vehicles for placement on the individual equipment pads.Transport will likely be by truck. Other elements of the facility would be transported to the site in component parts for fmal on- site fabrication and assembly. On-site fabrication would generally require welding and bolting of pieces. Final site installation activities would include an 8-foot-high protective chain link barbed wire I fence,site lighting,and some landscaping. Total time for unit installation is about 4 weeks. During this phase about 10 to 20 employees ' would be at the site.Equipment would include cranes,compressors, and hand held equipment. UTILITY CONNECTIONS The proposed facility requires connections to an electrical distribution cable. A 15 kV solid electric feeder line would connect the generating unit to a nearby substation via an under-street conduit.This work would occur simultaneous with the on-site assembly. Electric connections between the generator set and substation/distribution equipment would not require excavation in public or private streets. Utility connections would require the use of jackhammers, backhoes, front-end loaders, and dump trucks.Final cover and paving would follow.This construction period would overlap with the unit installation. . POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND CONTROL METHODS TRAFFIC _ - During construction, there would be new vehicle trips to and from the project site, including • those from workers traveling to and from the site, as well as those from the movement of goods and equipment. The estimated average number of construction workers on site at any one time would vary,depending on the stage of construction. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 10 to 20 during construction. Given typical construction hours, worker trips would be concentrated in off-peak • hours and would not represent a substantial increment during peak travel periods. Vehicle trips associated with construction would not be likely to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding streets. Truck movements for material delivery and removal would be spread throughout the day on weekdays, and would generally occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:30 PM, depending on the period of construction. The maximum number of trucks is estimated to be approximately 10 trucks per day during construction. A second shift may work between 4:30 and 7:30 PM. Trucks would use prescribed truck routes. Based on the relatively modest number of vehicular trips, and the short duration of construction, it is not anticipated that construction activities would result in any significant traffic impacts. 2-40 Chapter 2:Peconic Site HAZARDOUS MATERIALS As discussed in Section F, "Hazardous Materials," construction activities may result in temporary increases in exposure pathways for construction workers and workers on nearby sites to the potential pesticide, herbicide and/or petroleum in the soil. Typically, concentrations of pesticides and herbicides used for farmland are not sufficient to require a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) during subsequent excavation in areas where such chemicals have been properly used. However, to avoid any potential adverse health impacts, field personnel would be instructed to be aware of staining and/or odors. If any staining or odors are noted by field personnel during construction, excavation activities would be stopped and appropriate measures will be taken prior to resuming such activities. These measures would include the implementation of a construction HASP. The HASP would define worker safety training and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels, and appropriate mitigative and protective measures. In addition, all material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.With these measures,no significant impacts would occur during construction. AIR QUALITY Possible impacts on local air quality during construction of the proposed project include fugitive dust (particulate) emissions from land-clearing operations and excavation; mobile source emissions, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from construction worker and delivery vehicles; and construction equipment operation. The impacts on air quality would be insignificant due to the limited excavation that is required. Fugitive Emissions Fugitive dust emissions from land-clearing operations can occur from excavation, hauling, dumping, spreading, grading, compaction, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas. Actual ' quantities of emissions depend on the extent and nature of the clearing operations, the type of equipment employed, the physical characteristics of the underlying soil, the speed at which construction vehicles are operated, and the type of fugitive dust control methods employed. EPA has suggested, in general, an overall emission rate of about 1.2 tons of particulate/acre/month of active construction from all phases of land-clearing operations with no fugitive dust control measures. However, this is a national estimate and actual emissions would vary widely depending on many factors, including the intensity and type of land-clearing operations. Much of the fugitive dust generated by construction activities consists of relatively large-size particles, which are expected to settle within a short distance from the construction site and not significantly affect people nearby. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures—including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks—would be employed to minimize any impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions would be anticipated. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions are emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles, referred to as mobile sources. During construction, such emissions may result from: (1) trucks delivering construction materials and removing debris; (2) workers' private vehicles; and (3) construction equipment operation.Because of the location of the site near adjacent roadways,truck deliveries 2-41 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project and workers' private vehicles are not expected to have a significant impact on mobile source emissions. Construction equipment operation is not expected to generate a significant amount of pollutants. Therefore, mobile source emissions from construction are not expected to be significant. NOISE AND VIBRATION i ' Impacts on noise and vibration levels during construction of the proposed project include noise and vibration from construction equipment operation, and noise from construction vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the site. The level of impact of these noise sources depends on the noise characteristics of the equipment and activities involved, the construction schedule, and the location of potentially sensitive noise receptors.Noise and vibration levels at a given location are dependent on the kind and number of pieces of construction equipment being operated, as well as the distance from the construction site. In general, like most construction projects, construction of the proposed facility would result in increased noise and vibration levels for a limited time period. Noise Typical noise levels of construction equipment that may be employed during the construction process are given in Table 2-7. Noise from construction equipment is regulated by EPA noise emission standards. These federal requirements mandate that: (1) certain classifications of construction equipment and motor vehicles meet specified noise emissions standards; and (2) construction material be handled and transported in such a manner as not to create unnecessary noise. These regulations would be carefully followed. In addition, appropriate low-noise emission level equipment would be used and operational procedures implemented. Compliance with noise control measures would be ensured by including them in the contract documents as material specifications and by directives to the construction contractor. The contractor would be encouraged to use quiet construction equipment. Noise levels caused by construction activities would vary widely, depending on the phase of construction and the specific task being undertaken. Increases in noise levels caused by delivery trucks, employees traveling to and from the site,and other construction vehicles would not be significant and would be limited to the major access roadways to the project site. Increased noise levels caused by construction activities can be expected to be most significant during the stages of construction that require the use of impact equipment.In general,noise from the operation of impact-type equipment,may be discernible and might be considered intrusive at nearby residences and businesses. However, there are no residences immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore, while noise from construction activities may be discernible at residences in the area, they would be short-term in duration and would not be considered a significant adverse impact. Vibration Table 2-8 shows architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility distances for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities that would occur during construction of the proposed project. Architectural damage includes cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, etc. Architectural damage is not considered potentially 2-42 Chapter 2:Peconic Site Table 2-7 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment iNoise Level at 50 Feet Equipment Item (dBA) Air Compressor 81 Asphalt Spreader(Paver) 89 Asphalt Truck 88 Backhoe 85 Bulldozer 87 Compactor 80 Concrete Plant 831 Concrete Spreader 89 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Vibrator 76 Crane(Derrick) 76 Delivery Truck 88 Diamond Saw 902 Dredge 88 Dump Truck 88 Front End Loader 84 Gas-driven Vibro-compactor 76 Hoist 76 Jackhammer(Paving Breaker) 88 Line Drill 98 Motor Crane 83 Pile Driver/Extractor 101 Pump 76 Roller 80 Shovel 82 Truck 88 Tug 853 Vibratory Pile Driver/Extractor 894 Notes: Wood, E.W. and A.R. Thompson, Sound Level Survey, Concrete Batch Plant: Limerick Generating Station, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Report 2825 Cambridge, MA, May 1974. 2 NYSDEC,Construction Noise Survey,Report No.NC-P2,Albany,NY,April 1974. 3 Bungener, J.H., Sound Level Survey: Wise's Landing, Kentucky, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.,Report 2880,Downers Grove,IL,June 1975. 4 F.B. Foster Company, Foster Vibro Driver/Extractors, Electric Series Brochure, W-925- 10-75-5M. Sources: Patterson,W.N.,R.A.Ely,and S.M.Swanson,Regulation of Construction Activity Noise,Bolt Beranek and Newman,Inc.,Report 2887. dangerous.The nearest residence is more than 650 feet from the project site.That is substantially beyond the distance for any perceptible impacts due to vibration from construction activities. 2-43 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-8 Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings Damage Potential Distance(feet) Perceptible Architectural Activity Distance(feet) Structural Historic Residential Blasting 1,000 400 300 60 Pile Driving 200 90 50 12 Pavement Breaking 150 60 40 8 Bulldozing 60 30 20 3 Heavy Truck Traffic 50 20 15 3 Jackhammers 30 15 10 2 Sources: Wiss, John F. Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art. Journal of the Geo- technical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107, No.GT2, February 1981. Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Earthbome Vibrations.ASSHTO Designation: R8-81 (1986). EROSION CONTROL Due to construction activities, there would be increased potential for on-site erosion and sedimentation. To minimize erosion, the disturbance to the site would be minimized by clearing vegetation and excavating only in those areas planned for construction. An erosion and sediment control plan with sequencing and specific details has been prepared for the project utilizing the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control," the Town guidelines as well as Suffolk County.Proper implementation of the plan, and its sequence and maintenance schedule, would ensure minimal impacts associated with construction-related soil disturbance. Erosion control would be accomplished through a combination of structural as well as vegetative measures. Several structural erosion and sediment control measures would be used. A series of temporary sediment traps would be strategically located within the project site, where runoff within the construction zones would be collected and settled. Straw bales would be used to protect all proposed catch basins and other drainage structure inlets. Anti-tracking entrances would be installed at the project entrances. In addition, silt fencing would be installed along contours directly below construction zones and used where sheet flow is likely to occur.This fencing would be installed prior to construction activity to delineate areas predetermined as construction zones. Temporary and permanent vegetative measures are proposed to stabilize soils on the site. 2-44 Chapter 2:Peconic Site M.ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE While there currently is no requirement to include an environmental justice analysis as part of SEQRA, one has been provided for informational purposes. The focus of the environmental justice analysis is to determine whether the construction and operation of the proposed facility would have both adverse and disproportionate impacts on an environmental justice community. The first step in the analysis is to determine whether there is a low-income and/or minority population, or so-called"Community of Concern"(COC)that may be impacted by the proposed facility. Census tract data derived from both 1990 and 2000 Census information was used to determine minority status, income, and poverty level in the 1-mile study area surrounding each of the proposed sites. r Census tract 1700.02, which includes census block group, 1700.02.1, and census tract 1702.01, which includes census block groups, 1702.01.1, 1702.01.2, 1702.01.3 and 1702.01.4, are located within the 1-mile study area of the proposed facility at the Peconic site (see Figure 2-11). As indicated by population and socio-economic data provided in Table 2-9,no census block groups within the Peconic study area could be identified as potential COC. In addition the percentage of households below poverty level (2.2 percent) and the minority population (5 percent) within the Peconic study area are less than those of Suffolk County as a whole (6 percent and 21 percent, i respectively). Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will not impact a COC. Since there are no potential COCs, minority or low income communities would not be disproportionately affected by the proposed facility. 1 I Table 2-9 Peconic Population and Economic Characteristics Population(2000) Census %HHs Block Percent Race and Ethnicity(Percentage) Below Groups 2000 Change Med Poverty Total 1990- Number of Income Level 2000 White Black Asian Other Hispanic* Households **(1999) *** 1700.02.1 1,170 44 94 2 0 2 2 452 52,368 2 1702.01.1 1,021 43 94 0 0 0 6 417 60,509 0 1702.01.2 650 1 93 0 2 0 5 260 46,250 0 1702.01.3 1,315 64 97 0 0 1 2 514 68,611 3 1702.01.4 554 -50 95 1 2 0 2 274 33,571 6 Study 4,710 35 95 .6 .8 .6 3.4 1469 **54,978 2.2 Area Suffolk 1,419,369 7 79 7 2 1 11 469,299 65,288 6 County Notes: *Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. **The median income was calculated by taking the weighted average of the median incomes of all the census tracts in a given study area. ***Percent of households with incomes below established poverty level.The U.S. Census Bureau using its established income thresholds for poverty levels defines poverty levels. Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,U.S.Census of Population and Housing, 1990 and 2000. 2-45 N....,...." • a" , /7 '.,:-..!...:;:.,.--...:..!.::::::::::'::::::::::::.',•?:::::;.-:::-::::::;::::::::::1'..,.. 1 4„ irillfr.:••••.....::..-...;:::-.....: ::kt::%-,,,,:::4:::•,...,:....,:-....i.;::-..i...:-..:;.:.•:.• . !.. : k 1,019 •e_/ ss`i1702.01.3 =:; 2 i - �kRo /� 1702.01.4 �� ; ' . . . .. .. . .. // (0.% yFlt, •4„,„ • C�o9� hi 1702.01.te.4;</ t . • d- . . �P P 4 '.. I . . -- - .N,pp.• . ` \ 1702 01 1 .. 1700.02.1 • Source:AKRF,Inc.,May 2002 and September 2003;U.S.Census Tract Maps,2000 :-• - _ Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2003. • Project Site Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 iii.a0.5 Mile Study Area 01 Mile Study Area Peconic —4--LIRR Tracks Census Tract and Block Group Figure 2-11 Long Island Power Authority wind Turbine Project LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project N. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed facility, combined with other wind turbine facilities proposed by LIPA as part of this demonstration project, would not have any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed facilities are widely dispersed (i.e., not located near one another). More important, impacts of each facility in terms of the relevant concerns (i.e., land use, zoning, and community facilities; cultural resources; visual resources; natural resources; hazardous materials; waterfront revitalization; infrastructure; traffic; air quality; noise; construction; and environmental justice) are localized, small, and not significant.Based upon the distance between the proposed facilities (i.e., each facility is more than 2 miles from one another), and the small impact of each facility individually, it can be concluded that there would be no significant cumulative impacts from any existing or proposed facilities. 2-46 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner,whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently,there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature,yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data,it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: !... I Part 1 D Part 2 [i Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate),and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: riA. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ®B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Town of Southold,New York. Name of Action Long Island Power Authority Name of Lead Agency Edward Grilli Chief of Staff Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form,Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in the Town of Southold,New York. Location of Action(include Street Address,Municipality and County) Osprey's Dominion Vineyards,44075 Main Road,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York. Name of Applicant/Sponsor Long Island Power Authority Address 333 Earle Ovington Blvd.Suite 403 City/PO Uniondale State NY Zip Code 11553 Business Telephone 516-222-7700 Name of Owner(if different) Frederick W.Koehler,President Address 44075 Main Road City/PO Peconic State NY Zip Code 11971 Business Telephone (631)765-6188 Description of Action: The Long Island Power Authority proposes to site,construct,and operate a wind turbine generator to demonstrate both the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources,and expand green sources of electricity on Long !Island.This document refers to one 50-acre site selected for the wind turbine demonstration,Section 75,Block 1,Lots 20.1 and 20.1. Refer to Chapter 1 for project description. Page 2 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form,Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in the Town of Southold,New York. Location of Action(include Street Address,Municipality and County) Osprey's Dominion Vineyards,44075 Main Road,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York. Name of Applicant/Sponsor Long Island Power Authority Address 333 Earle Ovington Blvd.Suite 403 City/PO Uniondale State NY Zip Code 11553 Business Telephone 516-222-7700 Name of Owner(if different) Osprey's Dominion Vineyard,LTD (President:Frederick W.Koehler) Address 44075 Main Road City/PO Peconic State NY Zip Code 11971 Business Telephone (631)765-6188 Description of Action: The Long Island Power Authority proposes to site,construct,and operate a wind turbine generator to demonstrate both the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources,and expand green sources of electricity on Long Island.This document refers to one 50-acre site selected for the wind turbine demonstration,Section 75,Block 1,Lots 20.1 and 20.1. Refer to Chapter 1 for project description. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use:El Urban n Industrial ri Commercial ®Residential (suburban) ID Rural (non-farm) riForest El Agriculture Other *Project would be located on 0.02 acres of a 50-acre parcel of land. 2. Total acreage of project area: 0.02* acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 50.0 acres 49.98 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other(Indicate type) wind turbine energy source demonstration acres 0.02 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?Haven Loam a. Soil drainage: ri Well drained 100%of site ®Moderately well drained %of site. 11 Poorly drained %of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0.02 acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ® Yes ri No a. What is depth to bedrock ** (in feet) **Bedrock is not expected to be a significant issue for construction 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% 100% 10- 15% % [1 15%or greater 6. Is project substantial) contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Yes n No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ri Yes IlNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? 10 (in feet) 6. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? Yes ri No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? El Yes ri No Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? EYes E1 No According to: field visits conducted by AKRF,Inc.April 2002.The land is used for agricultural purposes. Ident,9 each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site?(i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? 0Yes ID No Describe: 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ®Yes El No If yes, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ®Yes ONo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: N/A b. Size(in acres): Page 4 of 21 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes El No J a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? f No1 Yes El No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes FIN() 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? fYes ®No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ®Yesi No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? El Yes EiNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: 0.02 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. 0 % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: *** (upon completion of project)? ***4 on a weekly or bi-weekly basis h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 125**** height; 50 width; 10 length. j Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? 294 cy tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ®Yes No n N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes E No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes ► 1 No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers)will be removed from site? Negligible acres. ****The structure will be a 100-foot tower with a wind turbine at the top with 25-foot blades. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest(over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ®Yes n No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction:spring'"months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ri Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ri Yes No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10-20 ; after project is complete less than one. 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?®Yes rl No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? D Yes E1 No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? FlYes ri No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? nYesri No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ®Yes No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? D Yes n No a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ri Yes nNo c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ElYes 0 No Page 6 of 21 e. If yes,explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes FINo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? 11Yes 17 No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ®Yes El No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ®Yes nNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? n Yes ri No If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 0.0 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? EI Yes riNo If yes, explain: The project is a demonstration project funded by Long Island Power Authority,a state public authority. Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board D Yes iniNo Site Plan Approval City, Town, Village Planning'Board 0 Yes ii No Height Variance City, Town Zoning Board El Yes 0 No Special Use Permit City, County Health Department Yes 0N Other Local Agencies El Yes n No Town of Southold Building Permit(non-discretionary) Suffolk County Planning Other Regional Agencies 0 Yes 1-1 No Commission Review State Agencies ®Yes 0 No Federal Agencies Ft Yes El No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? nYesri No If Yes, indicate decision required: 0 Zoning amendment El Zoning variance ® New/revision of master plan ® Subdivision ElSite plan El Special use permit fl Resource management plan ® Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? A-C Agricultural-Conservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 20 percent coverage permitted in agricultural conservation zoning. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes are proposed. 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? No zoning changes are proposed. 3 1 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? 0 Yes ®No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Y4 mile radius of proposed action? The prominent land use within 1/4 mile of the site is agricultural and the predominant zoning is agricultural. I I I f 1 1 1 1 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a '/4 mile? 1 1 Yes ri No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s)for the formation of sewer or water districts? El Yes ®■ No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? Yes El No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes n No N/A12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ®Yes El No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. IJYes El No N/A D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Long Island Power Authority Date Signature Title If the action is in the Coastal Area,and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 PART 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information(Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But,for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response,thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project,on each site,in each locality,will vary. Therefore,the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts,consider long term,short term and cumulative effects. Instructions(Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact.If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided,check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example,check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large(column 2)does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s)in the project to a small to moderate impact,also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land • 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO fl YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15%or greater,(15 foot ® El ® Yes O No rise per 100 foot of length),or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. 0 Construction on land where the depth to the water table ® ® ® Yes riNo is less than 3 feet. 0 Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more ® ® ® Yes ®No vehicles. 0 Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or 0 ® ri Yes No generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. D Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or [J 0 D Yes ®No involve more than one phase or stage. D Excavation for mining purposes that would remove El El ® Yes El No more than 1,000 tons of natural material(i.e.,rock or soil)per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. ® ® ®Yes fl No 0 Construction in a designated floodway. El ElYes Fl No 0 Other impacts: El rlYes O No Would place wind turbine generator on existing agricultural land. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?(i.e.,cliffs,dunes,geological formations,etc.) E N O DYES 0 Specific land forms: El El rlYes No Impact on Water 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 U Developable area of site contains a protected water body. El El El Yes El No U Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of El El El Yes fl No a protected stream. 0 Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water ® ® ®Yes E No body. 0 Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ® El ®Yes No 0 Other impacts: El El El Yes El No 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? nNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 A 10%increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of El El 0 Yes nNo water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. 0 Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface ® ® ®Yes n No area. U Other impacts: El ® El Yes ®No Page 12 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ri NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ® ® ®Yes ®No 0 Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not El Yes El No have approval to serve proposed(project)action. 0 Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater ®Yes ID No than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. 0 Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water Yes El No supply system. 0 Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. E1 El Yes El No 0 Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which El ® ElYes El No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. 0 Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons El ® El Yes ®No per day. 0 Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into E ® ®Yes ®No an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. 0 Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or ® ® El Yes El No chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. 0 Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without 0 ® 1 Yes 0 No water and/or sewer services. 0 Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses El E ®Yes 11 No which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. 0 Other impacts: El ® Yes No Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water • runoff? NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action would change flood water flows ® ®Yes ®No 0 Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ® rYes ®No 0 Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. f riYes ®No 0 Proposed Action will allow development in a designated El E1 Yes ®No floodway. 0 Other impacts: El El I1Yes EI No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? �NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any El El Dyes El No given hour. 0 Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ® ®Yes ®No of refuse per hour. 0 Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.per hour El El Yes ElNo or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. 0 Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land El El ®Yes El No committed to industrial use. 0 Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of 0 ® Yes ! I No industrial development within existing industrial areas. 0 Other impacts: El El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? fNO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 _ 0 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Q Dyes No Federal list,using the site,over or near the site,or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ®Yes riNo 0 Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, 0 El El Yes ®No other than for agricultural purposes. 0 Other impacts: ® EI Yes I1 No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? J NO D YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident Yes El No or migratory fish,shellfish or wildlife species. 0 Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of ® ® ®Yes ®No mature forest(over 100 years of age)or other locally important vegetation. 0 Other impacts: ® El E]Yes El No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ®NO J YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 The Proposed Action would sever,cross or limit access to El Q EJ Yes ri No agricultural land(includes cropland,hayfields,pasture,vineyard, orchard,etc.) 0 Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of El El Yes ®No agricultural land. 0 The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 0 0 El Yes El No acres of agricultural land or,if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. Page 15 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact, Impact Project Change 0 The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of f ® ®Yes ®No agricultural land management systems(e.g.,subsurface drain lines,outlet ditches,strip cropping);or create a need for such measures(e.g.cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). 0 Other impacts: El El DYes ®No f� a IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources?(If necessary,use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20,Appendix B.) ®i NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed land uses,or project components obviously different 0 Yes DNo from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns,whether man-made or natural. 0 Proposed land uses,or project components visible to users of El El El Yes El No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. 0 Project components that will result in the elimination or ® El El Yes El No significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. 0 Other impacts: ® El El Yes EJ No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? jNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or El Yes El No substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. 0 Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within El El El Yes El No the project site. 0 Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive El ® El Yes 0 No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IJ Other impacts: ® U Yes ED No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? D NO El YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. U D ®Yes ®No 0 A major reduction of an open space important to the community. U Yes El No 0 Other impacts: ® Yes ElNo IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area(CEA)established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? ®i NO DYES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ®Yes r No 0 Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the El ® ®Yes ®No resource? 0 Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the El El nYes DNo resource? 0 Proposed Action will impact the use,function or enjoyment of the 0 0 0 Yes n No resource? 0 Other impacts: ® El Dyes U]No Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ®. NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or 0 0 IDYes El No goods. 0 Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ® ® ®Yes ®No 0 Other impacts: El LI D Yes ®No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ®NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 _ 0 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5%increase in the ® El ®Yes LI No use of any form of energy in the municipality. 0 Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an Q El Elyes ®No energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. 0 Other impacts: El LI El yes El No Project would slightly increase Long Island's electrical generation capacity. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? fl NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital,school or other sensitive ® LI ®Yes ®No facility. 0 Odors will occur routinely(more than one hour per day). LI ® ®Yes ®No 0 Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the ® ® 0Yes 0 No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. 0 Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a Q ® LI Yes LI No noise screen. 0 Other impacts: LI ® ®Yes 0 No Page 18 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? D NO ®YES 0 Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of El El ®Yes ®No hazardous substances(i.e.oil,pesticides,chemicals,radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions,or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. 0 Proposed Action may result in the burial of"hazardous wastes" ® El ®Yes ®No in any form(i.e.toxic,poisonous,highly reactive,radioactive, irritating,infectious,etc.) 0 Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied El 11 ®Yes El No natural gas or other flammable liquids. 0 Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other ® El ®Yes ®No disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. 0 Other impacts: El El Dyes El No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? EINO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 The permanent population of the city,town or village in which the El El ®Yes El No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. 0 The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating ® ® Eyes El No services will increase by more than 5%per year as a result of this project. 0 Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or E El Eyes El No goals. 0 Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. El El ®Yes El No 0 Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ® E yes El No structures or areas of historic importance to the community. 0 Development will create a demand for additional community El El Eyes ®No services(e.g.schools,police and fire,etc.) Page 19 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future ®Yes El No projects. IJ Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. E L D Yes El No 0 Other impacts: El LI LI Yes El No 20. Is there,or is there likely to be,public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? NO ®YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Part 3- EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s)is considered to be potentially large,even if the impact(s)may be mitigated. Instructions(If you need more space,attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available,decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance,consider: •The probability of the impact occurring •The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility,including permanently lost resources of value •Whether the impact can or will be controlled •The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals •Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Page 21 of 21Reset '' ATTACHMENT A Archeological Resources Historical Perspectives,Inc. ''7%.,;..."....:. 3-eO-I,W,lP"'.-_1.:)‘.,*.,','.,4.;„-,-4..,.p,'4.'-,',.w..;',1,,,A;,,,9..,.'....',4,•.--:,/",,•,4,,•-,,'.4..1e",,,-4T4,„•,,4.,1-,:.'.,,',e'"e.--rA''z''if',,'j;''•,-,,-,I,/,-P..e',,,'.4•,••-l,v•-•4 7.;:`-:--,:144.1•,C;7,• '''-,s'W4.,1-- :.,,04',p.4 %, ,...i \l4:..'.. 5 1rI 'st -',C 4 ‘ , ; /"/'",=-1:,s.=i.=.;..W„''X''':s,.5i-k%-is:ir•).”-. I.L''s\p-• - ,; -,N, , --Q ,,, ,..-...,,, ,.., „..,_ ,4^.,, ...., ,, '''''' ',,, ,,/,.-44--„,,,,,,,,*z&-\_. ,.-..-..,. i,. .4"`"- . ” :" 1 2 .,,,k ,' :',, -". " ',-': •' ;- '%-•-• t. :all- ea."4:PAA 4,..-,, -i4i,,Irlf,-; . 4:4VM.X.r •e°..- :\,_ iliikC' , *).,0" % : A':v J'''t. ' •.'"."' .. '..." .,)2.4,40'•W-14(•='''',= ,. ',4 s=,* yf .:44 4''';44','„,_,,...ot.=,„i „45,,‘-, .A.,„ s -,1 -A •-,. ../. --.,14,3- ,„„•*- .--,;,,,„/ _•a 41. ;„'cVo.4ew$`4,4?'-',1,. •‘',.+.',..147..q . . - ter,0-41 ,V.f 44'..i-44!...45...,,'' ' "--I-- • ...-1 NV' ...' '; •‘: 'r•A?••-' *..N... '... .,,,,,I, •,,A.,,, ,,,,.• 4., .,„,,,,.,,,;,,,,,,,,,Ak-•.- ,5,....... .34,„v-,?-,,,,....,. ..-•-,,..2 •.......-•-,: • - • ,,,..,,,. •.-• .-,41-ii• ..--f. • -4, ../••• • • Ig_11,•-•• ,•4- i••.,•••41-,,,,,-•--v-k- / ..- .•,-f4.-?,1•• f.,,,--•••5-ve. • - i3,,,,..-N• .?" •••=•-. ••• : •: ,••••-.1 -•,- • •••• ; or,'‘, ,,,' ,„L',1•••• • - ..-,,--i , ..,•• •:.11i.,, .,11.,.. -To-- - • •••••,-;.•:yi-•"..4,-.ePT, .‘'‘ 1` ..v< • " ,‘'• %, .: ,•,‘• •...' ..`•••,J:44 .0.40 tI:^, 424W.77' 0,-.g.•,,, ,"‘V: ;2-'. - , - • -1q ••"-, s, - ".^',. "7-44`e,:". ' .'-- . ; 117,4,..,,%t,:"e-w! •„&,,,,-,/. e, ;„,,,Wo..,• ..,..,, . •.,.. k / ,.. -:A 4•• ',, 4'.'" -47,7f4=-,L••••=reg',./••-• ';ftw.vatr'9"" 4." '4"':&,,.,-': '-, '', ..:--.' s.''''A's..1-IN-; ':.er.' ..°."• ,,,t e y.ti"r, '"-I' . ' ,-, ' '-," ',• •'-r;,," ',17.; 2\ -velitowel-,.• 4,1,-" •,:.s,, ,,......- 4;•••!:-4,0.• ',„,„---.,,f--„.;,- `4-;s-v. ,.4 ,.,,b' "'•- ,,,-' .41,----', " -,,,.. • t. i,‘,.. -:, . •- .s,. . • • ••• :1/4.. ! , , , „ • •• . . ,,--;-:, 711,,,,c,:,,:---:;;;;,--,.., -',i''',,,..,A -q.ircir' ..* ,...,--,w,,,,e . -r. •••.: '. . - ..,•,...]:\ \ty.4. .e• : ..",./iem:,-I !.. x...,_t- ... - -7.7,,, # volp, 1,,,,,,,4_,,,A, 7..,,,,,, - ,„.....,i... igA..., 0 . •:•-• .' ...-'-, - _ •-.. 1. ,.-c:-. - '',.- ..-....,-;',-,.. .-.\-.29'. 4-- \-. -. '...-. '• -,!":'.:,,-,:.4,-,p, .m" 4,,,, :,' Itlf .tite '„iki ,-. ' ' •s ' 4.-1, ...v-i• ''',,.:",.. 1-t• '* ^ 1.,' ,'•,p*,,,----,.4..*K.,• ---; ,..' - ',.1;F:5 • •' -" • „.4.4A, . j-'"i, N •, .,`,:t•'',I, • ';',., ' J., •-,:', 7,In , ' ''t-**-1 -s,^"f4p;-.^^--; ze-,01- • ~',!..4.4.(.141,i,4 --) - -, Is.-‘•.•• ,‘ .••• •.. if ,1/4,: ' > Pecf.i.ite • 1".-,... . ..-:•-: :r. -'`•-•'..,- " ..:...F-4.4 7• -,-, ,g,,,,,-'-,lb,-)0,,,,,,-r. „, • t.',.Z. - - - - .:. - •• ' onic o •vl ,- .. ;al, f 4 • •"4,,, I,N'",4 •••4v6z ..•,-,b..,:p•V.Ae"10=,1, • • • • ,,,,...4,C„,, , ,../ •• ' • .7 1 S. Nit: _,0.1p., y c'''' ••.:.::`,4, .. -'",'7'....„1-,4i,•„„ „•: "•• '-‘riti; ..e %.„ ," =.: ., '''..: ,le •I v ••--,-v„,.:„k;,... ,-",..," ,,,. • ."--',"z-7,;. -„A., _4460, ..--•"---k."1 haft•---- ... , l'•-:-- - ..iiir-, '',-', Aiih...,,-,.‘:, - -\i"- .....) '.' .f.N .•1 :-,- - C.:'-' AW.:AW" * ,,....St,o, •-, • .' '''''.''a, -• Isc.-'4* -itr • ,- ....:,.., . \• A..-. -- Ns•••-.,..•,-,k.." ,:-._ - s-•.,..,.1%&, Rbr,,J , • , . „.,...).• .,„ ,., ! f-P, .....- : . •• . i •.,_<‘• • , „,• Pace;A:c ''4. 1 C; •i.‘.-;"'"'1,.'' " -"".;-'4 '*- :AV."' :' ' - • : —Neog il. •.- `.•'• L`; .•i ••• z_ ,,./ •-•. • tzi,9,,.„."- , .1 _,-•:,, ,,, .. 2,,--r'.. N....iits, • '4,,ytt,,,..-' t‘ ..n.7..r.s. • ....• ki,,,, .1.0, ei,4,,,,, - ..,„, ':*".T., ' -1 1,4" •":' 7 ,i- : , ‘,.•• , "Sw,, • • • •., w. '..,,1\ji- ":w.10):'''wcfl'. -1'..-•'--1C-NO''-**,ritVD,.V*-. )'''c'.; ...s 41'•:, '''-'--. 1:::: .. - ''' 4, . -; ' N * I V\ -4: -, , t F " --\;1,,,„.,‘ jefr l'''I, ,,, -,s-its„,• ,4*.e.). ' -**-.• -•' •..,t, ,•,• tz,•-:. . <-,Ne ' Al, ,' I:tt,..i t.: . 1 •• •;•. • •'.o. K..' '' • • '''•- 49(Nitilr i• "N, '_.i • ••• •' -''. '..- - '... *lc., •• „ze,1.•_:.:,,,•:••.-N-N ii....3 K-, f. - - -7, • • v ,it.t. 4 ,,tti .,,,,;._...1.,_.•„.....}s,,,c • N', '' 1 Cs/ • ^ 4v!" ''' "-' ,•,.. , ;•- --‘t,•-'''k, sq.1.,•••9 ,-45-, ;,'‘ :,:c.:.: t',;',... ' „. - , ---., .1 2-_,,,,,es:.„_ •• fw 44 , 4•'. • t•',.,•\". 4i'-',4-,& "" ,--•-•'-• a ', --• .1 1.;,-. .•,.)......,. iy. 1 1.1.,,,e,..,..w.-4.-4 ••• • .••• 1. Jfz- - -,,- .- ' „, ,....--..:• "..t•-,-''......,••••• ••*•A, , 1,4„....,_ ,i ,, 1...4...- c',,,.. -,,P. --- ,,, 1.,,,„.. • , ..),._ ',,,,,,...7).- , .„.ti • ., - - ., ••,.,•,. . K.,,•-i.e..-.' - ,,\ 1 c'› 1 " f - '` ''Pri* '," ' •S'S %. “,,,, - 41- 4.i... -ikr.-...1,-,..;:4, ‘e.,, • -••••- ,,..., --1: . ,, c, linft. - , • - -..• *lilt r, t-i.:,1• .4' .1.4j .. • ' •i r'l ''''::thAV.`, . '' ''-‘••\ N: .',,' .."-'7.1? - '•- - ....„.:vu , w, 4•41.. At 'FA,' , N "N,. ';' k .. •,-, - -`tv•i; • .., .',,c;ts, y. ••.7."-,.. ,,. ., 1-- '7,4 ---% '',,,';.. • Iii k,.1 4.0i'll.„'' ' k::i. .-IA i. ,7- ':' ''' t. „...b -^ V.S'''•W ." ' "''''' ,i 1\,,,,,k,,.. .•\.; `,,„.la.,..= .7 i•v.,, ,-, 4,- C.„.•. -1, t* ' • -\ ''''••' „,..f_ .,,,,,,,.. ....,, , ..., „ , '-'\,,,,;‘, ' 1*-.„A.' IP.,',., - .4,,, i A ip,• v4s.... i- , - 0, ' '4, - • l'^',, 41k!'t ..,1 2^".%"- ° '‘. - ,r)-."-,- . \.1i.,?':'---"`,AN"--',.-1-.-- "VsA-sm;:.•::;•7-F. _.•_ 1 gii,,6**-* :'.'t...kt'1.,:.,••=,,,r,...,i, . '‘, • -,711: .r.-• .64"- -wk ' •--'.4 („4. 1„.?, 14.-4 , ' i 1 1 \ " '',-, ,,A.."'., 4„,„ •dApto-•_,__,„1,_ :,4, rit,,,.,"?...,.. ...„,..T4 “k f . ,, ,-- .,‘,,,,,i,,,,,;:,:',..,- ,,,.;... ''-• ' . ' i % i . ', -..., k.r•-• • 4 4...s: .11,,,ar .A...,..n,,,,,,"1'.." •A 4:: .. .29 : '1, : - • •j- ;.• _w•At ;...4;. .,;.. ..LIP"rw• „sev-.-ve.414,0".4.,t. t.:x.t: ,,,,,,,1,* ,1‘;':) '''s:'i -'::,•-14-'-st'vl,"‘;'-il,,t,,.t.'‘‘ii-;.. ,w1 - ' -i?.:".-:'t•-:-2' ' .11.W.1,?1,,•V'• 'Vi;lig& 4.,stAilfea* ''''',1.1', '-,-0, , . -, '''''..: r"'"4„.11-..t c••• - t. "';',-, ., '''264,',,,,g„A,14.4,1 v•,* 4 ,4. ,Al-i,X.w7,1•54-044 -49': *, ,;' s*I' ''\ "r• '''' %----/ iPi''V't'"• 14 ‘ • :: ' - • -4.6.;&*‘;'" 41** .-X1V. iW'4=,*',..7,7r.0*.. -‘(it .„ , . .„0,,,,,y,...„,,-.o •,4.A.,...4 ,c.„',„„,...lor. A.,...,, 't,`„,~ ' sz„....\‘'~-i ,_ ct::•' ' ), o•r • ,., . '-‘T Vs... 14-^,,,r0,,ze,...„:„,`• .ioigt,..0;', "17•,,,.? 1,,lrm•,,, . •."...,-,..A.-~ r.,„ .- . -4,,,,:e •Z* Tg•%.``" - 4-.....P, .'Z',-- .,...b4 „. y.-1. .," ,t, 1 ,,, ..,. ,x,' ..v,0,,,...;V*Wot,ttk..',.4 - ,.•• ,', r i*.e,-.106 . _•.. • `,‘ • i • • .1= •in,',Ny"f P.',,v •""' ""' -,sw:"' ' A.< '•-• •• ."..v..t..." ,,,1? - Z.- ii.‘.• ,,„ .V.,0., , .: 4.54ita 3`-, , -'k, -t 1 e.c., - - --404.",-, 4.,•:.;'' "-•:-.,*(1.'• •4.„, ,'":*"-p.,..,•0'y . etE.k.,....,...-.. -4 - ..4,,././1 •,-,... •?.., ,s \,i. ,,..,„'i :In\. :,•.,•::*,.`;‘,11 Ait'ple&12101-•_;:....„ y•••-gw, ekomc,',*.t.iwita.‘..0 '.-',1%It ,.-..)&i..`. -,, '-'•'!..--' ..• ";-'•• \-111 '1 '4.1';\ ""'"-1 • .1'... . '.0sL,.klaketY ..it•fM., ....V‘,1,:am,,,,%; ' - -,...,: .s...1.t. .,,,\ --2,--,-,. .,:‘. ..:,. -(A. k 1 K-.1••,. li ;.''.4t.: ,c4i:ttoritore-4,4-sz.$•=5:,-1 „-.••4-„,,,Ivil,,, .•-,_ ,..,,, .,,, •1:• . • ,-- , , . --, .do,,,... • y•,. -,... s,,,, .. 4,..... 415,.; ..)..„,.,,,f.,,,,,,,,„ ,,,,,-,- ,.:-.,..„. 4.,-14, ,,,,,,,-.0,,,, ...,.. , • -&. ---, . , ... -- -.....„ -, .,, 2,- -,-‘, .0A ..,„... 1.rA,A.:, 41:itk,,,, •.&,.'4 ":-N. "-rx;;',;ii,ar,e... -41),Zi-`, 14-Altrt.-sag,r,"• ,"' '''‘. .' :,..."-- w., '', ..")-T4,,14,7,. •tr,;:...0'!-- N.I.. / \,./;., le', 01,..--..v i s', --1-..w?,.. ..o.-A,3;,,,,,,,,,...3t..4.4, 0.5..g7ww./.0 r .-"'.--ls;4'.,tee,,,.4 ° ''' i• '.•.-- `‘.7-1ic-`" ..i. • jt ..-lt•-"•-'0,54"*. ''.i0.14-1 ••'.'''. •• =1"4.:•1•*ki'''Plf•iit'el'• s ki :,''t.o. • ' ' ,v -.. .1140 • .. N -,.. ......, ,,. , --...•.. A...e.vp 0............., •.-4 r.,4 4 Ae--"‘"'i f q•,,,,,,,g'.. •D. ,•,, 4 .. . ..... 4 , , ?-„,.1,4,,,,, ,. 4. 5..... . ....-• . 1,..400..,,W ,,, -• ,,,, ,..I,-,. 'lei , ••,..., 0 .,,,s., ,,,,,,,,,,,c.„.s... „...., .... ‘,.. 4,' 0.0 X 4''0.3-".•'/I- •==='‘,. •••••'-' -:- --.N. .••• N ei- v 4 4.41vx- ' ,`•,-." ,,4-'74 Y.,A.'••1,4v.„0,' al,"'••=4.'''11,,„k4,_==.-1";-=_IP'•k,.,,, tS,„se: .,, ^ ,' (.„, • ,, i 4 IA ,i,., . . :,,.,, -k..0.* •.vvi• ik,s,,,,,live4*•••,,,...• C,P4-tt.tri,v•4t,.2.42.= ' -•••= r-r,•F,4,.. ''., •'%•3 'le, , ‘''''--- • .,:- AZ.,,c, v = •- I •,-, -.-:- -ot:tr.',gP',"1",,, 'it, ,;• ,-,-.,^"''. 0:4.,is4. t.vt,Av•-•"., '.,i.;-.`'''' ',r•-•-*-04-,P, 4 4.-- , •c_a- • -.--.....-:;,„;.:' -4=?.-- $.. • • t ' . "'- --11. ,'ilkitik. -lilt' ....,e0 .• -v, f" i ' '''g',Nt' '4' „f#140.01 '‘;,,,. -1::: N---.'7,- .,,,..4,-'-sPv$,-"-c$,.., -..,, z. 1.7.,x, , ,,,, A,.'t .;,,,,,.:',• 1-• ,,,,..,;tp. '4.4-.9, .‘.1•IiSINIVAsli6.73-^S.4 *J.''4.1.,••= 0 WAsirly, r ./. .":"•.i. ‘,.., „t... c -74,,•,`.......:. 1,:1/4„:- ,z..,,N,,,.., •,,,,,V .....1.4:14:„..,-4;• ••:ns,1,?...4''''-A'• IV,.....,0- ..).„...„,, ,„ . ,,. ,,,,I,....,,..„,.., ,,,,,. .„: ,,_.,-., --,,v,-. ,...YeA, - v. 4-1. •- zy, . .::.. 0:,..;i: ''75..".;:..X.- ,...,,,i, , ..,„, • .44„..f.:, ,I i . , _.•• r.„,-,.,,,,,A ,A ,,,-- A,...",?re.. .-. , ,,,A-,,„,.--p,.': •.N „ .s.• ---,) a• , • .,... ,t,..<4,-...-- 4 '...-0.' ...r`.,,,.'''.4.' •‘•-\.,•• -'1' ,,,,'>. '-' -It'-',-.•-• - '..,41V,.-;--3•1,,, .:1-:6`0K.' • -- ''''''"ri -` 4 • •••,, :,..,•-- wr- .... ' , i,, ''1 -..,‘ 1.. ,,. -,, - v s...i,v - ,,s,-. ..% . --' g'.' '-,',.• 4,-' --...-- -_,0„,„ ''- i ' -* ..‹.•*:2, -. / .ar:tZ c'S-1.44')i-,f);, .*w,'”la,A.,, ,,..., .. ,-f< b. - -,.. . - .-77, -N'...,- . --At 41'6, ,,..;., ',:-.,..,.-. -4,--.,..y.,,, tellt.,-,.. ,,„.4'...'' ...-„,`,",,'PN, --: ...V06.,-• .... ,. .,„ •,. , . ... - .,„.•• .. S , ...,,,,a„.,,...„,.....,,...„4„.........,,-. .,..,,,,, ,„.,„,,,,,,,,...,.,44,,, _ 7 .....,,,_. . ... ee ,;.'t •7 +,..,-,-V-- ....-‘,., i.,Ala., • ;a,, *,)',i, ,.•..,,,*,$..„, ., . .,,,4. ,', ;7„,,,, ',' ''' IR," ;4,„ 4.'*'fri..4.0;trA,: ..-'45' iMe''-. '.,A, '.45._';'4,gzb.-,,-- •,A-.,,,,,-..",,w. •. • -‘.'•'''•1-- ‘e4r31'4.".4 . ' --"' I MILE 0 1/2 INTN ps,,,..i i•>.,U0-4 14..4 • Viv.,..11 FwA-::-..1 1 14S1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 FEET I 6-••=1 R.4 t•a•vw-,,e...-7,4 • Iv-vv....4.4-11 FIGURE 1 • USGS Southold Quadrangle, Project Site Location. Site 1, Peconic. 1979. Historical Perspectives,Inc. k +yr-ten `.si .eF f ' rAl ;01.'"; 1/4--..,-- =T 1x-7......,4p.,,....-„, "I' K-.-,t Fi�h W�. �` 'Q q' ..'Y ,Ivr t: y� � � •{- � ,. A �.a.Y+"4. �s V n � .�.r�i,1x 414,,e4--f `w �D i�„`F-* .. V - '. -` 9 4a-- ,,,i, " +:✓rte "` a ',.%`, " r ` a��t,� a, _ ,7 - ww ief �w.a. 't'.��Rff i Fc:,,,,5 /M3 Y `3‘ ,L a�' lttf f . 0,(4444, ' -•'`::,24,-..,-----4-11-- IpAket%,,,,gr:-.51 414':"0.:;;"‘rt. ,ttit.t,rAfire'l . '�i,-4 t ��vr,1, -w+'`0-'`�r,?+, `' w?; ye t. .4,-r,044-.740:::::ga ,-,-p'414k,i,ti$PA dit,-,t4,-.4 0..,‘ ,.,..,1,itk.wr,riiI-.„*.441.t.1-44 ., ,.‘ ,i.;-,47;,;...nz*:064.40,004,e,*rmiti41",,, ...- , "744,—ge4s.4:-Z-,:+.,1 1 4orir,,;w:tixt:14— J.,,f.k �44� 3 -' p it'' k ai 1 ,. � �1: r a _, A i3, k - 'sem t ,' ...••1 `: t .ySi � �' fi ��'R17f as . lyes • FIGURE 2 Atlas of Long Island, New York. Site 1, Peconic. Beers . No Scale1873. Historical Perspectives,Inc. • 0 STP 1, 5M NORTH 0 0 STP4, 5M WEST STP2, 5M EAST 0 STP3, 5M SOUTH FIGURE 3 Location of Shovel Test Pits, PhaselB Field Investigation. ` Site 1, Peconic, May 2002. Approximate Scale: 1 centimeter= 1 meter APPENDIX A SITE FILE SEARCH RESULTS .. ..___ ., ...... U u LBL IS )L? U L caL'I ll . U U1SL°\II CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALISTS 1744 Washington Ave. Extension RENSSELAER, NEW YORK 12144 Darr I 62. roe NQ � (518) 283.0534 Fax (518) 283-6276 ;AUENn0N t E-MAIL: hartgen@hartgen.com 2 .51 .1,, Qo TO RE i . L�`PA- b?) 1(ifbi r (I C i)c Cie J WE ARE SENDING YOU jAttached E Under separate cover via the following items: Shop drawings E Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications E Copy of letter 0 Change order CPIES DATE NO,t DESCRIPTION �•I i'N:4; ' (::..1 _ BUY I n4.I1 (e_. I _ I i iIC Y-k , k eY--'( _ `'b � ( i ICC sCAC, ( ry ,f) hyi eS r I ! 1 1 C\!- CI � I --IL-SE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval = Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit copies for approval 7. For your use = Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution __ As requested = Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints 0 For review and comment - FOR BIDS DUE —_-- = PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ,r1r=RKS / 't_r_2-.1 (_-_.,t,,U , +, 'r _ Lr? . es -.7f.-:-Li.?<wrcdy rioz,,y us at once. - Pk.11. ! - ,e Ii-( jet Name (...11/1 ,I ,• 1 (), IAA PrUjeet Nfiluber ("4' ) 7t.Y.j Client ••• t, Town lift+ County Quatisheets 11t, ,L I (.'on(iiieted Dale Iv) ,/ ,.••• • ,- NENV YORK STATE MUSEUM # Sites kL, SHPO # Sites (.0 Pr41)3 In. "nelta?)?-tf) _ At61317)-. t.,YY-11.))5 exO•60-30,Y • • • • • • • • NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM ,.x Office Use Only--Site Identifier /03 -/o -O 2:2_7 • S: 4 11-C;,,, y P-,:eb,'f/'c ,c..1 Ste'✓C Dject Identifier 6-, ,,,-/.c.-„,•--1 i i e,- G_x.,,* ,4-K J ,Date July, 1980 az- Name Edward J. Johannemann J Phone (516) 246-8615, 6745 address Anthropology Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook Zip 11794 )rganization (if any) Long Island Archaeological Project . Site Identifier (s) Edward Johannemann Ste ,.,o. .3_(--.3 - : . County Suffolk One of following: City. _ Township PeeePic So,, -X,4W Incorporated Village - Unincorporated Village or - Hamlet i0e-«.,/� , S Present Owner Suffolk County Deoartme_nt of Parks, Recreation and Conservation , Address P.O. Box 144 ' West Sayville, N.Y. _ _ _ . _ . _ - - Zip 11796 • ! Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Structure/site Superstructure : complete partial collapsed not evident Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected - . . List construction materials (be as specific as possible) : 27i err,. --/., c Isq-AL / -- . fc Tete r4, e� - Grounds , Under cultivation "Sustaining erosion x Woodland _Upland Never- cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain _Pastureland Soil Drainage: excellent good fair _X poor Slope : . flat gentle moderatex steep —.. Distance to nearest water from structure ipprox. ) 180 ft. _ ' Elevation: 5 ft. Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : - • Surface--date (s) July. 1980 • xSite Map (Submit with form*) - Collection - - Subsurface--date (s) ' 9/4/80 •. Testing: shovel x coringother unit size 30 X 40 cm. no. of units 1 (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation: unit size no. of units. (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be B'"x11" , if feasible Investigator Ed Johannemann & Laurie Schroeder Manuscript or published report (s) (reference fully) : Pr;:sc•nt repository of materials Anthropolap Dept. S.U.N.Y. Ston Brook —. - -.4------ ---t —v..-. •.'7.--. - —•+�rr-'7`k7:„lir•.-_s.4 ..r77. �,',57' a=!7.-4.! - ,u .__... _ �' a•�•�..trt. ryea.9n...,,- C0. .. .`.^'-'w:r`: �.---- Si) 14a NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Only--Site Identifier A 1'O3 /0, OC?O01S Historic Structures Survey Project Identifier (for Town of Southold ) Date. October, 1986 Your Name Town Hall, Main Road Phone (516) 765-1892 Address Southold L. I. , N.Y.11971 Zip Organization (if any) Southold Town Community Development Office 1. Site Identifier(s) "Great 'Western Mill" 2. County Suffolk One of following: City Township Southold Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet Southold 3 . Present Owner unknown -Add--res s - Zip 4 . Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Structure/site Superstructure : complete partial collapsed not evident Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident x _Structural subdivisions apparent _Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected List construction materials (be as specific as possible) : wood Grounds _ _Under cultivation Sustaining erosion _Woodland Upland Never cultivated Previously cultivated _Floodplain _Pasturela Soil Drainage : excellent good fair poor _ Slope : flat gentle moderate x steep Distance to nearest water from structure (approx. ) Elevation: 5 . Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : Surface--date (s) _Site Map (Submit with form*) • Collection Subsurface--dates) Testing: shovel coring other - unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 82"xll" , if feasible Investigator none known Manuscript or published report (s) (reference fully) : H f ner. Windmills of Lona Island. 1983. Pp. 52-55,79, 107. v.Whitakor. Whitaker' s Southold.Amereon House. Mattituck. .Pp. 84-5. Aar-ran Hall. Paaans , Puritans , Patriots . 1975. P. 58. Historic Sites of Southold Town to 1815.Tercentenary Committee. 1913 U.S . Coast SurvPv. T-55. 1838 ra5 Present repository of materials none . known (cont. ) SD .14a (cont. ) 5. Manuscript or published report. Mary H. WP11s. The Story of Jockey Creeks "Small Building" . Manuscript. 1957 le ‘,,, \ i. "Z.1\ \ a r /1:Z —•,:.:I..‘'4 :P. .\ ' ‘k.''L-,S' ,.' r Na'•,....04.-,'--'• -.• Z '\.. ri Pine Crest DuriF:s r� Q ,,/ •Southold•- req••• { (Bn�s Camp)—:. y% �• N° ���"c. 1 :n�'�'•• ••� • ' 1 21 l ./Rb? ;.9 .‘r• ice' • • •:• .• •♦ 1 '♦ • / N i r'1 Fri/ �ti_- �, _J �`'� " �\� / - / Willow r+rl %,:+; {! ~� .\J: -' • D•l • .) ,i 20 11 II c', , _,• - , 0 -:,. / `\• �� �._` L econiC• -•Ii/ ••`1 "` ♦ _� /' -=�i/� ' V i o • ark' :<�• \- �J :' m. II, - *.'.- '. .<-"•.1•4-1-';'°!:,/2 . •••1 1 • ., "/�>> v •oC Peconi ° /• ' `• /rte . •o0�P" �` ' ..•r SCh !6 :3; "----:r /`°ye/ �`Et1/^`s • • % `, �. 0 ,.., - D ,-�:: ..J. 1 .,f� 't • \ �' Apr•/ /,• cn} + ;: it � °♦• 3a.�B�c r\;w \� f' d _ 1' N' b1• -cam •\.c.-i, �o '• 7' / s/' .,- \�. ,;!! CO °;LaughingL( � 'e�• ! �� i>> z ; Waters , '.`, \aa o South I-A?oorj':# •\ , . '\ C ,o r „ Pa/xi • . a, ,=,•. °� / ? a,n •• p. -4,^` / •�� ��Creek ° -' ` Hog Neck ''a, a M'• ',� \ _ -i- _ Bay .. • .27 e(� N\ 0 / •�� •0/%�;. - -...„-,-e-,•.",''0,.;. �"`�". {3 NN .\m . .roA . • • >' East 'Al. • d- ;1• Cutchogue." V d��` .., .a j2.:. ‘ 1 s •• J6 ▪1• •O� •. '''et.� ,y�‘11 1 — •-•7 a :'a . /0 /6 ` `y) ~ �5 • tee,r ;, „". +1 24 i.—/1‘-,,. l - .• N .,--4,....,:`:, \ `� •r t. _ _ _2• _ T,:.'• _ --• .-.-4•:,‘.;.-.-,„--,-.;.-, _ _ -ice --- :- . y b a' •• °♦ `s1 1 Z :4. + _tom ,c.----.,,. i:.,; N. Y. S. DOT Southold Quad V-�---':7- , y x, ._ _ .5- . -.^;.,rJ.^ir•vii,--44 i. --* _K;,,4�.•- .. r :-7,^5. �'" -•,_is::4.1:1•1.. •' ,.er •i~•�.�jr -••Yztr"et`4,-;i'+•',-' •%,.?.. 1,,-•'- fe 27 'r1 :? ^,�s �`,.$i,k .-5,7,1--..-A,,-C- 13,4;•,°,-•, .�.02.Yi�F. 4 r'�' t...a...Y • CSL*�^ ',;.:•- a- .tr 7� lka+ f .�f : 444%,%••••44--e..,!5,*1 ei� s , - y„ f y f'+,.. �'�` �fix? Y,.M 't�i�-.i3•" ,�Y': S L Ta @i� >, • -- L 'Y4Tv1•? k. - .. J'41 ,, +1,, np. C 'S ,, t F3.: El 'a �• rl' ? ' ..qp• .14 .� r ., 7•'...r• s•x,.211,, # .. I ..,,,...,•-•...•••-,,..-?•, 2 ,. J-.J. -Y K -� x C ,•- .t`3m, .4,-,y.f af7 il • ec •-. heS� ✓-"'',.•Zc•,a 1 �k�' a,,°-"'�,�+� ka ��•y3is f _% ,>3i�I�G • r�'t'S".' ', ' `I `.•„".L-* I.t ''.�, .',1' tel 'r'.''T � r• '-4.- °. YY4 ,.,- F '--ek 5l. � �• 'moi' S...: . .•":. .-�.i� :"�:Y -`' `.tea•-,�{'.l -+i' .P'`� IA:,N. "+=f -• As oo..�Ep-.�•4f: .gt;.•t .. �.'Y iff. n• �� ;tif' 4�n-'c�t1` .. -�G- � ��`� . 1 s, i1 .. Vii, -• C KS`y 7r priitii* z• 1'T I iCS6 -T^. t .4:0 ti.....,,„k, .-", .,,,t4.--.;..;•, Ff3r(sa'-"V-11:11J411--41- t-`4�1:iii k ! f'4,,,17-:*; •.r,- •;t.-, . • -,- -,...7- tsn• .. .',� e',,,..4, ' may% ,e,,,4;,..,„.,,,,,,,,..4:. , ts - - --- --- --- - -------- - -- - -' .. ..`"V. J�j I .� a f ? ^i�o lY•R�Y;'4 31� FK'''§ 4 . C1���1%'i?,4.�r x y-'� .•... .. tom,' y�• 1 4 Vo,� n.', u-3 �:1.2 i�•'rK� '3•IZI I -i•P!' -kVr �.�i „Ivor k,Ri -rh-j. • :ti .•S• �}). :. TFT- OK 5.'_/'• .- '•• • :,.::. ,.. 1 . -**..', - • - ° ` i- . 5.,:_ Y a....4._._ . • •' : • tfCt_ h ,...1 • 4 ..,:-s4 s o- 'S‘t, s , 1 _T_ ' �ii11,%:.d..:3-'-'147:\:.-a. :�2 I h • :•,.L., bl- Y .,{ • " ...,,z....-0--..v....- ,--•,;,..e.,...,...„,,,••••-,.. ` ,4,-- Y.e. •...�.IAW• p s !"- �e, , `."- "• '3 } •. � �1 o � 41 Shelter Island Windmill-The sails and d 4�' - '' !,. {ati-; „_, i � s : 0? • z - ,► stocks have been removed from the rotted �•r.4 t ,, ►newindshaft. up on.but if you,conclude to have the bridge beams lie on those girths which support the upper floor perhaps the lower storey had better be as much as 10 feet high-3rd The•..b had better be enlarged as much as the bottom or the arms will come too Moved from Mill Hill, near-4 th l he stone b-earns may be 2 Feet&10 Inches apart&the posts under them Southold ,tand t':u,h'. ith the inside of the beams,St.5 Feet between them the other way-5th ' The post in center of Mill may be from IS to 24 Inches and long enough to rise 4 Feet 5 Inches above the stone hearts-6th The plank rim to be in 6 pieces-7 Cogg Wheel he 8 feet diameter—&Spur Wheel 5 Feet 31.with 52 Coggs each 3112 by I-_.,n.i 1' Inches lor.;—Cants of spur wheel 17 Inches wide&4 thick—Facing of no 7 Inches\\ide and 3 thick—the width of arms 9 In.&4!"_thick—The%allower 3 tee- 10 Inches diameter of plank 2 Inches thick.each head to be double thickness .111.1 the clan::to cross—'S Rounds 14 Inches het•.teen shoulders and 3 Inches diame::r—The rim that holds the coggs for turning,the top of Mill may be 5 Inches thio u d9 or IC vide—Stocks 34,•r 35 Feet lon, S Inches thick and 10 deep at cense .id the ends pr,',portioned so as to cult the points when hewed S Inches one • eil.l - -:he.'therandthethickne-s 'f the,tock about 31''_or4Inches atend— . , Burr Sc,.nes 4 Feet 4 Inches diameter—and the rock Stones 4 Feet 6 or 9 Inche,diameter and:he runner 17 0r IS Inche,chrou h the e\e—ti B. the Post in c:i'er m,i\ be crotched•In one of the•Ieel'ers and a large stone placed under the end—•,•ilr,�l " .,Citi I), ,tiny pini-'1 5"y, .. , ,j. Hnfnar, Windmills of Long Island. 1983 s W.'•4`• Tr:.7: �••'Y13..•i+.f-'- - -mo-w�cvu+•-; •`! SYt` 1tT:, • _---w._ -_—�L ,{yy, ' isf;tti..,+c":�.•.!G .=- 1.0.g. i . ....- . i.- • _tic ,,2_.x. . !„-._.mo.-ip1: .vo .• .,iil � •'44, � - l, � T l • • an .., 4 `�.'k' >bV' Yi'tYfi ,vX..., .,.u+`t:raYs.. r, s.-. •:,s::-�n.<-...�..,:.r_ry _ .. 0)1 . . SD 14'a 71 Isaac Edge's Windmill.Isaac Edge's windmill was probably the most sophisticated one in the New York vicinity at the time. Charles H.Winfield's 1874 History of the 1 County of Hudson.New Jersey. gives the historyof the windmill.Isaac Edge came to ' r1.>st ` ,, .' America in 1801 from England where his i • •-.‘"$. .� •.• father operated a windmill in Derbyshire. In `1 '' '`' " 1815,Edge commissioned the millwrights r i,� - Burmley and Oakes to build a windmill at : • :;gay;;; r � Paulus Hueck on the New Jersey shore across ''� - st.a.. i" � `;-- from Manhattan Island.Winfield states that 1 == .: '' =' `�i- all the machinery for the mill was imported il • '�= 5'-rr : ;-:s~.::it tt 1�« ',.5 __kb., , x ' •; from England and that the windmill was ,4':y, '�t,5c;°,:', .- ;;� r 't,.1 rut t 'a "conducted in all particulars like the mill ' l • '-; -Z7. ' :: i-•=� — - - t +' if; of Mr.Edge's.tather in Derbyshire:'This ��,'p+:. •—'-'' J; Lr _ ".-: windmill,with as directconnection to- -- 11 j......_ - .Y'.==^, •`'': ice- -� - England,may have played an important ; 7 -� ,- -r== - = role in the importation of the new windmill ` -.. :`,,,..;,E.,,,,...' '.- =-_ _ ------,,,,-.--s.,,,,4,.` technology to America.Theetching , `‘04r."- ;*,...-13 -:-2-.1-t:::-.7.--' _-_=Y .,_'Y,,, accompanying Winfield's account shows r _ y-� _ ��, • , -- =--_- a windmill with afour-story tott•erona -.�`' '�� •s- `'- .2,-,•--- ".--., k •_---- -- -'`' - • . two-story stone base.The mill has a fantail •s yr-.•t. ,t. —n., ,tis• '14u...•,, :.n i.r<.. 1,74 and patent sails. Dear Sir. Rensselaerville April 13th 1822 The letter written by Charles Mulford to I do s.ime expect to build a wind null:his season at Albans for grinding corn&r'e Nathaniel Domini'V in 1822 contain, for a distiller'inti in case I do, I sR, ul I like exceeduw well to have some IRtorma- further substantiation of the sophisticated non respecting certain L•lhprove:ne:'ts said to has e been made on that kind of mill machinery of this windmill.Mulford since i its e.i ss Ith sou.of which t^lrr, vements you are undoubtedly acquainted describes a ss indmill he has heard ofas beim, with. i am told w it dmills are r It:w con,trutted so as to continuels face the wind by "near New York on the New Jersey shore said the winds,,ss n power also to reef and regulate the stone,as to regulating the stone to be on a very expensive plan that almo,r winregulate i =.lh: „ '� h ^' of thehaving o tel the time of day.but how tar this multi-- 1 me acquain-ed with:he princip:e operation. seen something-, plying machinery is profitable I don't knoss I of the kind at Flat Bush ss hen I :is cd ss 4th sou, I wish to be informed if you please am told that it is built very high grinds ver whether sou think this kind of c'ac inen:is protitahls used and if so what adds- fast.. Isaac Edge's windmill was the anis Ci.teal e':pence in comparison ::h the plan used when I lived with sou, I wish Cl) one of this type known to have been built on know t..,if ties el,_ears ars used r'r n coo wheel&crown wheel and if so who - the New Jersey shore.Multord's account has cast:he':7 fttr I think:hes require casting a different angle from the common indicates that the windmill was equipped i,et'Cl',C.lra and:'.il.'es'CC lila Ca,':hC':',i•tC ss Ind mills probably have patterns,the with many auxiliary and automatic devices man that I expect to build for is s.'din: has e it cost him about 2000 dollars it This windmill was dismantled in 1839 and reuuires no bol:altho he ss ishes:.'have it double geared and then when he chooses shipped to Southold w here it replaced the he can a.kl an,,rher run t+f:a'ne 1,hou't i like to have you give me a particular Dummy V windmill built there in 1510. description„ n t the h„C improve-t plan it it is convenient and it not some general Krum n in Southold as the Great Western Fluorin,Mill, it was destroyed by fire in 1870. de,ctlp non and what mill sou's,,Uld recommend me Co Cake a draught of, if it should ' be necesars I understand Mr S cheLhn er has built one at Brooklyn different from those at East Hampton and that the top ot that turns ss 4th the ss Ind but whether it is J,,u'^le ge,red,‘r not I ha'. :7. :le„rr ed there is one near Ness York on the New Ier,e•:sh,ire said to be on a very expensive plan that almost tells the time of da,, But • t • tit'':• tar cm,molt iris mg—aichusers ir,,titable. I dont know. I am told that it is Ili t Cr high grinds yep'fast and does work(:) I should like to have your opinion .'t the sic::and kind 5't stone to do s-'rk with the greatest dispatch I have not heard of sour h.tvtng built a mill w here the:op turns bs the ss Ind,but perhaps you have, and if not.you have some general idea of them and perhaps have an improvement that situ c.in s'inge'r to rile on til, ,e nt -t'in use an communications that sou will . • tylia,e make ss di be thatikfaIis rete.};i b', lam w ho is thankful for mans instruc- -ions,lte,kls re:.e1':ed nl', respects Co ail'ifs old fritIlii in East Hampton particularly s .- o'.s:,r,ue'Is tell Mrs:Thom :.• I se,. ` -, . erg-rt.rllerofters don't know hut tilts.are all • r l..,r-, Island here ire 11' . • elI IN u'ii,l ms brother Fd'.Card that s'to saw -,,n,•,•,:-1,.r,„ ., .:: _ _..-c ... ..:,,re•.•.tet,,gar.1,_ l anal el-tills. :r-ss,,,,,_„-'t_tr��e,lteln Charles L Mulford 79 79 R . J. -[fnn_ . Windmills or Long Island. 1983 . 1 • vi-..t--'5-x- •. i �i.'.1:y��: T+-r_.-.._.fir•...-•--'--.nv r-' .�.-.^t� .. --5------5— -S.�� .__..--� _ —_-_- SD 1 46� _- WHITAKER'S SOUTHOLI) -_ - t _ TIIE' T,IMES OF THE FOIJN,DERS - 85 yi ct well knew how to make vice and crime pay taxes and not when it burned down a few years ago. The site_is still known ress as-a heavy burden upon the shoulders of the virtuous. It . as Mill Hill. . one of the, lost arts. The early records also disclose how On the i i lh of March, 1667-8, there was an adjustment of ander was punished, and how the place was kept free.from boundaries made with the Town of Southampton.* le bodies and odors of dead animals, though I find no law On the 13th of March, 1670-I, John Budd sold to Isaac ► relation to the removal of dead fish from the surface of Arnold one-eighth of the ketch "Thomas and-John" for -- 1 �e ground.* forty-five pounds of current pay. Said ketch was on a voyage 1 _The Records make it plain how the town street was main- to Barbadoes. The;burden of the ketch was rated at forty- . .fined in good condition and other highways kept in order; . four tons.f There were few men in Southold at that time who - 1 3w proper regulations were made for the wharf which John severally had an estate worth as much as this sloop of forty- ti •oungs, mariner, was permitted to build at the Head of the _ four tons burden. Two years later, and probably at this date, `arbor, near the present residence of Mr. Francis Landon. '" the price of merchandise or produce often used in barter was Now the site of Town Creek Park:—Ed.] • in Southold as follows: •i The following is a specimen of the local legislation as well Barrel of'porlc .. £03 — to—oo i j ; an illustration of the record.thereof: - Barrel of beef 02 —05 —o0 "July 1659. IY was then in like manner ordered-that from Bushel of summer wheat oo—04—o6 to publicacon hereof no working cattle bee put to foode on Bushel of;pease oo—03 --o6 is com'ons to disturbe the Cowes, and for the prevencon " The Town Records also made known what laws were en- '� lereof they are to go under the hand of a sufficient keeper, . ld in case any-doe otherwise they are thereby lyable to pay acted for the preservation and control of boats, canoes and ; ; 1 )r one ox so taken every tyme 12 d. The same to continue skiffs, as well as for pasturing cattle, sheep and goats, re- :1 4 itil the 'nd of-_Indean harvest, this yeare and every other straining hogs, prohibiting sale or gift of dogs to-Indians, ti and also rum and arms without an order from a magistrate 1 :are hereafter from the beginninge of cow keeping till the and a full record of the whole transaction. They also show d of Indean harvest under the same penalty until a pasture _ • : provided to prevent the aforesaid inconveniency." what premiums were paid for killing wolves, foxes and other i The Records show that on the 3d of April 1679 the Town j kinds of "varment;" and that these premiums year by year 1 Voted a site for a windmill to Joshua Horton, Abraham made a conspicuous figure in-the financial.estimates and ex- penses of the Town. orey and Daniel Terry, the mill to be at Pine Neck upon the i .-- The The local enactments on record also prescribe the way in ' h; 11 over against Peter Dickerson's house. That is, the mill which.the ratables must be presented to the proper officer • by r,r as to stand where the windmill of Mr. Rene Villefeu stood ,i - each inhabitant, and the payment be made within fourteen The use of fish for fertilisation of the fields, efficient but highly days after the publication of the rate. '� . .orful,had only recently been abandoned when this humorous comment ' is penned. For a full account of the spring fishing see my Mattituck, ; *Printed Records, Vol. 1, p. 278. �� 228.—Ed. • f ibid., p. 293. '� Rev. F. Whitaker. Whitaker's Southold. - d 1 Amereon House. Mattituck , 1882 - m B '"....3n, ‘ .. - :�, -- f . l . P. 2 YY1 -•w.tf•e• Joaksy CreeY� :• +:1 t, C reel pe�ic' s ,where it ser�ecl as Southolci ' s first meat marYet,eonduet • . , i rora� moved tto the rear of- t' ` )� Simeon B.Horton. I bong since t _ August 1955. �r ere it was photographed in •~"'' i there h ._____--__ . • •.., r , • ('.lyam! - -;•a-ft .4 ‘ . •• . •••• l ,_ • r ,f...„..05 • .F -sM� • , ol a.- T:F�.•. • ,r'., Imo•.•Y • tri+ --W" .. 4 l • - x-. s ' � � � \V \� ';; 'tom •.. :i � t. - � J• �* • ••44: �' .' , g ' SiR' ilAE�tr'�Jr .+ o-�I � � ? iyf2i• J . • ;M - ' yf:G.•Ac;: •.0y_ - J s, V ` •7 \ ;ince 4t.'.;/ :tin. ?‘‘-: -'1`:'----*N 4 f \r.1‘,,:1„'''' 1C4_.v.' '''--\c-‘-:.\,t,,1 4,(\e\r--4 1 3‘N-., k v't T ., :,,,i7 . • :xK'rres•;t•r++. w='t_ ��•>k' _ «,,,`,3 ;4;4: _ ~ i } ',� si JI -_` ik7"+s i •. %�(�i. • 2'n,.. 2:••••‘;';'.. .° s �';. 'srl ��( �' r+ • ,"i'• •j+ is" '.. •-•7-' ztz ' - :441,..-.•1',..te•--,41' '...* mi. .0,---(s--44-44-10.4r • • •• •:•A• 4 '.. -'' \ '4y0�' : tL ..X wC� �'•.:t_.�n.++i•4` + ..4,4,C n si r c,• /t's•..• c•I+1R n. :1.w '1 Y ._ rP -`b' 3. t � 4•� sj . .rc • -,t Y .tv, y„.` si,.,,}'04• ` ti •�• S M �P' t lt• .:`' 1• -.7 q,' • 1,..,,e4--,v- l l�Y 3y�y2ri.�'•y..Y• rr `.y.. .,,y.:f �-2�' Y'dv Ft's-r r �� O f i M� /N¢'� ?vS±Y� 14,- , 1-A,• ! Y /.�l .yL. 4 J , - y g. i r'yf 70...f •'Y •:- 4ro..: 'ti( ;y...• < .YnjJ-:r.Cf ;T_• ,:'••t:. s„V•,.-:.;..t_ L•••�. i. y.�.},...r-I 1 . yy� i ictl.• 5.15 h.^y 75-i `.: !4},•,l*.0•.3i::4.•ZIeitA: .. _.._lfi e{.- . t om. h rc t l J t.- •�^^”. • WI `na'+Y�-s:'t!•,.a^. ,7� -''' :e 4"tali. (l,.-1- ` r .•,{;-.- SI :1C• 5OP. C^41,-1sc _ . p...".s�•{CA• } � -I"-� I �RLcj..jlcty {``-4:-.' p• )0 , w-.4.,'",-,•.•• •=,..--:-.0:,;• .s :-'�': c-ti:91,�1-1:.:'x•t_4 --111 4-,4,,k.1t4 ,r f t.M.',••3 ` -.-z.:..,-,^5,...{- _t Y.J3`am .:_f* •I •, :vac: • Y: •. �.: •.;£�s <c ':'i 7>' r.' '.'.,-a.,,yn-,y''`'� rq;•.:k--41.: .„.....7--- ..-_ti i' °' •'Itki f ,;�,"i,:. :vac: • .`?:_;;` --',.7 .......---....----••-•- r,. •� •C.! t._ t •/ • .f• .. .••`i• - a ♦ 11 L t . I •,',/ + it. .7-' \. _ \ . t, •!�r 1_ .[:'\13-./.1^'. \ t1, . _ Z J •.. ,�r.-_ -ice i, 9tt=,,. NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM , For Office Use Only--Site Identifier 4/o3 - /0 -0030 - Project Identifier Richmond Creek Faris Date 12/11 /86 Ybur Name B_lladello/:;ohannemann Phone (51 t 2116-8615 Address ,��A;,; s t,ry S•iaiY - Stony 8rco'k. N. Y. Zip 1179Z -11,Q0 . . Organization (if any) T .,.,y 70' 0„,1 prr,i.,a�ninginal PT'njeCt 1. Site Identifier (s) /6'c L,�o„.j 6-..,k fu,.,,,sch_ 2 . County s - - One of following: City Township Se,,,fhd lW Incorporated Village - . Unincorporated Village a-_ Hamlet Pecc,ni r 3 . Present Owner Don S'^r?rc fl iral ddress YY . An-nm?n+ -harp ,- - --- - - 600 wire Rd . Pl eaca-it-r, l 1 P . N. 7 Zip 08292 • 4 . Site Description .(check all appropriate categories) : Site - X Stray finds Cave/Rockshelter Workshop (lithic) Pictograph _Quarry Mound Burial Shell midden .Village 7 Surface evidence _Camp x_Material in plow zone Material below plow zone _Buried evidence • _Intact occupation floor Single component Evidence of features Stratified Multicomponent Location —' Under cultivation Never cultivated - X Previously cultivated Pastureland _Woodland Floodplain Upland x_Sustaining erosion Soil Drainage: excellent — goody fair poor _ Slope: flat gentle moderate steep Distance to nearest water from site (approx. ) ,.dinnent (creek to west) Elevation: 0 to lQ ft . - 5 . Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : Surface{ date (s) Decemyer. 1986 y Site Map (Submit with form*) z_Collection Subsurface--date (s) December 1986 Testing: shovel coring other unit size1 , 5 X 1 . 3 ' no. of units 6' (Submit plan of units with form*) - Excavation : unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 8 "x11" , if feasible InvestigatorEd J ohej.21 .= r r,a,,r_�e 1 111 1 o StP ni e Rippel-Erikson , Ste: e a Erre •?aL'- T'4T,`•7.^�:'!� ;�'„�`,'„'S7p`�n wj.^..S^-'+"-axe - .. .-`,• ��_' - _. ''. _`J - - �t��?�..-..2,_ ..7 -'�r';t:,:i "r"s-"9�+-. _•+� . , ,.�•_.r e. '+v _ -,.ot.l-` •s-. i '14740-71. ' ,-..,1::_.- .* • . .--10:..•.--.:N4-,:. ,.,..- .r•-•-...'•"--14-,..,_.:&,,., .."' • -. "r 'V,„_,-.1 -!.-.vt --, edj• . ' ,. '•N.: __."_!.-..7- ' •-••,'-r-1----. - -- ?k:„..--ii.e ' ' 'W.T.:- ldsmith •., ,..,,,,,::::;!--1.,•21- ,- ' ••••,!, `,.. • •• ',': 4 " , '.. ..:.-......• ..•'.'• T..... :01 _inlet(..t' --..."•-/-;---) fc=-73).f L.U f,:' ,/-, -‘ , • \ WAllow Hill.,'CA__ A , .A- ' , . ..p... ... W.- / . \ ,, --- . Cm/L' • . ..."',./. •.., • /" a 'I. • '... . '•,:e5s\‘' 1.• IC `-• 1--' ,- (./.,, •'`v c. '''''? -, , \ I jeg ' (•PAAve iiccgf. ,..e.is' //.. : id_, -1---.v-),7\ ,.--, ,- , -. \ .., • , - \ i ... -,... ..,,,.. AA' •I' :',, ;'' n,25 • ;••P; ''`i'.'i,,,,-4`A' -,,) / N., ,1v3 , / • 20 > ' --/ •• . 6./ .i % • \ 4 . '...- ,-'\•-• -,‘ ••• C___,-1' ./s7./.'-.,' • ---'. . • '-‘, -s . . i s, I•- ., ‘J1. _...../-•-- . . ,.. --- - •••.•• ' •\ , . . • er , 4;4: A ) ..,•-, • . - ..uxil w n b\---,t •...: ; ..r i L -J 's / • • r 0 • -•• - -•C' 0 (((' '••••,-••'' '• - ..' r'''' ,4,-• < •0' •• .,-.•••• ••-, o . A : ••••••••-• .: '. • •---Th, • . ' ..• ---- ' ,c;•'\() r(•-••21 (KJ' 14'4' X'\ '• .- . • •• • ‘3 \ • -".'-;',.'. ::k. "„; / i t&i, •••-'' ••• /\ / . •:„..• CIS.N e'... t-- .......-.......; •,,, •.0 '..• I v. • • t , ,. ' ..• • .... -..:S• ' 1 ..., ; -1 ...- €.../;::, .....%;::-.•• \ -Peenicy(- - *. -,.. , , •- --"- •-• - -', , • , c, • - -,4 , - •'1' N . . ---, 0, i -;-----."----- )6.,,rs. ,'' -.:?-' • ' < ' •\_..,- • :. • / , ....._ - -a _ -' • ..----' - . • ..t. /.• - Az, •; 7 05,-, .•;-.-:,. ' i ...... . • • • 0 -1 ‘ • - 21,...s • C ,... , •C'C' '. • , • , . • •,;o 0....ro /.0,........ . . ?.••! l' .., ....,........ -Fp - 6 .... Peconic - •::.. • .-T• \ • ... \ ,. , - • / ., . .,,p •,....1--c.. . .... , .... • • •:• 0 Sch .. • ... • . . •.. .y'. •V•1 1 •'. / •--5...t 4: . .....,, \ • - i .• -, • • -- '. • .. ---•-•ft• 7, • • • -...,• •,. 1 i'.. • '''''0' ,. • • '....----- • . ••• i _0 \ s 'S• N. \ , %.17. TV H.. _ 0 .-- _._.- . • -..----• - . •. 4.,A, :: • c: ...., . . N . . , ,__,._ .., , , . • •• . •,.. - . , • s . , • , j i•• • • " ..°, :.--- - i •,:..): ._9 r•, -• 6 • t . -._.••i› Ar•k .1 t ,' 1 / ....,,PROJECT AREA -,:--we -, n,,, t, ' ----)-• rki N• .• '•.. . '.-.-. - • : •ii:iFi: ‘ Y'a I, • . . . ,,i s' /--. •/: .`•••••''.• - -'sis--- , -- ''';;•-••,# 0 .•,-.\, 'fiiiii:. / . /, ., .; . , '44...,-- — •Ii.:-4,,,,, . c:,' \ %,' • :11 ‘‘.% .. S • . ' \ • i• I .... '... • . '••• , •eC: . . / 17--) "• '' : ..;++..Laughin - ', ' .' N Li• % 1/5. • ::••::‘'.:: \ • ..• 9 . / j V 1 . • o•-•• ...' . ‘. WO ''',. .-.../• `,‘,.. ..• ... • '..•• . : \ '4..\... , . .,1..*IC'•::..1 7.-7• :- :11.;:‘:.::•:::?:"::i:.1:7': • 1p•‘:. j..‘. . ,/..si.uith Ilia.partri :.....:11,1 ••••::‘,.....:.\:te...74::.N7...w.vii.i ..:.::, . ' Z.:. • :: ;•:::i::::- •1 9'•' / ', ), , , ',1 . 4'' / N . • % . Vi. ) •::::ii:::ii::i:. sh 1) ' 1 "' , 'Y.•• , \ _ • / ---,,--- "N /, NN o°.• ., tj• \ A -‘7--- *.• ":::1:,-, '': '4•••1 . cn- --'- - ' : :' - . -.) - , .sv. • , ,-- •-_ .; -.. .---', , _ i • H o g N e 1*--...:_ ,- . .....L / ..„‘,, a, . . N.. L.,:,...., --... .-; A• . . . ... \-f-,,, ' ‘ - --- - Te t.„.... , /..-) Bay .... • :....,... ..(--„—, ....,; ; Bl.,,,• , \ •, .,0 \ - , '-- ;2-0"2.9 .. ‘, • •V-_-... ' ' _ ,---__. ... ,--......._.-,••-• .1 / ..... • ••••• • ... „.. ........_......i ...i / •;=:;' ',-0 )1_'•,,." • .. •\. ..„. -- •,- ./ . /\.i -- p `-.„. .‘1'1, .?,-‘\, : 'j7c ---' -6-- '3,• "1-* ./-I/ , . 1 * .--,.',.27*.'( 1 r-) - '- -.Lra =---:---•,- s, 1 • .-'`.---,-.1Ve"‘s i ,/ 3 S . .i V,. ,-.. ,,,,i'Z; •%... t‘..1 4,‘;'"f./ 4 - \ V .... IS+ 1,.,•, \ ..):),‘,, f 1 1.).,141.. .•- /.,,,,*•• .4. \ .., '.. ,,,/ ; 1 ••••••\.. ... N •'"....; 4 • • .1 . \--,.. ‘. il•`' :11. ,...,----'. •'..,.../ Ift,4,, -4-. y. F./ ,•• . .• • , . \ .......: -1---e--,•\ .„ -7-''\ -/- ' •.• • /-----°•,--'..„, / ,.-- ..., •‘.,v.• ,1• 4 ,,- - .. , ..,,,,z ,.East •,I, :,..- r-) , t, •,,, , .,....4)„, ,.. 2 -. .-J•\ _ • -.• lit.411DgileAl \ . . ,v •It, '-'s ..../ 1,5 -...., ,,, 0 •.,. -, • / • 1-• — . U ' 1 N., b\ -.. 1 .. \ _,,f'd.,,r's) ' ‘Z:, ••:, : )1_,I.' :-.. • ''' 4 N;;V • •,'1 '1 •'A'....,-'.al . . \ ; • • 7, , •:••:,,,2, .1:\..< .... K ;‘•7N---X.• • ' N \X 1 / V ,...i 10 20 -7- ) 1\...i. • - : 'oN --....y %. . / - -1. '-• 1 ....so j. ,-/ c•%..- ---cs,. -----r-'"7. .. • / • .T-j'- ::A ' '• -EUGEAte. \\\ ''' ....RD'''. i'1'.. •• • / 7 . ..___..) IN 'q 3 21 21 '----t.. • r -7\--ct \t:v. , . • /'•• . ‘,5 -. i .s-!.. Iv.. e-•4- . • 11. ,41'..."--"':`-z-xY.• .• . N.-I O\':', '\k", 1- , ‘73.- __-ts ‘e • • •, 2 t _.t lele - ;*- •• 22 .. •••: \ . P3- c, ..., r • ,k..,... 1...„ , ....,L...-• :r /0 2/ 7.---'''..\\... ......, .01 i..../•-• -1•• Cr , •,...0....„, \ In :, •.- II,.., Z .. s . ......--r. . . • \4:#.„-, ' .:-X..Nz.z. Ci ) •7. .„XNasair-z- -•••\ 1--" / ' , • ••. 1 ,- ,• ..•1 .,sTe7. ).c:z.1 ....fic.\ 1.\\,I.,c. 'Farras.: •-.-.-1, ...... •k'. 1 20 ' ...1 „. .. • • .• ; .• •C . . -::•Nc, C -‘ • . . g -•. co • ,• .....• ..I.k ,‘. . .>.• - ••••• • _ i 12 _ , V s V.. tO , r...._ •_. ,. ..,•,-- (r, `-.-,, ,..,-w, ,,.— . . , — .r- \, " c..1- ' '; ; . .• - '\,..-t----• • '.. ••b . '.., L I T --,._ ..-- _ , p•• . ' ... " • \ ,-71,12, ,,,_ \ :,, c•;-- ...- :.,, \-,6 , I( ..• --_..,‘ ,.,..• ,•,' ••,:,,, 4„_ _, •_,_• . 1 CI ...'. • •••\ •-* -•-• .4,-9 .27 .......... Ca.. A s sr ‘s •'1 A , '',,.. 4•••• ••• t‘'.•. 1,••• \ A. .*): ) "" ::,l. ..; t. ! . Figure 1 . Location of Richmond Creek Farms Subdivision , Peconic . (United States Geological Survey , Southold quadrangle , 1956) Scale 1 in . . 2 , 000 ft . ,..- _ _ . i.7.; - y l Fti, r..2. y;-ter NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM ; • For Office Use Only--Site Identifier Ai o5IOr 000030 rProject Identifier Richmond Creek Farms Date June 1999 Your Name David J. Bernstein Phone (516) 632-7615 Address Dept of Anthropology. SUNY-Stony Brook Stony Brook. New York Zip 1179.t-4364 Organization (if any) Institute for Long Island Archaeology 1. Site Identifiers) Richmond Creek Farms 2. County Suffolk One of following: City Township Southold Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet 3. Present Owner Peconic Land Trust I Address 296 Hampton Road Southampton. New York . Zip 11969 i 4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site Site _Stray find _Cave'Rockshelter _XWorkshop A _Pictograph __Quarry _Mound Burial _Snell midden —Village - X Surface evidence _Camp X_Material in plow zone P. X Material below plow zone X_Buried evidence _Intact occupation floor , `' _Single component _Evidence of features Stratified - __Multicomponent Location _Under cultivation . _Never cultivated _XPreviously cultivated _Pastureland _Woodland _Floodplain _Upland Sustaining erosion Fl r - Soil Drainage: excellent_good X fair_poor_ Slope: flat_gentle X moderate_steep_ f•4 Distance to nearest water from site (Approx.) 10 m Elevation: +-2 meters 5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets. if necessary): Surface--date(s) May 1999 Pi Site Map (Submit with form) - - Collection May 1999 Subsurface--date(s) May 1999 • Testing: shovel X coring.-,other_unit size 40cm dia x60cm deep no. of units 115 • ! Excavation: unit size Ix; meter no. of units 3 Investigator David J. Bernstein. Ph D. Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): Bernstein, &Lenardi (1999):A Stage 2 s"tl Archaeological El aluarion of Lots 2 and 3 in Richmond Creek Farms, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Institute for Long Island Archaeology. St-NY-Stony Brook. Present repository of materials Institute for Lona Island Archaeology. SUNY-Stony Brook mo '¢A NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Only--Site Identifier r- b �1��G..e h._ c..( _5..rvc Project Identifier G2.../.‘(.4....e-t, � Date July, 1980 Your Name Edward J. Johannemann Phone516 ) 246-8615, 6745 Address Anthropology Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook Zip 11794 Organization (if any) Long Island Archaeological Project 1. Site Identifier (s) Edward Johannemann .571e'n o. is--/ 2. County Suffolk One of following: City • Township Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet _3_.___ Present Owner _Suffolk_ Co_._ Department of Parks, Recreation__and Conservation__ _.-- Address P.O. Box 144 West Sayville, N.Y. • Zip 11796 4 . Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Site xStray find ' Cave/Rockshelter Workshop Pictograph --Quarry Mound Burial Shell midden Village XSu=face evidence Cama 'Material in plow zone Material below plow zone Buried evidence • - Intact occupation floor _ _ Single component Evidence of features - Stratified - "- Multicomponent • Location Under cultivation Never cultivated Previously cultivated Pastureland xWoodland Floodplain Upland Sustaining erosion Soil Drainage: excellent _ goodfair poor Slope: flat r gentle _ moderate _ steep x Distance to nearest water from site (approx. ) 130 ft. Elevation: 5 ft. 5 . Site Investigation (append additional sheets; if necessary) : Surface date (s) July, 1980 x Site Map (Submit with form*) -x-collection ' • • Subsurface--date (s) 9/4/80 Testing : shovel x coring other unit size 30 X 40 cm. no . of units 1 (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation : unit size no. of units :uvmic E,ian of units :with form*) * Submission should be 81/2"xll" , if feasible in 'e st ,a co= Ed Johannemann % Laurie Schroeder s!-ff V NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM ror Office Use Only—Site Identifier 4/1/3 /4:4 , c / Si.. ? o j ect Identifier (- l',- c ., 1., 'I' Date November 11, 1980 Luz Name Edward J. Joy ani.- Tan J Phone (s76) 2_44 - /‹.- G 7/S Vdre='s ^`h � ^1^ „ nant \I qt nnt• Rrn�l� Zip 1170/1 • lrganization (if any) L.I. Archaee?oaical Project - I Site Identifier (s) Ed Johannemann r,1-- el4 a. ,County Suffolk One of following: City Township Pew e .So<<�/e, /,/ Incorporated Village Unincorporated. Village or Hamlet Present Owner Suffolk Co. Dent. of Parks, Recreation & Conservation ,address P.O. Box lzth West-Sayville. N.Y. - Zip 11796 _ 1 Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident__ Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected sti construction materials (be as specific as possible) : . Grounds Under cultivation Sustaining erosion X Woodland _Upland --Never- cultivated Previously cultivated x Floodplain Pastureland Soil Drainage: excellent good fair x poor —Slope: flat gentle :ronrate steep x Distance to nearest water from structure Tpprox. ) 130' Elevation: 5' Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary) : Surface--..date(s) July 1980 x Site Map (Submit with form*) --Collection • Sugurf ace—°date (s) "9/d/80 Testing: shovel x coring_ other unit size 30X 40 cm. no. of units 1 ( ub it plan of units with form*) Encatration: unit size no. ofunits (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 871xll"o if feasible . Investigator Ed 3ohannen or &�,auri Bch .anu2eript or published report (s) (reference fully) : • Pre ..e.nt repository of a.terialeAnthropology Dept. S.U.N.Y. Stoat/ Rrnnk NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM r Office Use Only--site Identifier /I/03 - /o - o ZZs ,... —z/ �vcf.•r �G- :'e ., t ;�,�,/�a•/! oject Identifier C-7-/e/f.... .2,!c J J/ Date July, 1980 ur Name Edward J. Jonannemann Phone (516) 246-8615, 6/45 kddress Anthr000locv Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook Zip 1179a )rganization (if any) Lana Isl and Archaeological Project Site Identifier (s) Edward Johannemann County Suffolk One of following: City Township -Peeanic __S0/44-Xo/a/ Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet Present Owner Suffolk Co. Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Address P.O. Box 1L4 _-. . West- Sayville. -N.Y..- -- -- - zip 11796 Site Description (check all appropriate categories) : Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident Fou dation: above below (ground level) not evident Structural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible —Buried traces detected - Last construction materials (be as specific as possible) : • Grounds Under cultivation Sustaining erosion x Woodland _Upland ® Never• cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain Pastureland Sail Drainage: excellent good fair x poor Slope: flat gentlemoderate x_ steep Distance to nearest water from structure TEpprox.) majj1. Elevation: Site Investigation (append additional -sheets, if necessary) : Surface--date (s) _]2�3�.., Site Map (Submit wit. forme*) Collection Subsurface—date (s) ' 9/4/80 • Testing: shovelx coting_ other unit size 30 x a.0 rm_ no. of units 1 (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 81/2"xll" , if feasible Investigator P-r1 1nhcnnr-,=., 4. S ianuscript or published report (s) (reference fully) : • Pr.tsent repository of materials Anthropology Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO. 111n3 - 1°` `E DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION QUAD. $i r ALBANY,NEW YORK SERIES e./.' C.s 717 NEG. NO. 518 474-0479 REPORTED BY: YOUR ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: ORGANIZATION (if any): DATE: * * * * * * * x * * * * * * x x * * * * * * * * * * * * 1. SITE NAME: re-",--,,c -2- ?. COUNTY: // J TOWN/CITY: _ ' ;=`--�L. .r'- / VILLAGE: Cc•-''A,C l 3. LOCATION 4. PRESENT OWNER: 5. OWNER'S ADDRESS: . 6. DESCRIPTION, CONDITION, EVIDENCE OF SITE: ❑ STANDING RUINS ❑ CELLAR HOLE WITH WALLS ❑ SURFACE TRACES VISIBLE ❑ WALLS WITHOUT CELLAR HOLE • UNDER CULTIVATION ❑ EROSION ❑ UNDERWATER ❑ NO VISIBLE EVIDENCE 0 OTHER 7. COLLECTION OF MATERIAL FROM SITE: ❑ SURFACE HUNTING BY WHOM DATE ❑ TESTING BY WHOM DATE 0 EXCAVATION BY WHOM DATE ❑ NONE PRESENT REPOSITORY OF MATERIALS: 8. PREHISTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATION OR DATE: HP-3 Site Nemo S.C.A.A.Map No, Bowery • !I Other Names 722 Village I Town Southold Southold Location Probably on Bowery Lane Co-ordinates U.S.C.S. 7W QUAD. Southold approx. 410 3' 20"/ 72° 26' 15" culture Period Type of Site Excavated by Whom When? Booth DESCRIPTION OF SITE: T. ONDITION OF SITE: _ P .JLLECTIONS (description,location,cat. -): • :FERENCES: SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Museum at Southold REMARKS: 576 F130 14-72j ."-"•" '•aT. >R.1, ^.•s-..,eq+.:..c-�a++;n-:y=_`%?,S�,�J'r.•;'n':a.^:,-�. S,T.+.+n:^sr'r -nA^+s_ 1 _ars.T«...�+�+� �r.e..=aa. ATTACHMENT B Avian Report Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Project, Suffolk County, New York Osprey Dominion Vineyard Site - - - -- - - - - June 2002 - Report Prepared for: AWS Scientific,Inc.—Bruce Bailey,President and Long Island Power Authority(LIPA) Report Prepared by: Curry& Kerlinger,L.L.C. Paul Kerlinger,Ph.D Curry& Kerlinger,L.L.C. P.O.Box 453 Cape May Point,NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 email: pkerlinger@,aol.com www.cunykerlinger.com LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 2 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Project, Suffolk County,New York Osprey Dominion Vineyard Site Executive Summary A wind power project consisting of a single 50-kilowatt wind turbine,has been proposed for an agricultural sites in Suffolk County,New York. The Atlantic Orient Wind.turbine is equipped with 25 foot long rotors,mounted on a diagonal lattice tower about 100 feet in height (total height about-125 feet-when the-rotor is-in the 12 o'clock position). -Electrical lines would —be underground on site and then run above or underground to the nearest transmission lines, which are either on or adjacent to the turbine property. The electricity generated would be the equivalent needed to power about 15 average homes. Ownership of the land is private and is used as a commercial vineyard. Land use would remain virtually unchanged. This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for wind power development. It includes a literature review and site visits by an avian expert on May 16,2002. Together,these sources of information provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use a project site and the area surrounding that site. This information is then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any,from wind power development at a particular site. In addition, the concerns of regulators and environmental organisations were determined and incorporated into the risk assessment. The Osprey Dominion Vineyard site is one of several sites that have been considered by LIPA for wind power development. A brief description of the site follows. The number following the site name is the reference number used by LIPA during,the screening process. > Osprey Dominion Vineyards-#1 (41°02.7'N 72°27.076'W)—turbine would be located within a grape field 200+feet from a tree/hedge row. A small wetland exists more than 250 feet from the turbine location, although there is no open water within this distance. There are no significant habitats for birds within hundreds of yards of the turbine site. The Osprey Dominion Vineyard is used for growing grapes and for winemaking. The turbine site is not sensitive habitat,nor is it habitat where birds normally nest. The small, semi- wooded wetland that is within 100 feet of the edge of Osprey Dominion Vineyards, is the closest wetland or sensitive habitat to the turbine location. Activity at the site is considerable including heavy farm equipment, earth moving equipment, trucks, and field workers attending to the grape vines. Nothing in the literature or from what was observed on the site indicated that it was an important nesting or foraging area for birds including federally or state listed or sensitive (species of concern) species. There are no known hawk migration pathways or lookouts on or Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 4 Introduction A small wind power project has been proposed for a site in Suffolk County,Long Island, New York(Figure 1). Because birds have been impacted at a few, older wind power sites in the United States and Europe, concern for their well-being has been raised as an issue at most proposed wind power facilities. The impacts on birds include fatalities resulting from collisions with operating turbines and habitat modification/disturbance as a result of construction activities and new infrastructure at a particular site. Impacts have been reported at modern wind power facilities,but they have not been deemed significant from a population perspective. That impacts have occurred at some sites suggests that these impacts are associated with site-specific attributes. - --This report details-a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment-contracted for the Long Island -- - Power Authority(LIPA)Farm Bureau wind power project. The purpose of a Phase I Assessment is to determine the potential risks to birds at a proposed wind power project site. Thus,the Phase I Assessment is designed to guide developers,regulators, environmentalists,and other stakeholders through the process of determining the degree of risk at a particular site and how impacts or potential impacts,if any are perceived,need to be studied in more detail. The initial assessment includes a site visit and a literature search. The site visit is made by a trained avian ecologist(Paul Kerlinger)with extensive experience in wind power development. The site and surrounding area are walked and toured by automobile. During the visit,habitat and topography are examined and the avifauna present is observed. The site visit is not meant to be a quantitative surveyor inventory of birds on the site and surrounding area. Instead,the purpose of the site visit is to gain an understanding of the habitat and topographic features so that a list of species that might be present may be assembled and the potential for risk to those birds evaluated. The literature search includes examination of pertinent materials including Audubon Christmas Bird Counts,hawk migration literature/newsletters,New York Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA),USGS Breeding Bird Surveys,Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA), Important Bird Areas(IBA)projects, and other sources of information on birds that might nest,migrate through, forage on,winter on, or concentrate at the site. Information from these diverse sources are then integrated into a report like the one that follows, summarizing what is present at a site,potential risk of wind turbine construction at the site, a comparison of risk at the site with other sites where risk has been determined empirically, and suggestions for further studies, if indicated. . Project Description. The LIPA Farm Bureau wind energy project at Osprey Dominion Vineyard would consist of one, 50 kilowatt Atlantic Orient Windpower wind turbine generator, east of the town of Riverhead. The single wind turbines would produce a total of 50 kilowatts of generating capacity. The tower will be diagonal lattice structure about 100 feet in height,with rotor lengths of about 25 feet. The footprint of the wind turbine is limited to an area of less than 35 x 35 feet Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 6 > Osprey Dominion Vineyards -#1 (41°02.7'N 72°27.076'W)—The turbine would be located near the edge of a grape field about 100-150 feet from a tree/hedge row. This vineyard has been producing for many years and the vines are mature. The vegetation at the project footprint is mowed grass and grape vines on a trellis-like structure. The habitat cannot be construed as wildlife habitat and certainly is not suitable for any rare or sensitive species. A small wetland, a stream with wet areas adjacent to it, exists about 200+feet from the turbine location, although there is no open water for a greater distance. There is a treed buffer between the turbine location and the wetlands that consists of mostly upland species adjacent to the field and some wetlands species in the wetlands per se. Wetlands vegetation that is visible from the edge of the tree row includes Phragmites and willows(species?). Upland trees included black cherry,locust, a cultivated cherry, eastern red cedar,box elder, sumac, and Norway maple, all of which indicate a disturbed area(some species are non-native) or a forest in early stages of succession. Brushy and herbaceous species included poison ivy, multiflora rose,Japanese honeysuckle,Virginia creeper, and vetch, among others. There are no significant habitats for birds within hundreds of-yards-of-the-turbine site. --The-field----- - - - beyond the wetland/hedge row was cultivated, offering little wildlife habitat. Vineyard buildings and barns/sheds were located near the project footprint and a dirt road- separated the vineyard fields from the hedge-tree row. A major road,Highway 25,runs by the project site and large transmission lines are visible in the distance. There were two communication towers within about one-half mile of the project footprint and transmission lines for the project's power are just off site. A sodfarm was located immediately adjacent to the corn field in which the turbine would be located. Birds observed on site included Herring Gull,Red-tailed Hawk,Rock Dove,Mourning Dove, American Crow,American Robin,Eastern Kingbird,European Starling, Gray Catbird, Northern Mockingbird,Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat,Northern Cardinal,Brown- headed Cowbird,Red-winged Blackbird,Baltimore Oriole, and House Sparrow. During the site visit we were told that an Osprey nest occurs about a mile away from the site and that herons and egrets fly through the site from time to time. The wetlands are too small and isolated to support shorebirds, although individual herons or egrets (Great Blue Heron is likely), ducks (most likely Mallard), and a few other birds that are attracted to wetlands will be present at times. The type of habitat on site and its dissected and disturbed nature on and immediately adjacent to the project site suggests strongly that the site is not suitable for most species of special concern, threatened, or endangered species. Species that nest on and adjacent to the site are primarily common species of forest edge,brush, and,to a lesser degree oldfield and grassland. Forests adjacent to the site are small and it is improbable that they support the more uncommon Neotropical migrant species of songbirds or sensitive interior forest nesting birds. Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger • 8. Table 1. Birds of New York State that are endangered,threatened,or species of special concern (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation,Endangered Species Program;Federally - listed species are also included as indicated). Also noted was whether the habitat at the project site or immediately surrounding the site(within 200 m)was suitable(S),marginally suitable as indicated(MS),or not suitable(NS)for that species. A question mark indicates that a definitive determination was not possible or there was uncertainty in the evaluation. Endangered/Threatened Species Status-Suitability of Project Site Habitat Pied-billed Grebe Threatened-NS Least Bittern Threatened -NS Bald Eagle Threatened-NS (Federally Threatened— Proposed for delisting) --------- Northern Harrier - - - -- --- - Threatened--NS Golden Eagle(extirpated) Endangered-NS Peregrine Falcon Endangered-NS Spruce Grouse Endangered-NS King Rail Threatened-NS Black Rail Endangered-NS Upland Sandpiper Threatened-NS Piping Plover Endangered(Federally Endangered Great Lakes, Threatened on Atlantic Coast) -NS Common Tern Threatened-NS Roseate Tern Endangered-NS (Federally Endangered) Black Tern Endangered-NS Least Tern Threatened—NS (Federally Endangered) Short-eared Owl Endangered-NS Loggerhead Shrike Endangered-NS Sedge Wren Threatened-NS Henslow's Sparrow Threatened-NS Species of Special Concern Common Loon NS American Bittern NS Osprey NS Sharp-shinned Hawk MS (foraging only) Cooper's Hawk MS (foraging only) Northern Goshawk NS Red-shouldered Hawk . NS • Black Skimmer NS Common Nighthawk MS? (foraging only) Whip-poor-will NS Red-headed Woodpecker NS Homed Lark • NS Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 10 project site with a significant hawk migration. Away from the shore on Long Island there are no known migration concentration sites. It is unlikely that the flat topography and agricultural situation at the project site would attract raptors during autumn migration, although a few individuals may forage on or adjacent to the site after or before their daily migratory flights (Kerlinger 1989). Wintering Birds The winter climate on eastern Long Island is harsh, lasting from November through mid- March. The project site is subject to moderate to strong winds,relatively low temperatures, and some snowfall. These attributes combine to make the area relatively inhospitable to birds during the winter. Such harsh weather necessitates high caloric intake for avian survival. However,the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean,Long Island Sound, and Peconic Bay has a moderating effect on the weather-on-eastern Long Island and waterbirds—especially those associated with-salt water (both open water and tidal marshes), are present in very large numbers in some places. Land birds are not uncommon throughout the general area,but their distribution varies greatly and is keyed to habitat. The primary sources of information on birds wintering in and around areas like the LIPA Farm Bureau project sites are National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs). CBCs from 1991/1992 through 2000/2001 were examined from three counts (Orient—centered at the northern tip of Shelter Island; Quogue-Watermill—centered about 2 miles northeast of the navigation beacon at Shinnecock Inlet; and Sagoponack—centered at Georgia Pond Inlet). Each of these Christmas Counts included the area within a 15 mile(24 km) diameter circle, an area of - about 177 square miles (453 square km). Thus,the three sites together covered a total area of 531 square miles (1,359 square km). A total of 124 people were involved in searching for birds in this area during the 2000-2001 CBC. Christmas Counts provide an excellent overview of the birds that inhabit an area during winter. Each winter within about 10 days of Christmas, dozens of birders comb their local CBC area counting all birds encountered. These birders search during the day and to a lesser extent at night,in the entire area encompassed within a particular count area. In addition,they scout for birds during that season, especially during the "count week"period,to prepare for the actual count day. Although most of these birders are unpaid amateurs who are usually proficient or highly skilled observers. The CBC count data are used for various types of conservation purposes including population tracking and determining geographic range and abundance of species by various environmental groups and government wildlife agencies. In the analyses that follow, all birds seen on the counts and during count weeks were included. The most recent ten- year period for these counts was examined. A majority of the birds reported on the five Christmas Bird Count data sets were common species. A large number of species were associated with water or wetlands including waterfowl, seabirds, and other species that are found at or near the intertidal zone(including tidal marshes, backbays, etc.). Of these species, only the upland species are likely to be found on the project site during winter, although very small numbers waterbirds may fly over or near the site. The Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 12 Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Avian Risk at the LIPA—Farm Bureau Osprey • Dominion VineyardWind Power Project Site,Long Island,New York,With Existing Wind Power Facilities Perhaps the best means of assessing risk to birds at proposed wind power project sites,is to compare the avifauna, geographic setting,habitat, and topographic conditions found at that site with locations where varying degrees of risk are known and have been documented empirically. By comparing the species present,numbers of individuals of those species, seasonal presence, and behavior of birds that are likely to nest on or use(migrate or forage on)the LIPA— Farm Bureau Wind Power Project site in different seasons with wind power facilities that have documented risk or lack of risk, an educated assessment can be made as to the overall risk to birds that can be anticipated at the LIPA project site resulting from the development of a single wind turbine. Reviewing what is known about avian impacts,two types of negative impacts have been documented at wind power sites: habitat alteration(disturbance/avoidance)and collision fatalities. Habitat alteration with resulting impact on birds is not well known or documented. Few studies have addressed this problem because habitat alteration is not often construed as a legal issue, except in the case of federally endangered and threatened species or some state listed species. The issue of disturbance includes both short-term disturbance during actual construction and longer term disturbance from infrastructure and habitat alteration following construction. With respect to the LIPA Osprey Dominion Vineyard wind power project site, construction activities associated with the erection of the turbines are likely to require less than two months, after which, land use and human presence will return to pre-construction levels. Some maintenance is required at wind turbines,but visits from maintenance crews are usually limited to two or three visits per year,requiring only a few hours of time on site. It should be emphasized that the sites currently host almost constant human activity with workers,tractors, trucks, sprayers, sprinklers, and other equipment operating on a daily basis. Thus, construction activities are ephemeral and limited to the project footprint and the area immediately surrounding that footprint. - Longer-term habitat disturbance resulting from presence of infrastructure has been studied at only a few locations. In a study done in southwestern Minnesota at a large wind power plant,reduced nesting activity of songbirds was detected in grazed areas and farm fields close to wind turbines as opposed to farther from those turbines(Leddy et al. 1999). For this reason,researchers recommended the placement of wind turbines on tilled agricultural lands such as corn, soy beans, and other types of intensive agriculture. European studies have shown similar impacts in grassland habitats,with some species showing avoidance of up to 200+meters from large,modern wind turbines. Other studies showed habituation by some species. A study by Kerlinger(2001a) at turbines placed in a forested hilltop in Vermont suggested that some species habituated to the turbines while other species moved farther into the forest. The latter species tended to be those that are most sensitive to the creation of forest edges. In the APWR.A of California,where there are thousands of turbines,raptors, songbirds, and other species have habituated to the presence of turbines and now perch on them, feed amongst them, and even nest Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger • 14 Studies done in the Midwest in farmed areas also revealed very few avian fatalities. At the Buffalo Ridge wind power facility near Lake Benton,Minnesota, small numbers of fatalities have been reported by researchers(Strickland et al.2001). Relatively few fatalities have resulted from the more than 100 wind turbines searched at this site. The species composition included a variety of birds,but did not include raptors or significant numbers of migrating songbirds. A one-year study of a wind power facility on the Door County peninsula of Wisconsin revealed only three songbird fatalities under 35 turbines situated in farm fields. In the eastern United States, studies have been conducted at small wind plants in Vermont(Kerlinger 2001a), Pennsylvania(Kerlinger 2001b),New York(Cooper et al. 1995), Massachusetts, and Tennessee(Nicholson 2001 -unpublished report)revealed very few fatalities. None were found in Vermont New York, and Pennsylvania where there were 11,2, and 8 turbines respectively. About a dozen fatalities were noted at three turbines in Tennessee -and 4 or 5 were found-at-7-turbines in Madison,New York(Kerlinger-study-in-progress; 1 - Golden-crowned Kinglet and an unidentified songbird in 12 months of searches). Fatalities at wind power facilities do not compare in numbers with those found at communication towers,highways,transmission lines, and other sources(Erickson et al.2001). Communication towers are responsible for between 4 and 10 million fatalities per year and roads and transmission lines together account for more than 100 million collision deaths(Erickson et al. 2001). Erickson and others also have demonstrated that fatalities at modem wind plants are also not nearly as numerous as those reported from the Altamont. In addition,the fatalities at other sites rarely involve raptors and a total of about 7 raptors have been found at wind turbine facilities outside of California. Most often,the small numbers of fatalities are spread among a variety of bird species such that only small numbers of a given species are involved. From the recent studies it is obvious that avian fatalities at wind turbine sites are rare events and,to date, no population impacts have been demonstrated to result from collisions with wind turbines and no federally endangered or threatened species have been killed. In Europe, avian fatality has not been shown to be significant at wind power plants, although in a few localities small numbers of fatalities have been reported. In coastal Netherlands at a wind power site where there are about 18 turbines, several dozen songbirds and shorebirds of a variety of species were killed(Winkelman 1995). This site was adjacent to the North Sea,where migration is concentrated into a relatively small area. That several species were involved is important because the fatalities were spread amonp.,species all but eliminating . the possibility of impacts to populations. At a large wind power facility in Tarifa, Spain,where one of the largest concentrations of migrating raptors and land birds occurs (Straits of Gibraltar), fatalities of migrants have been rare(Montes Marti and Jaque 1995,Janss 2001). Local Griffon Vultures are killed on occasion, apparently because they habituate to the turbines and forage amongst them constantly. Several factors are believed to contribute to avian risk in the Altamont. They are: an extraordinarily large number of operating turbines (N=5,400,reduced from about 7,000 several years ago); closely spaced turbines (<100 feet—32 m)that may not permit birds to fly between them safely;the presence of very large numbers of foraging raptors; year-round raptor use; Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA–Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger . 16 6. Large Prey Base-Attract Raptors No Significant Prey Base 7.Raptor Use of Area High Raptor Use of Area Low 8.Year-round raptor/bird use high Seasonal bird use low in winter _ The issue of night migrating song and other birds colliding with turbines and communication towers should also be considered when assessing risk..None of the studies listed in Appendix I report more than a few night migrants colliding with wind turbines and some report no collisions. The incidents involve mostly single birds,unlike the catastrophic events that can occur at communications towers; the total number of nocturnal migrants that have been reported at several thousand wind turbines number slightly more than 100. It is likely that the - - -actual number per year-is-in-the thousands-because scavengers remove carcasses-and observers---— - - - are not 100% efficient when searching for carcasses. The reason so few nocturnal migrants collide with wind turbines as opposed to communications towers is related to the shorter height of wind turbines and their lack of guy wires. A majority of migrants fly between 300 and 2,500 feet(91-915 m) above the ground(Kerlinger 1995,Kerlinger and Moore 1989),with small numbers flying above 5,000 feet(1,524 m). These altitudes are far higher than the 125 foot height of the tower and rotors. Except for landing and taking off, small numbers migrants are below about 500-600 feet(152-183 m). Mean hourly altitudes usually exceed 1,200 to 1,500 feet(366-457 m). The communication towers that are responsible for a vast majority of avian fatalities are taller than 500 feet(153 m) and have lights and guy wires. Turbines rarely exceed 300 feet (from literature and recent unpublished studies) and the LIPA turbines will be only 125 feet in height. The most recent literature surveys conducted by U. S. Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Department of Energy(Trapp 1998,Kerlinger 2000,Kerlinger in press)reveal virtually no mass mortality events at communication towers less than 500 feet(153 m)in height. The fact that there are no guy wires or lights on the Atlantic Orient turbines that would be used by LIPA,is also important,because it is the guy wires of communication towers that account for most of the collisions at communication towers and it is the lights that attract the birds (under conditions of poor visibility). Thus, it is unlikely that the turbine at the LIPA project will incur large numbers of fatalities of night migrating birds (perhaps none). Overall, the information currently available and contained in this report is sufficient to evaluate potential risk to birds at the LIPA-Farm Bureau Osprey Dominion Vineyard project site. The paucity of known and suspected risk factors at this project site, combined with what was learned about the bird life of the project site and surrounding area suggests minimal risk to birds. Several recommendations are made below that will further reduce potential risk to birds. [Note: A review of the literature revealed no collision fatalities of birds at Atlantic Orient or similar sized wind turbines. It is likely that individual mortalities have occurred,but that the numbers were so small as to go undetected or were judged to be unimportant. As with wind turbines and communication towers, collision fatalities were first noted by accident,not as a Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 18 Summary and Conclusions The habitat and topography present at the LIPA—Farm Bureau wind turbine site at Osprey Dominion Vineyard in Suffolk County,New York, as well as available literature and databases lead to the following: 1. The LIPA Farm Bureau site is a vineyard) and,therefore,not sensitive habitat,nor is the habitat suitable for rare,threatened or endangered species. There do not seem to be wetlands within the turbine area footprint or within hundreds of feet of the footprint. 2. The LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Power project site supports a few common nesting bird species, although other species nest near these site and forage on these site. Red-tailed Hawks nest near the site as do Osprey and some heron and egret species. —-- 3.- -The closest-Important-Bird-Area-(Long Island Pine Barrens)-is-located-more than about 5 miles(8 km) from the project site. 4. Significant hawk, songbird,waterfowl, shorebird, or other migration is not known to occur over the project footprint or immediately adjacent lands and the habitat on-site suggests no major concentrations of birds (shorebirds,waterfowl/water birds,raptors, songbirds) stopping over during migration. 5. Few birds will be found on site from November through March because of harsh weather, resulting in little risk for one-third of the year. 6. The fact that a single turbine is proposed and that it is very small in size suggests no significant risk to birds. 7. Several recommendations were made to minimize risk to birds. Conclusion: Based on the findings provided above,the LIPA-Farm Bureau Wind Power Project at Osprey Dominion Vineyard in Suffolk County,New York, is likely to pose no significant adverse risk to birds. The present study revealed nothing that indicated the need for further investigation at the project site. Several recommendations were made to minimize • potential risk to birds at the facility. Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 20 Kerlinger,P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology, 1995-2000. Report to U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Kerlinger,P. 2001a.An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg,Vermont. Proceedings of the National Wind/Avian Planning Meeting, San Diego, CA, May 1998 (www.nationalwind.org). Kerlinger,P. 2001b. Avian mortality study at the Green Mountain Wind Farm, Garrett, Somerset County,Pennsylvania-2000-2001. Kerlinger,P. 2002 in prep. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg,Vermont. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory,US Dept. of Energy, Golden, CO. Kerlinger,P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. www.fws.gov/r9mbmo Kerlinger,P. and R. Curry. 1997. Analysis of Golden Eagle and Red-tailed Hawk fatalities on Altamont Ownership Consortium property within the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report from Altamont Avian Plan for the Ownership Consortium and U. S. Fish& . Wildlife Service. Kerlinger,P., and F.R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. In Current Ornithology,Vol. 6:109-142. Plenum Press,NY. Knight,F., and M. Wilson. 1998. New York Wildlife Viewing Guide. Falcon Press,Helena, _ MT. Leddy,K.,K. F.Higgins, and D.E.Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. Levine,E. 1998. Bull's birds of New York State. Cornell University Press,Ithaca,NY. Marti Montes,R., and L. Barrios Jaque. 1995. Effects of wind turbine power plants on the Avifauna in the Campo de Gibraltar Region. Spanish Ornithological Society. Nicholson, C. P. 2001. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird an bat mortality monitoring report: October 2000—September 2001. Preliminary report. Tennessee Valley Authority,Knoxville, TN. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity,habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989-1991. California Energy Commission, CA. Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 LIPA—Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment-Kerlinger 22 4 Appendix I. Summary of avian fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines at sites across the United States and Canada. The numbers presented are the results of systematic and rigorous searches beneath turbines. Some of this s derived from Erickson et al.2001 and Curry &Kerlinger,LLC website(www.currykerlinger.com). • Vermont- Searsburg(near Green Mountain National Forest) - 11 modem turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted June-October, 1996;zero fatalities recorded(Kerlinger, 2000,National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III) • New York- Copenhagen(30 miles inland from Lake Ontario) -2 modem turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted in spring and autumn migration seasons, 1994; zero avian fatalities recorded(Cooper and Johnson, 1995,Proc. American Wind Energy Association Conference 1996) • New York—Madison(central New York)—7 modem turbines at farmland(hay and corn) site. Ten surveys conducted in June-November 2001 (ongoing through May 2002); 2 migrant songbird fatalities(Curry&Kerlinger, LLC) • Pennsylvania—Garrett(Somerset County)—8 modern turbines at farmland site. Seventeen surveys conducted in June 2000 through May 2001; zero fatalities(Curry&Kerlinger, LLC) • Tennessee—Buffalo Mountain Wind Farm—3 modem turbines at forested mountaintop site. Fifty plus surveys during 1 year-2000-2001; 11 songbird and 1 rail(migrants) fatality. (Nicholson 2001 in progress) • Massachusetts -Princeton Windfarm(Watchusett Mountain State Forest and Hawkwatch) - 8 older turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted in autumn&winter, 1993; zero fatalities recorded(Jacobs, 1995,Paper presented at Windpower'94,Minneapolis, MN) • Minnesota-Buffalo Ridge(near Lake Benton)-2Q0+modem turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted 1997-2000; about 80 fatalities recorded(35 species)—mostly songbirds, 1 raptor(Red-tailed Hawk),no endangered/threatened species (Strickland,2000,National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III; unpublished data from other researchers) • Iowa—Algona—3 modern turbines at farmland site; 3 seasons of surveys, zero fatalities (Demastes and Trainer 2000) • Kansas—St.Mary's—2 modem turbines at grassland/farmland site. Thirty-three surveys conducted during two migration seasons and nesting season in 1999; zero fatalities (personal communication from Gene Young, Cowley College,KS) • Wisconsin—Kewaunee County Peninsula-31 modem turbines at a farmland site with woodlands nearby. Surveys conducted for about one year; fewer than 20 songbird fatalities recorded(information presented at conference and unpublished report) Curry&Kerlinger,LLC—June 2002 ATTACHMENT C Coastal Zone Management Attachment C: Coastal Zone Management A. INTRODUCTION The Federal Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972 was established to support and protect the nation's coastal areas and sets forth policies for managing the use of coastal areas. The policies are intended to address local, State, and Federal concerns about the deterioration and inappropriate use of waterfront space. In 1982, New York State adopted its CZM program, which is designed to balance economic development and preservation. It promotes waterfront revitalization and water-dependent uses while protecting fish and wildlife, open space, scenic vistas, and public access to the shoreline. In addition, the policies are intended to minimize adverse impacts to ecological systems and • ameliorate erosion and flood hazards. The New York State program provides for local implementation when a municipality adopts a local waterfront revitalization program(LWRP). The CZM program encourages coordination among all levels of government to promote sound waterfront planning and requires consideration of the program's goals in making land use decisions.The New York State Department of State (DOS) administers this program at the State level. COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY The implementation of CZM is effectuated, in part, through Federal and State consistency pro- visions that require direct Federal agency activities or federal funding, or authorized actions to be consistent with the CZM. State agency actions along the State's coastal area are required to be consistent with the State's coastal policies. The State's coastal policies and consistency re- view requirements are outlined in 19 NYCRR Part 600 and 6 NYCRR Part 617; Federal consis- tency regulations are found at 15 CFR Part 930. Article 42 of the Executive Law states that one of the policies of the State is to assure the consis- tency of State actions and, where appropriate, Federal actions, with State coastal policies and LWRP's. It also requires that certain State agency actions within the coastal area be undertaken in a manner consistent with the State's coastal area policies, or a State-approved LWRP. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area involving a State agency's direct action or funding, or requiring State permits for actions involving an EIS under SEQRA,must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Article 42 and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 or an approved LWRP. Pursuant to Article 42, DOS monitors and advises State agencies regarding the consistency of their actions with the State CZM, State coastal policies,and approved LWRPs. No State agency involved in an action shall carry out,fund, or approve an action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and its implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. For State agency actions,whether a State agency is either a lead or involved agency, if a positive declaration has been made and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required pursuant to C-1 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management Policy 7: Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected and preserved so as to maintain their viability as habitats. The proposed project would have no effect on the viability of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats.This policy does not apply. Policy 8: Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants that bioaccumulate in the food chain or cause significant sublethal or lethal effects on those resources. The proposed project would not result in the release of any hazardous wastes or other pollutants.Therefore,this policy does not apply. 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. This policy does not apply. The project is not proposed to enhance or expand recreational fish and wildlife resources. Policy 10: Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish, and crustacean resources in the coastal areas by encouraging the construction or improvement of existing onshore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the State's seafood products,maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding agriculture facilities. This policy does not apply. The proposed project would not develop commercial fishing facilities. Moreover, the project would not adversely impact finfish, shellfish, or crustacean resources, including those that may be commercially caught or harvested outside the project area. 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. This policy does not apply. None of the proposed facilities would be occupied. In addition,no erosion protection measures are proposed as part of the project. Policy 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize their adverse effects on natural features that protect against flooding and erosion. Because of existing agricultural development and land uses, the project sites do not contain natural features, such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, or other natural protective features.This policy does not apply. 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 30 years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs. This policy does not apply. The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures is not proposed. Policy 14: Activities and development including the construction 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 at other locations. This policy does not apply. The proposed project does not include the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures. C-3 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management The proposed project is not located along the waterfront and therefore not appropriate for water-related recreation. This policy does not apply. Policy 23: 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. The proposed project would not adversely affect any structures, site, or districts of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. Each of the sites has been examined for this policy. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 24:Prevent impairment of scenic resources of Statewide significance. As described in the visual character analysis for each site, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The proposed structures are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which are in all cases agricultural. Therefore the project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views.The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 25: Protect, restore, and enhance the natural and manmade resources that are not identified as being of Statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. As stated above, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources such as vistas and views.Therefore,the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area. The proposed sites are all agricultural lands which are working farms or vineyards and are therefore consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project sites are 0.02 acres each, it is not expected that the proposed project will significantly impact agricultural lands.The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 27: Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location. The proposed project in not considered a major energy facility. This policy is not applicable. 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. The proposed project would not involve ice management practices. This policy is not applicable. Policy 29: Encourage the development of energy resources on the outer continental shelf(OCS) and in other water bodies and ensure the environmental safety of such activities. The proposed project would not involve the development of energy resources. This policy is not applicable. C-5 Attachment A:Coastal Zone Management The proposed project would not involve the discharge of non-point source pollutants or excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. This policy is not applicable. Policy 38: The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. The proposed project does not involve the use or degradation of surface and groundwater.This policy is not applicable. Policy 39: The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes,within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands,and scenic resources. The proposed project does not involve the transport, storage, treatment, or disposal of solid wastes.This policy does not apply. Policy 40: Effluent discharged from major steam, electric generating, and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and will conform to State water quality standards. None of these activities are proposed under the proposed project. This policy is not directly applicable. Policy 41: Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause National or State air quality standards to be violated. The proposed project would not cause any violations of air quality standards and is therefore consistent with this policy. 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. The proposed project would not cause reclassification of land areas to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.This policy is not applicable. Policy 43: Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursors:nitrates and sulfates. The proposed drainage plans would not generate acid rain precursors, nitrates, and sulfates.This policy is not applicable. Policy 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The proposed project sites are not located on tidal or freshwater wetlands. This policy does not apply. * C-7 ATTACHMENT D Atlantic Orient Model 15/50 Design Specifications nliaoclRcaHons for the Atlantic Orient 40150 60Hz 501tWVfind Turbine . MUMThe Grid Connected YAW SYS M Noma( Ron rotates 360 degrees Rotor Diameter 15 0) OPlcealYaw dewing-required when knows mm adida Ctahatine Hub Height 25 m(n-2 id fiequentlyeacired5itymEmb pasmmd- PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS RRWR TRAIN TOWER INTERFACFc Rated Medical Power 50 kW0113nth(253mph) ' Structural • Yaw bearing Ste mamtedon tower top . Ran • d Speed @bub height 25 m(11211) em-is 44 e, (102 mph) - shot-down(high wand) 22A nes(50 mph) . TOWER peak(survival) l)rtat 594 a✓s(133 mph) �,bolted bluer,self Calcubsed The Galvanized3 S°pP°�g 011109iavaabiGy 5A nth(12rtgb) 87.000 kWh Timm Heim 24Am(80ft) 6.7mhr5mph)153,000kWh DPliOdt la3m(608d,30sm(loolt),36bm(120ft) a0iabO8 mph)215.000 kWh Tiltdowo24da(60fd ROTOR FOUNDATION lab Fixed The Co ereteO special Type of A° Beats Catified Ruhr Diameter 15 m 11) • MI93 Glade B7 Swept Area 177="(19023') CO . ..5YSIEIst . d NumbesBreda 3 Type PLC based Rota Sofitity 0.071 Roby Omadwindspeed 6Sapns ee conn Rrmdspool DamzatasbaRspeod laadopedexiRebtive ioTow DDowCamel Comas Line imam caectica.bake dspbyment Coe AnCOMElailiCitiCOS Saialfink tocool computer faany monitor • gk 0' . and maintenance lik Angle 0* Ruta Tip Speed 51 tuts(114 mph)O 6011z �t1Sot NEMA 1,NEMA 4(optimal) Dafs'Tlpslccd 6.1 Sell Sot Optacoal • ROTOR SPEED CONTROk 1101/21 Production Blade stall imams with increased wind velocity Length W 7.2 m(237� Normal Stan op Aerodynamic,electrical necessary bang (t)p0 1>R Hata=oddca Shadows canool Aida? oodkpozy Imitate eystaa rfmultraegbraketpfiesdyaa tostan Wakened 'Mat 7*aster ads deploysCemdbakes Parting al tip t hes depby asdsdlL Root tenni 437 Pea (IS in)0 4%279 m®(I las) Beek-op Caatrc6 t.comifopllyactivated ifpbrainsdcpby Max mord 749 met(7944°49 3949 2925 mm(115 io) 1/RAKE SYSTEM CONTROL . � Taper d Ratio 406 men(]6 in)0100'R 7500® mm (295 in) Pall-safe brakes somatically depimp when grid Mae oceans. t TI • OveRpe l Device Eloaro•mnpare by bake' APPROXIMATE SYSTEM DESIGN WEIGHTS --_ Hob Attadtmeat Embedded female bob secepmrs Tower 3,210 kgs ();080 ibs) Hale Weight 150 tri(330 lb)approximateRat A Drivarain 2.420 kp (5,340 lbs) R Weight oar Foundation 5630 kgs 02,420 lb)OM Rate RBunpaanne 4 pole � �OOO° DESIGN LIFE; all Yeas Raquate7 Old 60 Hz DESIGN STANDARDS:Applicable Standardr,AWEA,W and TEC Voltage(Y) 480,3 phase 0 60 He DOCUMENTATION: d&hfdceraama Memel kW 0 Rated WindSpeed 50 kW bicallatio Guide and kW 0 Peak Caninewas• 66 kW SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE:Semiannual or after setae ewuu Speed RPM bonded) 11Q0 0 60 Hz WincTing Coe6Dratiaa Usgronorbi WYE NOTE 1:MLadc Orient Cerppadon and its affifistes are ctmstandy metal lambda. Class F b improve their products,thadtan product speafmadoos are subject to a Rama Sia T Enclosed Air Over MAO) change without notice. • Mounting Direct road to manmkdon ROTE It Power carves thew typical power available at the controller based oPfico Arctic low temp:sdddng(-40'c) as a camtimabon of measured and eaienakd data. Annual clergy is TRANSMISSION alk powercaves and a Rayleigh wind speed danlmda. o Energy pradncdea any be stealer or laser dependent can actual wild Type pl nest y moon=and site corefiticas,and will try with wind turbine waiaanante. naming Dactileir° -is•termed casting Obtain tempaatsa topography and the pmslmity b eche striata Ratio(rotor*gen speed) 1 to 21L25(60 Hz) iadodot wind mrtines. Rating.wspot horse power as labsicatisa Symbolic gear aLboa tonic J4OTE 3:For delis'optima as accommodate severe climates or acosaal Straka Service filtration cartridge Q scbodrled doom=phase contact the corporate office in Nowicl,Yatmd USA Beata(opdan) Arctic radon,electric non 4s For integration into high pcnebatioa wind-dice/mawand village decldadcta schemes contact the carom office is ha,VT USA fce technical support and systems design- Sly. ADM 3)f! AOC 15/50 60Hz Specifications Sheet AOC 15/50 OPERATION&MAINTENANCE MANUAL NOTICE:Use of the material contained in this document is subject to the warning on page 4 and the disclaimer on page 5 of this document AOC 15/50 Maintenance Schedule Maintenance Item Time Interval Maintenance Item - Monthly 6 12 24 8 years Months Months Months Visual Inspection • Record Energy Meter Reading - Record Run-time Reading • Inspect Dynamic Brake • Torque Check Fasteners - Check Electrical Connections • Check Accessible Fasteners • Inspect& Grease Yaw Bearing • Inspect Yaw Lock • Inspect Tip Brakes - Check Oil Filtration • Inspect Generator • Inspect Gearbox For Leaks & • Vent for Clogging Inspect Main shaft For Cracks • Inspect Rotary Transformer • Inspect/Assess Parking Brake • Re-calibrate Control System • Check Anemometers • Inspect& Overhaul Gearbox • Inspect& Overhaul Generator • AOC 15/50 OPERATION&MAINTENANCE MANUAL NOTICE:Use of the material contained in this document is subject to the warning on page 4 and the disclaimer on page 5 of this document N fdt, H 4,7:1- .' x"•00 iii, � C.� '''\,,,, 231 I h' \\ 1/' � VRDSX2 — f X23p6 GV 23.00 1146 DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 • \ BLOCK 1 LOT 20.2_ VINEYARDS--/ NOTES: \ N/F REPUTED OWER 1. PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 20.1 & 20.2, BLOCK 1, SECTION 75, DISTRICT 1000 �OO� LIBER 11618, PG.440 AS SHOWN ON THE TAX MAPS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK. 1.'\ \ 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS BASED UPON NEW YORK STATE PLANE (LONG ISLAND LAMBERT ZONE) AS ESTABLISHED BY GLOBAL PUBLISHING SYSTEMS (GPS). EOG.OF hNEyARD 3. LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. ALL LOCATIONS AND SIZES ARE BASED ON UTILITY MARK-OUTS, ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES THAT WERE VISIBLE & ACCESSIBLE 22.0. IN THE FIELD, AND THE MAPS AS LISTED IN THE REFERENCES AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE \ SURVEY. AVAILABLE ASBUILT PLANS AND UTILITY MARKOUT DOES NOT ENSURE MAPPING OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES. BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION IS TO BEGIN, ALL N \ i-2X68 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE VERIFIED AS TO THEIR LOCATION, SIZE AND TYPE BY N 2215 1264 Y••/1-\V 2149 THE PROPER UTILITY COMPANIES. GRASS AREA 4. THIS PLAN IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A SURVEY PREPARED IN THE FIELD BY �--� CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES, INC. AND OTHER REFERENCE MATERIAL AS LISTED HEREON. X4.49 48 5. THIS SURVEY IS PREPARED WITH REFERENCE TOA TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY2 SUPER 7SEARCH, INC., FILE N0. 02SS9909–D, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 1, 2002, WHERE THE 9c \ ...... \ 10 '-�� N�3'25 50" \ ti2 FOLLOWING SURVEY RELATED EXCEPTIONS APPEAR IN SCHEDULE B: - ... EEC; o� �� i N 22. " — X12' s / 5a DEED OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DATED JUNE 18, 1997 FROM OSPREY DOMINION CO. TO THE `�' \ 21 �. = / COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND RECORDED ON JUNE 25, 1997 IN LIBER 11837, PAGE 188. \�zpp �� AFFECTS TAX LOT 20.2 - BLANKET - PROHIBITS OR RESTRICTS DEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSES )(7-°"b 2°"6 - OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. ..., N )(-1:\55 __� -� / 5b COMMITMENT OF LAND TO CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. A SERIES OF RECORDED N ��3 •�" COMMITMENTS MADE BETWEEN 1979 AND 1994 EACH FOR AN EIGHT YEAR PERIOD - BLANKET. -22.00- '�� \ „� 1 oXag 6. THE EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, IF ANY, WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF X \ THE FIELD SURVEY. \ \ 2\° 7. ETOLEVATIOf0.N5S' ARE TOTRUE BASEDNAVD UPON1988 NAVDDATUM.88 ESTABLISHED BY GPS. ELEVATION DATUM IS ACCURATE \ \ \ \ X 2�j1 1�6 I REFERENCES: N \ \� c 123 � i �'q MARKER FOUND DELINEATING 'O 1. THE OFFICIAL TAX MAPS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK. CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED O WIND TURBINE \ E lkii 2. MAP ENTITLED "SURVEY FOR OSPREY DOMINION VINEYARD, LTD., AT PECONIC, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N 324214.86 SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y., 1000 - 75 - 01 - 20" PREPARED BY JOHN T. METZGER, DATED: X 1949N'NE 1411385.19 N I NOVEMBER 16, 1997, LAST REVISED: MARCH 26, 2002. N LAT. 41'02'46.31" \X V" LONG. 72'27'05.17" \ ' \ UTILITIES: '9po 05 \\ THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES WERE NOTIFIED BY THE N=V' YORK STATE ON: CALL SYSTEM N \ I p^ (1-800-272-4480) AND REQUESTED TO MARK OUT UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AFFECTING W AND SERVICING THIS SITE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS N X 2p9 o BASED UPON THE UTILITY COMPANIES RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST. \ \21, I w SERIAL NUMBER(S): 1540238 \ DISTRICT 1000 N' pp\ — 0I 1.o 1� UTILITY COMPANY PHONE NUMBER SECTION 75 \ X\ h LIPA 631 755-6900 • BLOCK 1 CABLEVISION 631 727-6300 LOT 20.1 N ,n N SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 631 475-1919 N/F REPUTED OWNER N \ VERIZON 631 369-6615 OSPREY DOMINION CO. I )1,"' LIBER 11618, PG. 440 \ I (NOTE: UTILITY COMPANIES DID NOT RESPOND AND MARK LOCATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) X \g91 ''' 'N \ I N -/- \91 N ,i/- ,/- AREA N f ' l�.1 N. N �g71 N 1 N N-A 2003 N 6 Nn N r \ 1 \t90 N 0\ i 5 REVISE PER NEW WIND TURBINE MARKER LOCATION E.C.R. G.S.G. 8-28-2003 4 REVISE PER TOPOGRAPHY FOR NEW LOCATION OF WIND TURBINE E.C.R. G.S.G. 9-30-2002 3 REVISE LABELING FOR LOT 20.1 E.C.R. G.S.G. 9-23-2002 2 REVISE PER NEW WIND TURBINE MARKER LOCATION E.C.R. G.S.G. 9-20-2002 1 REVISE PER RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT E.C.R. G.S.G. 8-12-2002 No. DESCRIPTION OF REVISION DRAWN: APPROVED: DATE FIELD DATE I UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO A SURVEY MAP BEARftG A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR'S 6-17-2002 PARTIAL BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SEAL IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209, SUB-DIVISION 2, OF THE IIEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. 9-24-2002 LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS SURVEY MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL OF THE LAND FIELD BOOK NO. SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VAL:D TRUE COPIES. CERTIFICATIONS 02-20 44075 MAIN ROAD (OSPREY DOMINION VINEYARD) INDICATED HEREON SIGNIFY THAT THIS SURVEY gW5SL.PRERARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING 02-25 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYORS D6PTEQ16s' -t r NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF PART OF LOT 20.1, BLOCK 1, SECTION 75, DISTRICT 1000 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS. SAID C JtF, ,JIONS- $ �2UN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR F ,.D BOOK PG. PECONIC, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED, AND 9N,,��Fkt`$ f {AtF d TLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL 26 AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION. CER ( IGAT1( SCARF, r. T, . C;SFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTI- 101-102 STATE OF NEW YORK GRAPHIC SCALE TUTIONS / "17(:1r 1 ,•. . ' :0 1'~ °RAWN: JCONTROLPOINT a 20 0 10 20 40 80 s * E.C.R. ASSOCIATES, INC. • .VA UNTIL SE,, LEGEND L� <� .'J.Q:: ' ' 8-28-2003 4 REVIEWED: �!r GWYNEDD CORPORATE CENTER .....0%�'Y/ -. �U4� \ 7776MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD 1120 WELSH ROAD, SUITE 110 DATE M G S.G. ATCHUNG,N7 07069 NORTH WALES, PA 19454 ( IN FEET ) GREGORS GALLA- 908.668.0099-908.668.9595 FAX 215.412.9055 - 215.412.0861 FAX ----123---- EXISTING CONTOUR 1 inch = 20 ft. NEW YORK PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #50124 APPROVED: DATE SCALE FILE NO. DWG. NO. X 123.45 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION G.S.G. 6-28-2002 1"=20' CO2207A1 2 OF 2 , _ - � . � // 165c1.10'- --� N36°1 - - SENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES tS 7 N POND / II Ligl I. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP ON O / / / I I 1 8 THE JOB FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION. I3‘. / / / GRAVEL CART t,20 2. ALL WOOD FRAMING RESTING ON STEEL SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH 6.1. / / / PATH VINEYARD P14423,..._._____‘o"er'� ANCHORS, EACH ONE. O / / / • 3 3. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL FINISH MATERIALS SHALL MATCH ADJACENT ` / ' GAZEBO MATERIALS. 1 / / ' _ I O r- 4. FINISH FLOORING SHALL BE TILE, SELECT OAK, OR CARPET OR AS / a - SPECIFIED ON PLANS OR INDICATED BY OWNER. / / © ;?�. "�" PATIO O 2 6 5. GYPSUM BOARD ON CEILINGS TO BE U.S. GYPSUM 1/2" WITH ALL JOINTS 0 i y , CO dJ -15-'-2 AG.) O TAPED AND SPACKLE, 3 GOAT JOB. MOISTURE RESISTANT IN BATHS WITH • / / 4 ,A,, .6�''-� 1 Z I (4636 � O CEMENT BOARD ON SHOWER WALLS a CEILINGS. I - b GRASS I 1 m b. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL HAVE INSULATING GLASS AND SCREENS, •k ;\�67.44Y TEMPERED INSULATING GLASS IN ALL SLIDING DOORS, TEMPERED GLASS IN I \� = ALL SHOWER DOORS AND ALL FIXED GLASS ADJACENT TO OPENINGS OR TO PATID 00_ FLOOR LEVEL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NYS CODE. / - / [L‘ O I 7. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE TO PROTECT PREMISES FROM DIRT OR DAMAGE. ���y8. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE FOR REINSTATING ANY EXISTING ELEMENTS \ \ , ,,,, rTII PICNIC o m ° INTERRUPTER COVERED OR REMOVED BY HIS WORK WHETHER INDICATED ON E ISTING FRES \. LANDBANK N4"1 Iq'S0 5 ANDIN6 SIGN BALES/OF�iNGGE ,, -- ae TABLES PARKING 526'13 ILI DRAWINGS OR NOT. BUILD! �� ,^. 1 Q G. CONTRACTOR TO LEAVE PREMISES WITH ALL WORK COMPLETED, CLEANED AND \ I S.F.I y / �e o PAINTED AND READY FOR DECORATING BY OWNER. P ---� r-r- -r--r. --1--1-7- 1 if) 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL WALLS, FLOORS AND CEILINGS PLUMB, LEVEL UT CONCRETE 1 I I I 1 1 1 i - ( ° AND TRUE. O \\ A.�PHALT PAVING CRUSH PAD I I 1 I i I I I 1 >s PROPOSED 2nd 5�ORY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II. CONTRACTOR SHALL PATCH AND REPAIR ALL JUNCTURES OF NEW WORK WITH REAR DORMER ADDITION I -si) kfl THE EXISTING AND MATCH THE ADJACENT EXISTING AREA UNLESS THAT \ 435.1 5.f. Lt- 16 i WIND TURBINE -- - AREA 15 TO BE REFINISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW WORK. ... .\ . .• { \ \ r FILE UNDER A 12. ARCHITECT HAS NOT BEEN RETAINED TO SUPERVISE THIS CONSTRUCTION 1 I r _ _ 13. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. 1 1 1 1 _� 1 1 ____ SEPARATE APPLICATION SEE ENLATEPDLAN ' - - \' PROPOSED I I I I I I I I I - PARTIAL AREA OF 14. THE CONTRACTOR t5 RESPONSIBLE TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR GONSERVA ORY or BY OTHERS /; /;,' . r I I ! I 1 I I I A ', WORK: TO COMMENCEMENT OF WDRK. 1,35d� S.F. I I IIIIII �1 EXISTING 2 •STORY O v-(�46�A. 4.1 / " \ ,I�, \ STORAGE/P'•DUCTION 2 ` '� i"� 544°5 6' \ \ BUILDING2 - - - - - - - - - - - m ;i// O m 251. I \ \ 6,343 S F. '' \ \ \ �2 zM�" •4°5o',o�w 52g22a8s'W SENERAL NOTES I - \ \ \ ( Cn I;�Op�2 pbop W 35`x'4 / \ \ \ N � VINEYARD 44 q3 �t7 (R.'25) I. ARCHITECT IS NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE / N N N Mp.IN R� CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, ZN N SEQUENCES, PROCEDURES OR THE SAFETY / \ \ N \ \ \ OVERALL SITE PLAN PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS INCIDENTAL -(\ ' I \ \ ASPHALT PAVING VINEYARD /\ L ' \ \ N \ I ,I, /SCALE:I'=50G'.O' 2. BY ACCEPTANCE AND OR USE OF THESE DOGU- \ S. \ \ REFUSEFREE STANDING MENTS USER AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARM- 73 LESS AND TO` N \ \ \ ENCLOSURE (7. \ FREEZER ON OF ARCHITECT FROVM ANY AND ALL INIDE A DEFENSE BEHALF OR CONCRETE PAD --I I \ \\ \\ ‘ LITIGATION WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE USE ' \ \ \ - _ \TRAILER - - HEREOF. \ \ \ 120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3, UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO N ' \ N ` - - - - .-,Ex DW PLAN IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 12Oq OF \ : y iib mR THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. V , \� \ N \ 15 \ �- CRUSHED 4. �6 100' „ 1L b'm RL..4 1 EX. I \ \ CONCRETE 20' ��' I 4. COPIES OF THIS PLAN NOT BEARING THE PRO- %%......../ \ \ •t` FESSIONAL ARCHITECT'S INKED OR EMBOSSED \ \ \IO \ SEAL 15 NOT A VALID TRUE COPY. � � 5 N.„ \ \ I PARlUN6 \ \ \ \\ \ 20 `oo EXISTING STORAGE 1 \ _ - dJ BUILDING #3 - I • D�'�TA \ 8A0o S.F. i I �Lt,,QQADINGBt=!?TH �/:= � Ex.Dw. � � � _____., = - PAA0 NG , 1 1 (15'x454, \ __. \ R Ex DN11\ 11 ` ZONE: A-G I / � \ \ ` � � 45� � , � - - - _ _ - 15_ %' N SECTION 15: 15.-I-20.1 4.46AC S 29° / \ _ _ "� 1 y�, \ y-.-----'-= 100' -----4r 15.-I-20.2 46-36AC \ `Ex DW I� 1� 22q, 7 N ,.. - - - �,e � ` eln \ - - _ , �I BLOCK: 01 85 � ' \ \ \ - 10_ \ I y`\ � ,1. LOT: 20 \ N � N • .� ' \ ' moi I PEX.DW. E 4 DWN . 1 / N \ \ wo/F J.C. a G.S. \ \ N \ \ • \ BU I L D I NC �'�RE A5: BAUER I , r \ N BLDG. I: \ \ \ \ \ EXIS' . AREA: 1,351 SF. 1 3-15-04 GEN. REVISION N PROF'. CONSERVATORY AREA: 1,350 5F. \ O APROX. WETLANDS \ N \ \ 5 \ \ - ` _ - \ \ PROF'. DORMER (ATTIC-STORAGE): 438 S.F. NO. DATE REMARKS \ N \ \� - - _ TOTAL BLDG. #I : 3,145 S.F. N N \ \ F of \ \20 EXIST. E3LDG. 42: 6,343 SF. REVISIONS I \ N \ , , _ _• \ \ EXIST. BLDG. #3: 8,000 SF. , - �� �� \\ N N �N� er P - - - - \15 \ TOTAL BLDG. AREA : 11,488 S.F. ARCHITECTS I ENGINEERS DRY WELL A \\ fv/ N L�RAMMAS CONSULTANTS \ \ rolls 10 N PARKING :,ALGULATION REQUIREMENT: 8' REINFORCED TRAFFIC BEARING SLAB ALLOW 4" FOR FINAL ADJUSTING OF CASTING \ \ �� N BLDG No.l: 374 FULTON 5T. (RT. 109), FARMINGDALE, NY 11135-3461 \ 2'-0' m \\ \ _ EXIST. (.ALES: 1,208 5F/200 = 6 i-516-847-0395 FAX: 1-516-847-0536 - -- - N EXIST. OFFICE: I4q SF/100 = 2 -_-_-_= E-MAIL: JAASE,OGSOAOLGOM 15" RCP DLIV TO BE USED CAST IRON COVER \ \ PROP. ( ONSERVATORY: 1,350 /200= 1 THESE FLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF ,'". . , 5 .�-�" PROP. s?ORMER (STORAGE): 438/1 'Ar.,-7'I'-s-',.''' q OF THE ARG#TEGT I�FRIN6Eh@(T /�e BETWEEN BASIN (TYPJ �!///I►� � \ '�- �.• �0=� �E''`�'O ARE��� �.� /U}'\ I/8"/FT. MIN. PITCH = ` ` 266.1 ,x'' ', C, ` ROOF DRAIN = b' PIPE MIN. '- 8' (SGMEDA0) Ih • r 24 1 r BLDE Int PRODUCT: 1,5g1 SF/500 = 3 CONTRACTOR PROSECUTED. LL vezlF,r AU / e 4�� 4 '`'' OPENING 1 EXIE•1. STORAGE: 4,152 SF/1000 = 5 FELD CONDITIONS AND DIhENr.�IONS� ',' .. `I I 8'0 POOL X 8' EFF. DEPTH N I MD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIHD I 1% 4., ‘ ,, rje.. • • : ° ►- v� BLDG t'. .3: • No ALLLLOWANCES SHALL BE WOE a, ,1._ - ::_,, 3 BACKFILL WITH CLEAN GF?ANULAR �t'•..i s Q tJ .� C r IN EEHALF OF THE CONTRACTOR \ r °` fir, MATERIAL ALL AROUND BASIN ® � ® a ►�� ,� I ..------------------ EXIST.; STORAGE: 13,000 5F/1000 = 8 FOR ANY ERRORS 0 5506 a>'`� (Y}' r."11 °° .6 FOR FULL DEPTH. ° •r - ®°® ® ® ® L. c` NOR NEGLECT ON HIS PART. `� r. v--: ,,: ® ® ,= ® ® ® ® r TOTAL REQ'D: -' 32 PROPOSED CONSERVATORY ADDITION FOR: NOTE: MAINTAIN MIN. lo'-O"CLEAR • .: BETWEEN ADJACENT POOLS -•" AND BET:�IEEN BUILDING 2-° 2'-0'MIN. L ...... y 3q° 13: pp" E TOTAL ROVIDED: 36 OSPREY DONT I N I ON AND POOLS. GROUND WATER LOADIF BERTH: 1 VI NEYARD $ WINERY NOTE: CONTRACTOR MUST LOCATE I IDENTIFY AL-L NO FOOTING RINGS REQUII:ED UNDERGROUND PIPES, WIRES a UTILITIES (2 TON PER SQUARE FOOT BEFORE COMMENCING WORK BEARING CAPACITY) 4405 MAIN ROAD P'EGONIC, NY IIg58 :CONNECT ROOF DRAINS TO POOLS PARTIAL SITFLAN :LAYOUT OF POOLS ARE ARBITRARY .` :RETAIN STORM FLOW OF 2" PER SQ. FT. • p *P., SITE PLAN PREPARED FROM SURVEY SCALE: I" = 40'-O" SITE I- LANPEGONIG SUT2VEYORS, PSG. JAN 31, 1996giEru -Eliwi-E [n--) fDRAINAG CALCULATIONSJOHN T. METZEDER, N.Y.S. LIG « 49618 T R STORAGE REQ'D. � DATE: 12-11-03 DRAWING NO. CAPACITY OF STORMWA E BLDG. AREA I,3505.F. x 1.0 x 3/12' = 331.5 CU. FT. use (2) e' m Pools SCALE: A5 NOTED SFs I Southold Town 8 FT.. POOLS - CAPACITY 4224 CU. FT/FT. 3315/4224 = '1.99 = 8 LIN. FT. OF POOLS REQUIRED f--.�;n:.:a ��,�� _���?''. �.,G DRAWN: B.J.A. 8 LIN. FTJJ = 4 LIN. FT. EACH POOL :--- P.�< EFF. POOL DEPTH (2) 8 FT. X 5' POOLS = 10 LIN. FT. APR o 2004 GONT. 310q (I OF 6) 1 PLANTING SCHEDULE KEY PLANT NAME SIZE QT. LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE BP BRADFORD PEAR 20' 13 TYPE SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/ DESCRIPTION LAMP DESCRIPTION LLF # OF GLB CUTLEAF BIRCH 25' I GATALOC� # TYPE PO PIN OAK 20' 1 HALL MOUNTED, 14'-O" ABOVE GRADE 25OMWATT CLEAR METAL GE GOTONEASTER 24" H. 4 U.S. ARCHITECTURAL TYPE IV SEGMENTED HORIZONTAL REFLECTOR, HALIDE 2I '00 INITIAL LUMENS 0.12 44 P-i t LIGHTING PH RHONODENDRON (HYBRID) 30" H. 24 AER-IV-250MH-WM TL LITTLE LEAF L!!1DEN 20' 2 ` AN ARBORVITE NIGRA 5' 41 / P.O. �" T.L, ItiWr) / \ daps WI / I V,J / ' / / 1` �e T.L.liumil / / _ __ ..,a. ._ OP) / / �rJ LP.O. ke � IxAnB.P. ��e B.P. t�P.... B.P.0,.�-1P. t1`� , `fir / / z 0.1•mi RH J ASPHALT PAVING - - - 1 I I ��� l _ - \ liktehe4P k ) tetia a / \ -, /�- v 1! . ‘ / % v . , , ` k.� B.P. B.P. B.P. ' B.P. \ 0-- ___ ____ ____ \_..4, \ \ i \ ` y--,DW. "A"tnI I l I- - 1- I- I I I -I 7B.P. /® / RHIiIIi 8 0 rc-,,,,,,,,, \\ (2GP A.N.O ASPHALT PAVING „ , , I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I t�'e \ L-- I 3-15-04 GEN. REVISION ��� \ �; I� NO. DATE REMARKS \ -- . tW) i I i I I I I i I\ I `� I I I I I I I I ARCHITECTS s ENGINEERS 8 ��e N B.P. i t \ 0 I I I 1 I I I I I L RAMMAS CONSULTANTS `� P.O. t��� L - L i I I J J J \ 3l4 FULTON ST. (RT. 109), FARMINGDALE, NY II135-3461 \ 2 STORY 314 F84"1-0365 FAx: I-516-�r4a-4536 `, 0 EXISTING \ •.. RAGE/PRODUCTION E-��AIL, B.P. a' `- " - O STO 1 -- \ THESE PLANS ARE AN 1N5TRIl•ENT of �A)1-/5,z,016:71-9,5;�i�,,, N6 IENTS '••, \ _. ��e BUILDING #2 SERVICE TSE PROPERTY <•� f �` _ (On t� YiLL EIE r WA.W 1 W FAX/ t P,,. 4' y. 0,343 SE. SHALL VERIFY �It# \ 1‘ /g..0. \ FHA T TIONS AID DIDIF43610N5 k . - ; AND DER-92045 l FOR FIELD ' ,.-`.---- N:i `i '�'� r \ --- __-____ ______ N. B.P. 1/46 FIT AND GUMMY OF WORK j¢r ~ ' r IN BEHALF OF THE GONTRAGTOR (7 (Y241(1,' \ \ NO ALLAWANGES SHALL BE RADE / 0 FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS, x ..,,.,,,,,-, 0 / \ I 0 NOR NE6LEGT ON HIS PART. I""e / \\ \ N iiPp. 073 ' \ IPROPOSED CONSERVATORY ADDITION FOR: 1 P.O. � 0`��� \ OSPREY DOMINION �.� \ \ ,N0 VINEYARD $ WINERY N ,, C, \ ® 4405 MAIN ROAD LANDSCAPING FLAW \ ,� _ \ N ASPHALT PAVING PEGONIG, NY i Iq5& I SCALE: I - 20 � \ \ I \ \ N\\ \ -��__ LANDSGAPINC PLAN \ \ \ \ R jig. .. "`- 1 0 N DATE: 12-11-03 DRAWING NO. \ \ \\1 1I N \ APR 0 7 200 I \ N \ SALE: A5 NOTED \ \ \ \ \ :.: BJ.A.-- 310q 5F- 2 \ \