Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCross Sound Ferry - Southold Citizens Safe RoadContains Exhibits A th'Q~lj..i3'.'~; '1, AA th~'ougl~. EE with' SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Irt the Matter of the Application of SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. and NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, Petitioners, for Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Respondents. TA TB PB RECEIVED JC F YakabosP /. MAR i i 4'2002 . Index No. 02- C)~-Q Or~9 AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH E. LEE AND EXHIBITS VOLUME OF AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH E. LEE AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS Janet Geah WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C. 10315 Main Road P.O. Box 1424 Mattimck, NY 11952 (516) 298-8353 Thomas G. Rafferty CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212) 474-1000 Attorneys for Petition~'s Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. and Nm~th Fork Environmental Council, Inc. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. and NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC., Petitioners, for Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Respondents. RECEIVED AR! :4'2002 Index No. 02- C)~-Q 4~9 AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH E. LEE AND EXHIBITS VOLUME OF AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH E. LEE AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS Janet Geasa WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C. 10315 Main Road P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 (516) 298-8353 Thomas G. Rafferty CRAVATH, SWA1NE & MOORE Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212) 474-1000 Attorneys for Petitioners Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. and North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. and NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC., Petitioners, for Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Respondents. Index No. 02- O~r~tJ~ AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH E. LEE STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) SS.: Kenneth E. Lee, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am associated with the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, attorneys for Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR") and North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. ("NFEC"), petitioners in the above entitled proceeding. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of SCSR and NFEC's Article 78 Petition and to place before this Court certain documents referenced in that Petition. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a tree and correct copy of the Site Plan Approval, dated December 10, 2001. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Revised Site Plan Application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a tree and correct copy of the Southold Town Tax Map. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of George Ritchie Latham, Jr., dated July 17, 1995. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a tree and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-121. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a tree and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-191. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-250. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a tree and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 44-3. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a tree and correct copy of the Minutes of Southold Planning Board, dated July 14, 1995. 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the Reply Affirmation of Francis J. Yakaboski. 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Town of SouthoM v. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., No 95-16263. 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a tree and correct copy of the Affidavit of Edward Forrester, dated July 14, 1995. 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the Building Inspector's "Notice of Disapproval," dated November 07, 1995. 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-285. 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a tree and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-253. 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a tree and correct copy of Cross Sound Ferry's Site Plan Application, dated April 1996. 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit P1 is a true and correct copy of the Letter fi:om Ronald Hill to William Esseks, dated December 5, 1995. 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the Town of Southold's Planning Board's Positive Declaration, dated September 16, 1996. 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a tree and correct copy of the Letter fi:om Richard Ward to William Esseks, dated July 30, 1996. 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a tree and correct copy of Cross Sound Ferry SEQR Scoping Outline of December 16, 1996. 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a tree and correct copy of Town of Southold SEQR Negative Declaration, dated August 13, 2001. 24. Attached hereto as ExhilY~t U is a true and correct copy of the Letter fi:om Francis Yakaboski to Justice Durra, dated November 25, 1997. 25. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of the Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC review of Drat~ Environmental Impact Statement, dated November 24, 1997. 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of the Minutes From Southold Town Planning Board Adopting Resolution, dated November 24, 1997. 27. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of Cross Sound Fer~y Website information. 28. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of the Letter fi:om Edward Forrester to Bennett Orlowski, dated August 14, 2000. 29. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Leander Glover, Jr., dated July 31, 2000. 30. Attached hereto as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-10. 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of the Somhold Town Zoning Code § 100-241. 32. Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-271. 33. Attached hereto as Exhibit DD is a tree and correct copy of the Site Plan on Properties of Cross Sound Fe~y Services, Inc., endorsed on February 1, 2002. 34. Attached hereto as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of the Conditions to the Revised Site Plan, endorsed on February 1, 2002. Sworn before me this of~2002 Notary Public HECTOR GO~.ALF. Z N°mY Pu~ ~m of New Yod~ No. 01~7~ ~ In ~ ~ ~n~ ~mm~i~ Ex~ ~r '1~ Kenneth E. Lee TABLE OF CONTENTS of Supporting Exhibits to the Kenneth E. Lee Affidavit Tab Site Plan Approval, dated December 10, 2001 A Revised Site Plan Application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. B Southold Town Tax Map C Affidavit of George Ritckie Latham, Jr., dated July 17, 1995 D Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-121 E Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-191 F Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-250 G Southold Town Zoning Code § 44-3 H Minutes of Southold Planning Board, dated July 14, 1995 I Reply Affirmation of Francis J. Yakaboski J Town of SouthoM v. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., No 95-16263 K Affidavit of Edward Forrester, dated July 14, 1995 L Building Inspector's "Notice of Disapproval", dated November 27, 1995 M Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-285 N Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-253 O Cross Sound Feny's Site Plan Application, dated April 1996 P Letter from Ronald Hill to William Esseks, dated December 5, 1995 P1 Town of Southold Planning Board's Positive Declaration, dated September 16, 1996 Q Letter from Richard Ward to William Esseks, dated July 30, 1996 R Cross Sound Ferry SEQR Scoping Outline of December 16, 1996 S Town of Southold SEQR Negative Declaration, dated August 13, 2001 T Letter from Francis Yakaboski to Justice Duun, dated November 25, 1997 U Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC review of Dra~ Environmental Impact Statement V dated November 24, 1997 Minutes from Southold Town Planning Board Meeting Adopting Resolution, dated W November 24, 1997 Cross Sound Ferry Website information X Letter from Edward Forrester to Bennett Orlowski, dated August 14, 2000 Y Affidavit of Leander Glover, Jr., dated July 31, 2000 Z Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-10 AA Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-241 BB Southold Town Zoning Code § 100-271 CC Site Plan on Properties of Cross Sound Feny Services, Inc., endorsed on February 1, DD 2002 Conditions to the Revised Site Plan, endorsed on February 1, 2002 EE P~G BOA.P,D I~EI~IBER[~ BEN'NETT OKLOWSKI. JR. Ch~-r~n WI'! L~,M J. CREMERS ~TPI L, EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHTE LATHAM, .IR, PO. Box 1179 Town Hall. 53095 State Route 25 Southoid, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fmc (63ll 765-3136 PLANI~ING BOA.RD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Dozember 11,2001 Mr. Richard E. Warren, President Inl~r-l~-i~ Research Associates, Inc P.O. Box 1201 36 Nug~nt Sla-eet Southampton, NY 11969-1201 Re: Propoe, ecl Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM No. 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1 & 15.1 Dear Mr. Warren: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, December 10,2001: The final public hearing waf closed, The following resolution was adopted: WHEIREA,S, the Town of Southold Planning Board received a revised site plan application from Cross Sou.nd F~.wry Services, Inc. on September 8, 2000; and WNEREA_S, this proposed site plan amenchnent concerns 4.06 acres of land owned by the apphcant at the terminus of SR 25 at Orient Point; and \i/EIJEII1.EA,.S, Jolm & Adam Wronowski are the owners of the property designated as SCTM No 1000-15-%10,1, l 1,1 & 15.1, consisting of three parcels, all zoned Marine [I (MIl) Zoning and in curreT~t active use as a ferry, l'erminal for Cross Sound Fero' Ser~'iecs. h~c Iocaled at Orient Point, coincident with the termination of NYS Route 25; and Cross Sound Ferry Services. Inc. requesls site plan appro', at from Ibc Soulhoh. I Tov,[~ Fl.~,tming Board for the entire site; and Cr~ So~ud. Ferrv- Page Two - 12/11/01 ~AS, the proposed application was determined to be an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCP,.R P.'u't 617 2 (a-k) and 617.4, and, the Town of Southold plan-rung Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quail ty Ri'view Act (A.rlicle 8), Pa.~ 617, declared itself lead agency and issued a Negative Declaration on August 13, 2001 after review of relevant materials, public heatings, inspection of the property, and independent deliberation; the Negative Declaration finds that the proposed site plan for Cross Sou. nd Ferry would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment as recordcd in the resolution and dete.'nination adopted by the Planning Board on August 13, 2001; and WI::IEREA~, a final public hcanng was closed on said site plan amcI~dmcnl at the Town Flail. Southold, New York on December 10, 2001; and WI:EEREA$, the Southold Town Ph'mning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice ufPublic Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions: and W}IEREAS, on August 14, 20'00, the Director of Code Enforcement ruled in a memorandum of that date that the parking on the parcel 'known as "the: Snack Bar Parcel" is a pre-ex,sting usc, and WItEREAS, the site plans for the other parcels included in this site pla,', ~pphcntio~ received certifications at the time of their approval; and WI'~RIEAS, the applicant proposed to undertake a specified list of actions designed to irnprove operations, safety, aesthetics, wetlands and coastal resource protection and traffic efficiency at the site as reflected in the pending revised site plan; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated a willingness to seek additional operational impro,, emcnts to accommodate passengers. These measures are noted as follows: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. will consider establishing a system for the reservation of parking for travelers using the high speed service, to allow for advance notice for the need for parking and to allow for daily planning of on-site parking. Investigate other areas for additional parking outside of the Orient area. Investigate bus/rail links and potential to establish parking outside of Orient in association with mass transportation modes Investigate out-of-the-area ferry landing sites to augment I'erry serx ices lo Island. Pursue with the NYS Department of Transportation the re-arrangement o~' the terminus of NYS Route 25 as mn integrated plan with fen3., terminal properties, and coordinate such improvements with abe Toxin] of Southold Until this is achiexed, Cross So,md Ferry will be responsive to community concerns ~egardlng traffic and pedestrian safety As with any ongoing operation, it ~s ~mpc~rtar~I to continue improve the manv, gement and timing of off-loading cars due to their impact on thc tra. ffic flow on NYS Route 25 Ferry- Pa~e Three - 12/1 ltO1 It is recognized that these measures are not part of the site plan application, but are useful in further improving oper~/tions at the site as long-term mutual goals of thc Town and Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby acknowledges and supports the efforts of the applicant to pursue the additional operational improvements noted above: and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the site plan and the modifications made thereto with respect to Sections 100-251 and 1 )0-252 et the To~ n (,'ode and ~l~akcs tile following specific findings as they relate to these sections of the Code: 1. Given the site conditions and character/use of the adjoining properties, the improvements proposed in this site plan address the need to protect thc established character and value o fad joining properties, The property is located within the M-II Marine Zoning District and lies adjacent to the terminm of SR 25, and the Cross Sound Ferry terminal building and vehicular parking and staging ,',._teas. While the property to the east is within the R-80 Residential Zone, this vacant propcrt'r is currently owned/controlled by the applicant. The building on the subject properly that is now thc snack bar wa~ constructed before 1955. Given the existing site cond tions, he modifications that are proposed are considered to be improvement to the protection of the character of the immediate area The implementation of the landscape buffers as illustrated on the site plan ',vill, to a degree, increase the visa.tM screening of the parking on-site. The installation of the perimeter controls (curb stops and guardrail fencing) will help cont,"dn the parking within the area that have been designated for such use. 2. The plan proposes no increase in the square footage of the pre~existing building ~ound on-s~lc With the implementation of the proposed plan, the physical surface areas currently used for parking will be reduced th. rough the installation of guardrail fences and curb stops. 3. The proposed improvements will not cause any detrimental impact toward issues related to salary frm'n fire, flood and other dangers, and as designed will provide adequate light, air and convenience of aex:*ss for those using this facility. 4. TI~ applicant has worked with the Pla.n.ntng Department to arrive at an appropriate design for tm. flSc mx:ess to the site, for both vehicles and pedestrians. 5. The detea"mination of parking on this site has clearlybeen a difficult issue for the Planning Board to resolve. After much deliberation, the Board finds that it is appropriate to grant site plan approval to permit the improvement of the parking conditions found on the subject s*te for use by thc general public who, ~ patrons of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., usc the property In making dat:axrd.imtion, the Planning Board found that the use of the site operator (vehicle and passenger ferry/e~'rier service) does not fall within any of the specific categories listed in { t 00- l 9 l& o f Torte Cod, e, leaving the Planning Board to determine what constitutes "reasonable and appropriate off'-s~:re, et pfu'king" on a site-by-site, project-by-project basis. Cr~$ ~anfl Ferry - Page F_0~::.!2_/) 1/01 6. The Plartning Board finds thru the improvements proposed on the site plan preps, ted by John J. Rayllor, P,E,, L.S., P,C., last dated November 15, 2001, fulfills the objective of § 100-252(B) by makillg improvements to the existing parking conditions on the site In general, the improveincnts include: i. the re-grading and application of stone/gravel to the unpaved lot. so as to reduce potholes and provide on-site drainage control; ii. the installation of curb stops and a guard rail fence around the perimeter of the parking area so as to delineate the parking and protect the proposed plantings from vehicular encroacbanent; iii. the ',~ldition ora cross walk to aid pedestrians; iv. the assurance that the applicant will maintain at least one parking attendant during peak park. lng periods (summer and holiday weekends), to facilitate interior circulation and parking 7. Under the unique circumstances of this particu!a,r site and application, the Board finds that tin:: unpaved stone/gravel lot is preferable to a paved lot with marked stalls. The unpaved "Snack Ba~ Pamet~ provides flexibility to use parking assistants in order to maximize the capacity of that lot. during the peak seasonal needs of the applicant's see'ices, thus reducing potential impact to the adjacent streets. Accordingly, the Boa.rd finds that the maintenance of the parking on thc "Snack Bar Parcel" as an unpaved, unmarked parking area, in conju, nction with the existing lots to thc west represents the most "reasonable and appropriate off-street parking requirements' for this uniquc facility. 8. The propoaed plan, to the maximum extent possible, provides adequate landscape buffcrs to the adjacent streets and lymperties. As illustrated on the site plan, last dated November 15, 2001, the applicant ha~ proposed vegetative buffers around the parking areas of the snack bar parcel 9. The proposed plan ha~ been designed to protect/conser~'e natural features of tile property and adja,"~,'n_ t areas. To 'address concerns raised by the Trustees, the applicant will relocate the proposed panking area approximately 20 feet further away from the beach than originally proposed, and will install a low berm landscaped with native coastal spectes to provide protection and separation between the beach and the parking area. The plan also proposes to improve the drainage conditions found on the site, by regrading, and redirecting drainage to french drains proposed to capture and recharge runoff to the groundwater below. The use of french drains will prc',.'cnl runolT fronl entcwing the adjacent tichal estuary. 10. Ti'~e proposed plar, avoids unnecessary pavement of the parking area h', using a pcr~.'tous gtoneJfi'mvel mnteri~ for resurfacing the snack bar parking lot 11. Tt'r:~ proposed plan minimizes the lighting effects on adjacent properties by emplo~ng low intensive, s~et'y lighting, which will be operated by a timer that allows the lights to automatically shut off o~a-halfhotu- aft~ the r,a-rival of the last ferry for each business day 12. %:~o public adda-ess intercom or sotmd system is proposed ~vithin th~s s~t¢ plan appllcal:or~ Cro~, ,~o~Id Ferry- Pa~e Four- 1~2/11/01 13. T'~ proposed plan fulfills the objective "that all site developments shall respect existing grades on site md on adjoining sites to avoid unnecessary excavation or filling and that all stormwater runoff genre'areal on site will be retained on site in an environmentally acceptable manner" While the original dmign of thc project included leveling of the parking surface, adding a stone surhc¢ and filling potholes, the current design includes regrading as sought by the Town Engineering Inspector to mdir~ct and contain stormwater runoff on-site. 14. The proposed plan raises no issues related to public utilities in the arco. 15. Tlm proposed plan is dot,refined to be at a scale consistent with existing development and wilh the Compre. Ja~nsive Development Plan oft.he Town of Southold The proposal does not change the scale of the use of the property and proposes no new additional parking areas not historically used in the pre-existing parking areas. The use is consistent with the Marine Zoning District and the Town's Compm-hertsive Plan. 16. As the project proposes no new buildings, the proposed plan does not raise architectural tssucs. 17. ~ ~tdition of a hard-surfaced handicapped space adjacent to the snack bar building is considm'~d an improvement over the existing conditions found on the site. The Planning Board also acknowle~dgea the creation of additional handicapped-accessible parking on the Terminal Parco). nearm~t to the main building as part of this facility, for use by patrons nt.t:ding such accommodations. NOW, TlrI'gREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants final ~=proval with conditions to the revised site plan prepared by John J. Rayno), P.E. & L.S. P C. (last i'~vised on November 15, 2001 and received in this office on November 20, 2001) and authorizes the Chairman to endorse said plans with the following conditions affixed thereto: 1. Curb stops shall be used to define the northern and western parking area w thin the "Snuck Bar" Parcel boundaries, inclucting south of the Snack Bar. 2. A wooden barrier or guardrail shall protect landscaping and define t ~e eastern border of thc parking area within the "Snack Bar" Parcel. 3. A snow fence and berm planted with a doub e ro~v of Rosa Rugosa (as per Board of Trustee Permit # 5408 dated November 8,200l, and revised on December 5, 2001 ) shall define thc southern border of the parking area within the "Snack Bar" Parcel boundaries 4. Low Lrit~nsiry Safety Lighting shall be installed within the "Snack Bar" parklng lighting is to be shielded to the ground and operated by timer so as to automatically shut-oft approximately one-half hou..r aft:er the amval of the last ferry run of each busioess day Said Ii ~hllng is to be iv-stalled on the wooden barriers/guardrails and c,,~l-, ~-~-- ' ' .q_r¢ ~ ~umi F~rrv - ? av._e Five - 12/I !/01 Existlag an~or proposed landscaping around the perimeter oi- the parking area within the "Snack Bar" Pan:el is to be maintained andJor planted in accordance with the final revised site plan, pr~srtd by John J. Raynot, P,E, & L.S., P,C (last revised on November 15, 2001 and received m this office on November 20,200l), 6. The restoring and application of stone and gravel within the "Snack Bar" Parcel shall incorporate drainage measures that were specified by the Board of Trustee Permit g 54(}8, and illustrated on the October 9th revised site plan, prepared by John J. Raynor, P.E. & LS., P.C (subsequently revised on November 15, 2001 and received in this office on November 20, 2001). ~ drSmage measures were reviewed and approved by James Richter, Town Engineering ~r, and endorsed by the Trustees. 7. The pedestrian walk across State Route 25 between the "Snack Bar Parcel" and the FenD, Terminal Office id to he painted and maintained in good condition by the applicant anti in accordance with standard procedures of the New York State Department of Transpor'tanm~ No parking shall be permitted within or nero the two (north and south) entrane, es/ex,ts to the pm-king area within the boundaries of the "Snack Bar" Parcel, denoted on thc final revised site plan as "Emergency Access .area". Signage stat ng ha this is a Tow-Away Zone shall be posted at these two locations. 9. The two (2) locations denoted on the final revised site plan as "Emergency Access Area" on the a/to plan shall be interconnected with a minimum 15 foot aisle within the interior parking areas, in order to provide emergency vehicle access if necessary. 10. The existing wooden fencing at the southwest boundary of he "Snack Bar" Parcd is rd be rerpl~ed wilh a split rail fence and maintained in good condition. 11. The applicant shall be required to provide at least one parking attendant to assist during all peak parking times (summer arid holiday weekends) to assist travelers where necessary to get their v~h/cles out of the parking lot. The attendant would remain at the site for at least one-half hour after the arrival of the last ferry for the evening. 12. The applicant slmll secure approval from the N'¥'S Department of Transportation for the improveraents shown on the site plan. As per Section 100-254 I. of th.e Site Plan Ordinance of the Zoning Code of the Town ot SolJthold, the Chairman's endorsement of the site plan will take place after the applicant signs this resolution plied on the site plan indicating his/her knowledge and acceptance of thc conditions of approval. Plea.se contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very t'mly yours. l~a~tt Orlowski~ Ir. C~r~i..wn an Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF) PART 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS (including EAF Parts 1 & 2) Revised Site Plan Application for CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Prepared By: Nelson, l~ope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 (631) 427-5665 Prepared For: Toxvn of Southold Planning Board To~vn Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1938 Environmental Assessraeat Form Cross Sonnd Ferry Services, lac. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF) Revised Site Plan Application for CROSS SOUND I?ERRY SERVICES~ INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 3.0 BACKGROUND 4.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL (1996) TO CURRENT (2001) PROPOSED PROaECT 5.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 6.0 7.0 5.1 Analysis of General Conditions 5.2 Analysis of SEQR Classification 5.3 Comparison With Prior Positive Declaration 5.4 Analysis of Specific Impacts 5.5 Summary of Mitigation Inherent in the Project CONCLUSIONS ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C EAF Parts 1 & 2 Original Positive Declaration Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 12 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. This document provides a Part 3 EAF to further assess the potential impacts of the amended site ~Icn a~pl~cation. It is .na,',~d ~at ~he Pa_~ 2 E~ i.:t~ntifie~ ce~ain impacts ~ssociat. ed with the application wkich warrant further discussion, noted as follows: · Impact on Transportation; · Impact on a Critical Environmental Area; and · Public Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts. It is noted that none of these issues were found to be potentially large; however, in order to fully disclose potential impacts and present the discussion and analysis which support a Determination of Significance, this EAF Part 3 has been prepared. In addition, the EAF Part 3 documents background with respect to the project, and presents the current and prior application, as related to environmental significance. 3.0 BACKGROUND In April of 1996, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. submitted a site plan application for the ferry terminal located at Orient Point, pursuant to a request by the Town of Southold Planning Board. The original project involving the Cross Sound Ferry site plan application involved multiple parcels of land identified as follows: ['axMap No. Parcel Name Acreage Futur~ Existing U~e Zoning Use 1000-15-9-10.1 West Parcel 1.20 ac. Same Overflow Long Mil Term Parking 1000-15-9-11A TerminalParcel 1.40 ac. Same TerminalBldg; MII Vehicle Staging 1000-15-9-15.1 Snack Bar Parcel 1.46 ac. Same Snack Bar; Long Mil Term Parl~mg 1000-15-9-3.5 Trast Parcel 2.50 ac. Parking Trust Parcel; R-80 Expansion Vacant Land The three (3) tax parcels involving the existing Cross Sound Ferry terminal operations comprise 4.06 acres of land. In 1996, Cross Sound Ferry proposed a 62% expansion to add the trust parcel of 2.5 acres to the operation and provide additional parking for the facility. The action at that time was described as follows: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Route 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. The Town of Southold Planning Board determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and issued a Positive Declaration dated September 16, 1996, thereby requiring the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Page2 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc, Subsequent to the Positive Declaration, the applicant prepared and submitted a Draft Em, i~onmental Lin.pact $l.~lament, which dkd .not ~eee;,ze ~ae, ceptanne by the Plauniug Bo~rck In addition, on-going litigation involving the Town, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. and a local organization "Southold Citizens for Safe Roads", proceeded during the period up to the present trine. In May of 1999, Cross Sound Ferry severed the Trust Parcel from the application. This occurred as a result of observations of the traffic and parking patterns over the period from 1995 to 1998, which indicated that the Trust Parcel was not needed to provide additional parking for the operation. In addition, there was local opposition to an expansion of the parking area. As a result Cross Sound Ferry severed the Trust Parcel from the site plan application. At the time of the amended application, the applicant submitted additional environmental documents and traffic impact studies. The Planning Board has had the benefit of the following supporting environmental and traffic documents: · Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry Services (updated March 1999, prepared by Dunn Engineering Services) · Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion (September 1997; prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates) Addendum and Full Environmental Assessment Form for the Revised Site Plan Application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (May 1999; prepared by Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.) In addition, the Board has had updated and supplemental traffic impact analysis pre. pared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, in connection with this EAF Part 3. It is noted that the application before the Town is for review of three (3) ferry related use parcels as an integrated unit. The west parking lot, approved in 1995, already provided for a much needed increase in parking spaces. And the terminal parcel used primarily for offices, site entry, and stacking for loading of vessels has experienced modifications to improvements these operations. The purpose of the current site plan is to further improve the facility by improving existing parking facilities, drainage, aesthetics, and safety to accommodate the nature of the current use. 4.0 COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL (1996) TO CURRENT (2001) PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is substantially different from the project which was pending before the Planning Board in 1996 and received a Positive Declaration. The 1996 application involved a 62% expansion of the ferry terminal's land area. The expansion went beyond the operational area of the ferry terminal, and utilized a 2.5 acre additional parcel that is zoned R-80 for single family residential use on 2-acre lots. The expansion parcel would have involved the physical alteration of the additional area for the purpose of parking, in a Critical Environmental Area, expanded the use beyond the M II (marine transportation & recreation) zoning area, and encroached within a residential zone. Page3 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. The .subsequent ~ernova! .o. Lthe Trust P~rcel from. the p.endJ_-.g xp~i.catJon.co, mple~te, ly ~:h.a~e.,~ ,the nature of the application. The project as currently proposed, involves a site plan for the existing Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. parcels within the configuration of the existing facility, The project description, as provided in the revised site plan application, is written as follows: Cross Sound Ferry operates a ferry terminal with car-carrying vessels and walk-on passenger services between Orient Point, New York and New London, Connecticut. The ferry route provides an important inter-state transportation connection and assists in providing an alternative transportation connection to and from Long Island. In response to customer needs, and to provide additional walk-on passenger capacity and improved service, Cross Sound Ferry added a high-speed, passenger-only ferry service in the mid-1990's. Cross Sound Ferry currently operates this high speed passenger only ferry from the Orient Point Terminal, providing connection to New London which serves as a link to the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut and other passenger-only destinations. This servic, involves scheduled daily departures and arrivals and necessitates the short term parking of cars for the walk-on passengers which use this service. Over the past several years, the intensity of use of this service has stabilized, and the operation of this service is considered in the traffic evaluations, parking needs, and site plan/operation improvements plan proposed by Cross Sound Ferry and under consideration by the Planning Board. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. requests site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for the existing and on-going operations currently occurring on the project site. In addition, the proposed action includes facility improvements on the eastern parcel referred to as the Snack Bar parcel, as well as operational improvements to the parcel referred to as the Terminal Parcel (west of the terminus of NYS Route 25). Those improvements which are design oriented, are incorporated into the site plan as follows: · Contimle Existing Parking on the &zack Bar Parcel: The applicant has used the Snack Bar Parcel for terminal parking and will continue to do so; Proposed Improvement of Vegetative Buffer: Cross Sound Ferry has prepared and submitted a planting plan to enhance and augment the existing vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the Snack Bar Parcel and provide a natural buffer planting area east of the Snack Bar Parcel; Proposed Re-Grading and Application of Stone~Gravel to Snack Bar Parking Area: To eliminate the ponding of water during significant rainfall and reduce the number of existing potholes, the Snack Bar parking surface will be re-graded and surfaced with clean stone/gravel (these improvements will improve customer safety and drainage facilities); PrTposed Installation of Curb Stops and Guard Rail Fence: Cross Sound will install segments of curb stops and guard rail fence around the perimeter of the gravel parking surface. The curb stops and guard rail fence will function to delineate the overall parking area, and protect the proposed plantings from encroachment by vehicles; Page4 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Proposedlnstallation of Low lntensity Safety Lighting: For the safety of their travelers, Cross Sound will install Iow intensity safety lighting on the east boundary of the Snack Bar parking area. All such lighting will be operated by a timer, allowing the lights to automatically shut off after the prescribed period (i.e, one-half hour after the arrival of the last ferry for each business day); and Proposed Cross Walk: For traveler (pedestrian.) safety, a cross walk is proposed to be painted across Route 25, between the Snack Bar parcel and the Terminal Pamel (parcel west of Route 25 terminus). The site plan related features are reflected in the formal engineered site plan prepared by a licensed engineer/surveyor and submitted to the Planning Board for site plan approval. The submission includes details of the proposed safety lighting, as well as a landscape plan providing the details of the proposed site landscaping. This EAF Part 3 evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the revised site plan as presented above and reflected in the application currently pending before the Planning Board. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Analysis of General Conditions In general, the revision of the project to sever the expanded parking associated with the Trust Parcel from the application, changes the project such that potential significant environmental impacts are avoided. The Trust Parcel represented a 62% expansion of land area and an encroachment of operations into residential areas beyond the M II zoned land, with physical alteration and associated impacts. The Trust Parcel is zoned R-80, and could not be used for ferry terminal purposes absent a variance for parking or a change of use. The current site plan involves only the existing Terminal parcels owned and operated by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. These parcels are currently zoned M II which specifically authorizes the Ferry terminal use. The site plan modifications are improvements to the current facility which as noted in the project description above (Section 4.0) involve: continued parking on the Snack Bar Parcel; landscape improvements around the Snack Bar Parcel; regrading, stabilization and provision of drainage facilities for the Snack Bar Parcel; installation of curb stops and guard rail fence; installation of low intensity safety lighting, and striping of a proposed cross walk on part of the New York State Route 25 property. All of these measures involve minimal alteration of the site. All of these measures represent an improvement in safety, pedestrian circulation, aesthetics and environmental control. Since there are no major site alterations, no expansion of the structures associated with the current facility, and all proposed modifications represent improvements to the site, there is an initial perception that the project will not cause significant adverse enviromnental impacts based on an analysis of general conditions. Additional, more detailed analysis is provided in the following sections. Page Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 5.2 .A~alysi~ of,SEQR ClassiBc:xtJnn The original proposed project which involved a 62% expansion of the terminal land area, with additional parking and encroachment into the residential zone, beyond the MII zone, was determined to be a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQK) Act. A Type I action is an action that is more likely to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIB) than an Unlisted action. The project received a Positive Declaration, thus requiring the preparation of an BIS. The revision of the site plan application, by deleting the Trust Parcel, warrants additional consideration regarding SEQR classification. The current project does not propose an expansion of the facility, does not encroach within residential zoned land beyond the bounds of the MII district, and does not involve significant physical alteration of the project site. It is noted that the project has some characteristics of a Type II action, which would not require any review under SEQR. Specifically, Type II actions are defined under SEQR 617.5 (c). One Type II action [617.5 (c)(2)] is defined as follows: "replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site,.., unless such action meets or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 of this Part". The facility will be rehabilitated in-kind and none of the other thresholds in 617.4 will be met or exceeded. However, the action is controversial and involves a site plan decision for site plan modifications including: parking lot grading and drainage, and the installation of lighting, landscaping and' pedestrian cimulation. As a result,.this analysis finds that a conservative classification of the project as an Unlisted action is appropriate. This enables the Planning Board to take a "hard look" at the project, and come to an informed decision regarding the potential environmental consequences of the site plan application. With regard to the Type I action list contained in SEQR 617.4, the proposed project does not meet any of the criteria which would result in classification as a Type I action. Listed actions I- 4 involve adoption of community ptans, changes of zoning and allowable uses, and acquisition of land by government. Listed action 5 involves residential use. Listed action 6 involves non residential facilities; however, an action must involve physical alteration of more than 10 acres. The area proposed to be modified is approximately 1.46 acres, and modifications involve regrading an existing parking lot and adding drainage and landscape improvements. Listed actions 7-9 involve structures of 100 or more feet in height, actions in agricultural areas, or actions within or substantially contiguous to historical buildings, facilities, sites or districts. Listed action 10 involves an action that exceeds 25 percent of any of the thresholds and occurring within or substantially contiguous to publicly owned parkland. There is a County Park to the north, that is separated from the site by a State highway CNYS Route 25). In addition, the area proposed to be physically altered involves 1.46 acres of land associated with limited surfacing and drainage improvements on the existing snack bar parcel parking area; 25 percent of 10 acres would require alteration of 2.5 or more acres. The final listed action in the Type I list (11) involves any Unlisted action that exceeds a Type I threshold established by an involved agency pursuant to SEQR 617.14. Review and analysis of the Type I list therefore finds that the action associated with the current (2000) site plan is appropriately classified as an Unlisted action under SEQR. Page 6 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 5.3 .Comparison with Prior.Pos~.t!ve_Dec!ar~tJon The Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board for the original site plan application is dated September 16, 1996, and is included as an Appendix B to this document. The Planning Board provided ten (10) reasons as to why a Positive Declaration was appropriate for the project as proposed at that time. The current (2000) revised site plan addresses the issues which formed the basis for the original Positive Declaration. The revised site plan not only removes the expansion of parking and use areas associated with the Cross Sound Ferry terminal, but also incorporates site plan features that address drainage, aesthetic, and safety issues that were also of concern to the Planning Board in 1996. In order to document the original reasons for the Positive Declaration, and the changes and mitigation represented by the current application, a matrix has been prepared. This matrix, included as Table 1, is titled "Analysis of Reasons for the Original Positive Declaration in Consideration of Current Site Plan", and is included on the next page. The matrix lists each of the original reasons for the Positive Declaration, and provides a discussion/reason for a current finding of no significant impact with respect to the current site plan application. The results of this analysis finds that the ten (10) original reasons for the Positive Declaration are not valid with respect to the current site plan application, and no significant adverse environmental impact is expected with respect to the original reasons for the Positive Declaration. 5.4 Analysis of Specific Impacts The EAF Part 2 identified several potential issues of concern; however, none of the potential impacts were found to be potentially large. These issues are noted as follows: · Impact on Transportation; · Impact on a Critical Environmental Area; and Public Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts. Although EAF Part 2/3 procedures do not require additional analysis of potential impacts that are small to moderate based on EAF Part 2 review, the Planning Board has conducted additional analysis of each of these issues. Impact on Transportation Transportation impacts have been of concern with respect to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal operation. Several prior traffic impact reports have been completed for the applicant and are available for review and consideration~ These include: o Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry Services (updated March 1999, prepared by Dunn Engineering Services) Page 7 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. · * Traffic Impa~,t.Stud;, for Proposed Cross Sornd Fe..~, Pxrldng Lo: B::par. sier (S:ptember !997; prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates) In order to update and further evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the project, the Planning Board commissioned Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC to conduct further traffic evaluation. The purpose of the study is as follows: "... to compare the latest available traffic volume data with previous studies conducted to determine the prevailing parking and traffic conditions on Route 25 in the vicinity of Cross Sound Ferry". The traffic impact evaluation reviews trends in daily traffic volumes, capacity analysis of road segments east of Greenport, trends in ridership on certain vessels operated by Cross Sound Ferry, a breakdown of traffic volumes based on uses in the vicinity of Cross Sound Ferry, and provides conclusions regarding potential traffic impacts based on these trends. A copy of the supplemental traffic evaluation is provided in Appendix C of this document. It is noted that traffic growth bet~veen Main Street, Greenport and Orient Point, is a function of population growth, and the attraction of other destinations, not simply an increase in ferry related traffic. As noted in review of traffic data, traffic volumes are highly variable with seasonal factors as well as background growth, other destinations and ferry related activity, causing fluctuations in volume. Traffic volumes on the east ehd of Long Island would experience an increase over time, regardless of the introduction of a passenger only ferry, as a result of area growth. The data suggests that traffic volumes on Route 25 are variable and subject to a variety of factors, and that the volume and ridership attributable to Cross Sound Ferry has not increased significantly as a result of the proposed project. This could be a function of the ability of the Cross Sound Ferry services to accommodate a large number of passengers throughout the period of operation of the terminal, coupled with the change in availability of other forms of transportation such as alternative high speed passenger ferry service from Glen Cove to Connecticut. The data also suggests that Cross Sound Ferry is only one component of traffic volume in the area between Greenport and Orient Point, comprising a portion of the car trips in the area of the terminus of NYS Route 25 in Orient, with other trips attributed to Orient Beach State Park, the Plum Island Ferry, Orient by the Sea marina and other services, parkland, sightseers and residents. As a result of this evaluation, the following conclusion is provided with respect to impact on transportation: We are of the opinion, based on the most recent traffic data that the conditions described in the Transportation Summary section of the "Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry", Updated March 1999, are valid for the year 2001. Based on the review of prior documents and the update conducted herein, we do not expect significant traffic and/or safety impacts as a result of the improvements to the site. Page 9 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Soond Ferry Servkes, Iuc. ImF,?.ct on a Crit;~c~l £nvi:or~ente! The applicant addressed the issue of Critical Environmental Area impacts, as well as impacts related to stormwater, sanitary effluent and erosion, as part of a supplemental environmental report submission in connection with the revised site plan. The document, Addendum and Full Environmental Assessment Form for the Revised Site Plan Application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (May 1999; prepared by Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.) was reviewed and found to contain informative discussion regarding CEA's. The following is excerpted fi:om that document to assist the Planning Board in addressing the issue of Impact on a Critical Environmental Area: 6 NYCRR Part 617.2 (j) defines a Critical Environmental ,M'ea (CEA) as a "specific geographic area designated by a state or local agency, having exceptional or unique environmental characteristics". In 1986, the Suffolk County Legislature designated County-owned land located to the north and east of the Cross Sound facility as a Critical Environmental Area. Furthermore, in 1988, the County designated all land located immediately within 500 ft. of the shoreline as a CEA. Based upon the County's actions in 1986 and 1988, the project site is located in, and is surrounded by, land designated as CEA. Relationshi¢ to the Current Operation: The nearby County property was designated a CEA largely in part due to the Suffolk County Open Space Acquisition Program. The lands within 500 ft. of the shoreline were designated as CEA mainly because of the potential impacts resulting from runoff, sewage effluent and/or erosion on the adjacent bay/estuary areas. The existing facility/project site is located over 100 hf. from the County-owned CEA land. It is believed that this separation is sufficient in preventing any physical disturbance to the County property generated by the on-going operation of the Cross Sound Facility. However, the CEA land that runs along the coastline and includes a large percentage of the project site deserves to be addressed more closely. Given that runoff, sewage effluent and erosion have been identified by the County as the principal potential threats to this specific CEA, each of these issues will be discussed separately below: Stormwatet Runoff- The existing facility utilizes a drainage system similar to the other parking lots in the vicinity. 8tormwater is directed towards French drains and drywells. Furthermore, since a large portion of the existing parking area is surfaced with loose blue stone and/or exposed soil, most rainwater simply permeates immediately through the surface. During unique periods of intense or lengthy rainfall, the stormwater control structures (i.e. the French drains and drywells) collect and store the runoff generated on the site for eventual groundwater recharge. It should be noted that the on-site drainage plan for the existing West parcel and Terminal Parcels were approved by the Town Engineer and the Snack Bar parcel drainage plan will also require review and approval by the Towf[ Engineer. The addition of drainage on the Snack Bar parcel will be of environmental benefit. Sewaee Effluent - Cross Sound provides restrooms in the existing Snack Bar and Ferry terminal buildings. There are no changes proposed to restroom facilities, and no building expansion that would result in the need to increase system capacity or obtain other agency approvals. Pagel0 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc, Erosion - Appm:~i.mately 95% of. the ezist/ng .r~p, ez~2i~o.,~.~ .r,c_¢,.~r~ ~.~plaud/o~,tsiOe t~f the designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Ax~a. Those operations that occur below the Erosion Hazard Area (such as passenger and vehicle loading/unloading; vessel docking, etc.) have no other alternative with respect to location. Regardless, based upon the site inspection and consultation with coastal engineers, it has been determined that even the actions that take place below the erosion hazard area do not result in negative impacts, or contribute to the erosion of the adjacent beach or dunes. With respect to the discussion noted above, it is understood that the current dh-going operation of the Cross Sound Facility does not have any significant effect on the County-owned CEA land located to the east beyond other privately owned lands and to the north beyond NYS Route 25. Furthermore, the on-site CEA land located along the coastline will Continue to function as a buffer and remain an important safeguard against any threat to the Bay. As a result of this information, the project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on a CEA, nor is the project expected to cause a significant adverse impact with respect to stormwater ranoff, sewage disposal or erosion. Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts The degree of public interest is evident in the litigation that has transpired throughout the review process. The Planning Board must rise above the controversy and fulfill their role in implementing the provisions of the Town Zoning Code and conducting appropriate and fair review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Plarming Board has conductdd necessary hearings and disseminated information to the pubic as appropriate throughout the review process. The Planning Board has reacted to the submissions of the applicant and completed appropriate reviews in accordance with Town and State regulations and guidelines. The Planning Board has conducted itself as appropriate by direction of the Court with regard to the continuing litigation. At this time, the Planning Board is in the process of reviewing all available information in order to render a SEQR Determination of Significance and decision on the site plan once SEQR is completed. 5.5 Summary of Mitigation Inherent in the Project The Applicant has provided mitigation through project design. Project design features intended by the applicant which are shown on the site plan are noted as follows: Installation of curb stops along the northern, western and southern borders of the Snack Bar Parcel; Installation of a wooden or metal guard rail along the length of the eastern border of the Snack Bar Parcel; Pagell Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferr~ Services, Inc. · Grade the park~g .e~.trface to eliminate d.epressious a~l ~..nply stone/gavel to the surface (it noted that any regulated action within 100 feet of Trustees designated wetlands will require approval of the Town Trustees); · Enhancement of existing vegetative buffers adjacent to the parking areas on the Snack Bar Parcel; Install low intensity safety lighting for pedestrian safety during evening hours of operation; and · Provide striped cross-walk across NYS Route 25, for pedestrian access between the Snack Bar Parcel and the Terminal Parcel (with appropriate NYSDOTauthorization). These measures minimize potential environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and are inherent in the project design. These measures address long-term concerns of the Planning Board with respect to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal operations regarding drainage, aesthetics and safety. The measures incorporated into the site plan improve site conditions on a site that is already in operation. As a result, the site plan is viewed as benefiting the health, safety and environmental conditions of the subject site. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Potential environmental impacts of the revised site plan application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. are evaluated in this EAF Part 3~ The evaluation considers the following: · Original and current proposed site plans; · Impact analysis ofgeneralconditions; · Analysis of SEQR classification of the project; · Comparison with the prior Positive Declaration · Specific analysis of impacts identified in the EAF Part 2 (including transportation, CEA and controversy); and · Appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project. The Planning Board is extremely familiar with the original and current proposed project, the background and history related to the project site, the project site itself, the on-going litigation, and potential impacts of the project. The Planning Board has taken a "hard look" at the potential impacts of the project, and in order to implement the provisions of the Town Zoning Code, as well as the regulations for implementation of SEQR as lead agency in review of the project. Based on the evaluation contained herein, and in consideration of available information, it is concluded that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the revised site plan application of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Impacts are either not significant, or are adequately mitigated as a result of the design features inherent in the revised site plan. In addition, the Planning Board fully supports Cros~ Sound Ferry's efforts to improve operations through measures identified in Section 7.0 of this report. This document fulfills SEQRA requirements for completing environmental evaluation using a Part 1, 2 and 3 EnvirorLmental Assessment Form, and allows the lead agency to take a "hard look" at the potential impacts of a project, to reach an informed decision. Page 12 Environmental A~sessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Although the proposed modifications to the Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. terminal are not expected to have a significant adverse environmental impact, the Ferry company has indicated a willingness to seek additional operations improvements to accommodate passengers. These measures are noted as follows: · Provide Parking Attendant: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. proposes to provide at least one parking attendant during peak parking periods (summer and holiday weekends), to assist ~avelers with vehicular parking and access. The attendant will remain at the site for at least one-half hour after the arrival of the last ferry for the business day. · Consider a Reservation System: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. will consider establishing a system for the reservation of parking for travelers using the high speed service, to allow for advance notice for the need for parking and to allow for daily planning of on-site parking. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. will also explore further long-term operational modifications to further improve service and limit congestion and traffic inconvenience, noted as follows: Investigate other areas for additional parking outside of the Orient area. Investigate bus/rail links and potential to establish parking outside of Orient in association with mass transportation modes. Investigate out-of-the-area ferry landing sites to augment ferry services to Long Island. Pursue with the NYS Department of Transportation the re-arrangement of the terminus of NYS Route 25 as an integrated plan with ferry terminal properties, and coordinate such improvements with the Town of Southold. Until this is achieved, Cross Sound Ferry will be respon~iye to community concerns regarding traffic flow and pedestrian safety. As with any on~bing operation, it is important to continue to improve the management and timing of off-loading cars due to their impact on the traffic flow on NYS Route 25. Through extensive project review, several items have been identified for incorporation into the.site plan to improve design. These items all pertain to the Snack Bar parcel and will be addressed by the Planning Board through site plan review. Items include: additional controlled lighting of the parking area, the addition of at least 1 handicap parking stall based on the requirements of the zoning code for the square footage of the building, addition of drainage per the Town Engineer memorandum, additional landscaping, maintaining the open access at the south end of the parking area, and maintaining the existing wood fence between the parking area and the beach. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has been a long-term business providing an important service on the east end of Long Island. Cross Sound Ferry provides an inter-state transportation link that serves as a convenient and necessary transportation alternative to destinations in New England, thereby avoiding the need to travel through New York City to exit or enter Long Island. The ferry company has made adjustments to serve the needs of the traveling public, and seeks to operate in a safe and efficient manner to serve these needs. In recognition of changes in travel patterns and preferences, Cross Sound Ferry has provided service to accommodate transport, of goods, commutation, vehicle transport, and recreation and entertainment related travel. Cross Sound Ferry intends to operate at the Orient terminal well into the future, and have indicated the company will seek means to ensure that public needs and desires are met in a manner that maximizes the use of the facility without being a detriment to the locale. The improvements to the terminal and specifically the Snack Bar parcel proposed as part of the pending site plan will improve the operation, and additional considerations outlined above will be explored to further improve the operation. Pagel3 Cross Sound Ferr~ Services, Inc. APPENDICES Page 14 Env ronmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDIX A EAF PARTS 1 & 2 14-16-2 817.2D Appendtx A State Environmental QuaUty Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applican~ and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a-prujecL · oracti~nma¥besigni~cantThequesti~n~fwhetheranacti~nmaYbesigni~cantisn~ta~waYseasYtoanswer~Frequent. ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable, It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically exper[ in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question qf significance, The full EAF is intended to provid.e 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 furl EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1~ Provides objective data and information abobt a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer {n 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 Par[ 3 i~ used to e~a[uate whether or not the impact is actual(y important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project:. Cl Part I F'I Par[ 2 C1part 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 wifl not result'in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will net have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. El' 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 si[,nificant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared:- * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Bennett Orlowski Jr. Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Cross Sound Ferry - Proposed continuance of current operation and land uae. Name of Action - Southold Planning Board Name of Lead Agency Chairman, Planuing Board Title of Responsib~ Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer) Date 1 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assi'st in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the envirmlment Please comp~et, e the entire ~or, m.. ga~,~ A..thrz~Lgh_r, ,Answers to these ouestions will be considered as part of the application for approval and ma,/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 e~hected 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 Cross Sound Ferry - Proposed continuance of current operation and 'land use LOCATION OF ACTION Ilnclude Street Address, Municipality and County) Orient, To~n of Southold, Suffolk County NAME OF APPUOANTISPONSOR Cross Sound Ferry Sea-vices, Inc. AOOR~SS PO ~ox 33 C~TY/PO New London NAME OF OWNER Jif clfflerent) SAM~ ADDRESS IaUSlNESS TELEPNONE 860) 443-7394 STATE { Z~P CODE CT I 06320 BUSINESS TELEPHONE CfTYZPO DE,SCRIPT]ON OF ACTION STATE I ZIP CODE Refer to E.A.F. Addendum ~ Please Complete Each Quesfion--lndlcate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description I Physical setting of overall both developed project, ' 1. Present [and use: Cl0rban r'llndustrial ,~ E]Forest E]Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 4.06 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE -.- Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 17,685 !l Forested O t Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) -~ Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area i" Unvegetated [Rock, earth or fill) ~'~ Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces ;~ Other (Indicate type)._ and undeveloped areas. [~.Commercial I-IResidential (suburban) ~Other acres. ({~6,854' s.f.) PRESENTLY acres acres acres acres :acres 106.113 $. f-acres 53,056 s.f acres 0 acres E}P, ural [non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION 17,685 acres acres 0 acres 0 acres 106,113 s,a~cres ~3,0~6 ~ al:res 0 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? '~ a, Soil drainage: ~Well drained _qs. , % of site E]Moderately weft drained ...... % of site ,~i_. ~Poorly drained .% % of site b. if any agricultural land is involved, h~w many acres of soil are classified within sci( group I through 4 of the NYS j~j Land Classification System? acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrocJ< outcroppings on project site~ [3Yes ]~No : :,_ a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) S. A;~proximate percentage of proposed proiect site with slopes: :~=0-10% 10,0 , % ~10-15% % D15% or greater' % 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous (d, or contain a building, si~e. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Piaces~ 'i~,'~es 7. is project substantially contiguous to a site listed'ha the Register of National Natural Landmarks1 i-lYes k~No g, What is the depth of the water tabte? 7.8 (in feet) Below surface 9, Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? [][Yes I-tHo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that ts identified as threatened or endangered? ~Yes ~No According ta Refer to E,A,F, Addendum Identify each species '[2. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the proiect site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, .other geological formations) DYes I"'lNo ~scribe q3. Is the project site presently used by the community .or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? r'lYes ~LNo If yes, explain '~4. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the'community1 ~Yes DNa 15. Streams within or contiguous to proiect area: ]q.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: a. Name Gardiner~s ~ay b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [~Yes . a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~Yes r~No N.A. b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? DYes DNo N.A, 18, Is the site located in an agricu[tura[ district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 2S-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes 1~. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a CdticaJ Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article g of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 :[~Yes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes1 ~Yes ~No . B. Project Description i 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 4.06 acres. i b. Project acreage to be. developed: 3.65 acres initially; 3,65 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 61 acres, ' d. Length of project, in miles: 3.A. (if appropriate) j e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing * ~, g, Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour * j h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family ~1 Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure . height; width; .... length. ' '--~' ;~* m~ +rn~f~oe alone a public thoroughfare proiect wilt occupy is? [, [$~_ ft. N.A %; ; proposed*Refer to T,raffic and Parking sectior (upon completion of proiect)?°f EAF Addendum Condominium 2.. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? tons/cubic yards 3. will disturbed areas be reclaimed? a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? D; 'Wiii'topsull be stoct;~Y,'e3 for .reclamation? ~Yes [No c, Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for recJar~'ation? F'lYes i-INp 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? O acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? f-lYes 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: iq.k, ~' a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month ~[ d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? CJYes ~ 8. Will blasting occur during construction? []Yes :~No i 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N.A. 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project iq.A. months, [including d~molidon]. y;;ar, [including demolitionJ. year. [No ; after project is complete Will project require relocation of any proiects or facilities? [BYes ~No If yes, explain 12. 13. 14. i '19, 2'1. 23. 24. Is surface liquid waste disposal involvedt E]Yes [i~'No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Wes E3No Type will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain No change .Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plaint [~Yes Will the project generate solid waste? ~;~Yes a. If yes, what is the amount per month l/4' tons Sanitary effluent E3Yes r-lNo [No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~es [UNo · c. If yes. give name Southold Landfill/Transfer Sta: location Cutahogue 37own. of Southold d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage dispdsal system or into a sanitary landfilit t'UYes ~',To e. If Yes, explain Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Will proiect use herbicides or pesticides? nYes [BYes rZNo tons/month. years. :iD;No Will project routinely produce odors [more than one hour per day)? ~Yes 3:~No Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [BYes l~lNo Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~Yes If yes , indicate type(s) If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity UlqkrNOWN gallons/minute. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. Design flow = 2,950 gal/day - terminal a~ snack bar Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? []-'lYes J~'No ' if Yes. explain ! 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board "C/Yes ~No City, Town, Village Planning Board dyes UNo City, Town Zoning Board I~Yes [~No City, County Health Department C]Yes ~No Other Local Agencies C/-1Yes ~No Other Regional Agencies. r'lyes r'gNo State Agencies C/Yes [~No Federal Agencies C/Yes [~No C. Zoning and Planning Information Site Plan Type Submittal Date ~ 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning dedision? ~Yes [3No ~f Yes, indicate decision required: [zoning amendment · I-Izoning variance (special use permit []subdivision ~l. site plan l-inew/revision of master plan []"]resource management plan [-]other 2. What is the zoning c[assifi~ation(s)of the site?MII (Marine II) _ 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zohing? Building area - 53~056 s.f, (30% coverage) 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N.A. 5. What is the maximhm potential development of the. site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 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? MII, R-80, R-40; Commercial, Residential, Transoorta~ion, Open Space 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adioiningjsurrounding land uses within a ~ mile? ~][Yes F1No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? M A -' a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action req_uire.9._ny authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? . r-lYes i[~,lo 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? C]Yes ~o a. if yes, is existing capaciW sufficient to handle projected demand? C/Yes r'iNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? r'lyes f-INo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic~ i-lyes (No Refer to Traffic and D. Informational Details Parking section of EAF Attach any additiona~ information as may be needed to clarify your project, If thereA~u~W/'be any adverse impacts associated w'i~h your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which ~ou propose to mitigate or avoid them. F_ Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge, Applicant/Sponsor Name Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. Date 4/99 Signature for Cross Sound Ferry Services, InC.Title If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coasta~ Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part II EAF Part II - RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAD AGENCY Project Impo. ct, em~ .T~*[- Jvle.g~tude General Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable9. The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. Identifying that ~a effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. A~y large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. The Examples provided are to assist tho 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 rating. Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples 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. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 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 (colunm 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If threshold impact equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check colunm 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be rrdtigated by a'change in the project to a less than large magnitude, check the yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? __ Yes X_~No hMPACT ON LAND Examples that would apply to Column 1 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction of land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. ConsWaction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on la~d where bedrock is exposed or generally wittim 3 feet of existing ground surface. Constraction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. Consm~ction in a designated floodway. Other Impacts (Please describe): Project involves currently existing ferry termhlal use site, and will incorporate facility improvements including operational improvements and landscaping. 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services~ Inc./Part II EAF 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) __ Yes X No. List specific land forms: Project will not involve dune areas; additional landscaping will be provided as part of site plan. 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) __ Yes ~X No. IM. PACT ON WATER (Examples that would apply to column 2) Developable area of site contains a protected water body. 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Please List Other Impacts: Project does not involve dredging or development beyond current use areas. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? __ A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. ConsU-uctiou of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Please List Other Impacts: 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality? __ Yes X No Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Please List Other Impacts: Yes X No Cross Sound Ferry Services, IncdYart II EAF I2VIPACT ON WATER (cont.) (Examples that would apply to column 2) Small to Pottntial Impact Impact Proposed Action requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed Actinn will likely cause siltation or nther discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petxoleum products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action xvill allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates corcanemial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Please list other impacts: 6. Will proposed 9etlon alter drainage flow, patterns or surface water runoff?. __ Yes ~X No, Proposed Action would impede flood water flows. Proposed Action is likely to cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drain patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? __ Yes X No. 3 Can Impact Be h~gat:d 'BI,' Proleet Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in given hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Proposed Action emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. Per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land comrmtted to industrial use, Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development in existing indusn-ial areas, Please 'List Other Impacts: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.fPart II EAF IMPACT ON PLANTS AND A~LS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any tkreatened or endangered species? __ Yes X No. HVIPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS (Examples that would apply to Column 2) 1 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Kcmoval of any portion of a critical or signff'tcant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide over more than twice a year other than for agricultural proposes. Please list other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or endangered species? __ Yes X No Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires thc removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES I0. Willthe Proposed Action affect agriculturalland resources? __ Yes X No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES (Examples that would apply to Column 2) I 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact The Proposed Action would sever, cross through, or limit access to a field of agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than one acre of agricultural laud. The Proposed Action would disrupt agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); prevent agricultural land management measures from being installed; or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Please list other impacts: 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Prolect Change (Enter Yes or No 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cress Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part II EAF IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES OR COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 12. ~fllll proposedac-d~u-aff, c~t a~.sth~t~c,',,c~'ourccs, a: thc eht,ract~r cf'~c rcaigl~borhood or conu'nur~ity? __ Yes _X No 1 2 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES OR COMlVIUNITY Small to Patentlal CHARACTER (Examples that would .apply to column 2) Moderate Large (If Necessary Use the Visual EAF.4ddendurn in Section 617.23) Impact Impact Introduction of proposed land uses, projects or project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns or existing man-made additions to the landscape. Introduction of proposed land uses, projects or project components as described in the above example that will be visible to users of aesthetic resources. This will eliminate or significantly reduce the public enjoyment or appreciation of the appearance or aesthetic qualities of a resource or community character. Introduction of project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area~ Please list other impacts: The facilioJ is currently existing and has historically occttpied the project site. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or strncture of historic, prehistoric or paleontogical importance?_Yes _X_No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archeoIogical site or fossil bed located within thc project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the NSY Site Inventory. Please list other impacts: Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services, IncJPart II EAF IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Act/on affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational .qp~p.c~.~tie~? __ Y. es , X. No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ('Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Thc permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oppommity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? X IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION (Examples that would apply to column 2) __ Yes __ No 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in severe traffic problems Please list other impacts: The project has been subject to extensive traffic impact analysis. Surveys find that the ferry related traffic comprises a portion of the vohlme present at the terminus of N¥S Route 25. Traffic volume has been evaluated over a 4~year period and is foand to be variable. Level of service calculatious find that uninterrupted flow conditions do not exist for long periods along the segment of Rotate 25 between Greenport and the terminal, Parking appears adequate for the current level of use, and facility improvements will assist with passenger safety. Long-term plans to coordinate with NYSDOT will fi~rther improve conditions at the terminus of the State high~vay. X IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the communities so,cos of fuel ot energy supply? __ Yes X No IMPACT ON ENERGY (Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in any form of energy in municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Please list other Lmpacts: 3 CanlmpactBo MifigatedBy Pr~e~Change CEnterYos orNo) 3 Cnn Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change CEnter Yes or No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc,/Part II EAF INIPACT FROM NOISE, ODORS, GLARE, VIBRATION, OR ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or elec~'ical disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action? __ Yes X No IMt'ACT ON NOISE (Examples that would apply to column 2) Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of slxucmres. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS') SAFETY 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Yes X No 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Pro~ect Change (Enter Yes or No) IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS) SAFETY (Examples that would apply to column 2) Proposed Action will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. Proposed Action wLll result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, senti-solid, liquid or contain gases). Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other liquids. Please list other impacts: Pedestrian safety will be improved through crosswalk striping, and improved circulation and facility operations. 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part II EAF IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR 1VEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing Community? __ Yes X No I 2 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR Small to Potential NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large (Examples that would apply to column 2) Impact Impact The population of the city, town or village in which the project is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use on more than one acre in an agricultural district or remove more than 10 acres of(prime) agricultural lands from cultivation. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will in induce an influx of a particular age ~oup with special needs. Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Please List other impacts: Facility currently exists/operates at the *ire. IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 19. Will Proposed Action impact exceptional or unique characteristics of critical environmental areas (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRK 617A4 (g) ? X Yes __ No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS (Examples that would apply to column 2) I 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Proposed action to locate within the CEA. X Proposed action will result in a reduction of the resource. Proposed action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource. Proposed action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource. Other impacts: Site use is existing and will not adversely impact a CEA. X 20. Is there public controversy related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts? X Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. Project has been subject to public bearings and thorough Plamffng Board deliberation. Project has been subject to litigation. Planning Board has reviewed all relevant i~formation and b~put. Yes __ No Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 617.21 ~ Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION ('rD be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) Cross Sound Ferry Serv. ices, Inc. I Mumcme.w Orient co.my Su,ff~] k s/s ,Main Road, Orient SEQR 5. IS PROP/'~SED ACTION: [] Modification/alteration ADD additiona! parking to ~erry termina! 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF ROJECT? ~l Res~aenNal [] Inciustrial ~mrnerclaL DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAl., OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? t I. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTIOn'1 HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ~"~ Yes [] No If yes, Iisi agency name and permiuapprova~ NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation Sou[hold Town Trustees 12. AS A "ESULT OF PROPOSED ACTIO~ WILL ~ISTING PERalTIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? I CERTI~ THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION P~'epared by Project Sponsor .... NOTICE: This docbment is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant elf on the environment. Please complete' the entire form; Parts A through E. Answers to these c~uestions will be'conside as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public .reyiew. Provide any additio in[ormation you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3... It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on inform,~tion currently available and will not invc new studies, research or investigation. If i~formation recluiring such additional work is unavailable, so indica.te and spec each- instance. .. HAME OF ACTION .... ~.~ BUSINESS TELEPHONE BUSINESS TELEPHONE STATE I rip CODE Please Cornplele 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 I-llndustrial [;~Commercial 'l~Residential (suburban) r'lRural (non-far DForest r-IAgriculture C]Other 2. Total acreage of project a~'ea: - ~ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER CO,¥tPLET ON Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) I acres ' (3 ' acres Forested . acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area ,~cres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, bu;ldings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (indicate type) ,'~cres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) o'n project site? a. Soil draln~ge: [~ell drainc, d. IO~ % el ~te OModer;~tuly'well drained ~. % o~ site ~]Poorly drained __ % of site b. il .any agricultural land is involved, how many acres el soil are classified svltbin sell group [ through 4 of the NY Land Classification System? acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? l-lYes ~ a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet} 2 'S.. Apprn~imatu Hercentage oi propos~:d i~rol~ct site w~lh slopes; . ~0-1tt% ) ~ ~ % ~ lO-13% ~ % ~15% or gr~a~er % 6. Is project subs:anfinUy contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or dis:rieL listed on the Sta~e or the National -' Registers of Historic Places? ~Yes ~o ~'. Is Proiect substantiaUv contiguous :o a slie listed on the Register of National Natural 'Landmarks~ ~Yes ~o 8. Wh~ is the .depth of ~he water table? ~ (in ~eet} g. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Ye~ ~o q0. Do hunting, fis~ing or Shel~ fishing opportunities presently exist in ~e project area~ ~Yes ~o 1~. D~es project site co, thin any species o~ pln~t or animal lite ~hat is identi[ied ~ threatened or endangered? ~Yes ~o ACcording to ~ ~ ~~ ¥ ~.L~} " Identify each species ~ ~ ~2. Are there any unique or unusual land Iorms on the project site? [i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other ~eoiogical formations) Describe 13, Is the proinc:' sit..'_~resently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation .area~ [~Yes I~'No If yes, explain.'. 14. Does th.e present site include scenic views known to be important to the community~' DYes [g~o . ' 15. Streams w/thin or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name o~ River ~o which it is tributary qd. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name ~01q.~ b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~r~f'es FqNo a) If Yes. does sulficient capacit~;'exist to allow connection? [~fes ~No bi If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~Yes ~No 18. I~ the site Incased in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and ~arkets Law. Article 2S-AA. Section 303 and 3047 ~Yes ~o qg. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Are,~ designated pursuant to Article of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes ~o 20, Has the site ever been used ~or the disposal o~ solid or hazardous w~stes? ~Yes ~o 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 ~.~ acres. b. Proiect acreage to be developed: acres initially; '~' ~ acres ultimately. -' c. Project ac?age to remain u'ndeve!oped d, Length of project, in miles: ~)~ (1t appro~riale) e. ff ~he project is an expansion. i~dicate percent of expansion ~roposed · ~. Number of off-Street parking spaces existing ~ .; proposed ~ g, Maximum vehicular trips I~enerated per hour }~ . {o~on completion of projec[)~ h. If residential: Number and ~ypu of housiul: units: One Family Two Fnmiiy Muhiplu Family Condominium ~ Ultimately i_ Oimensioh$ {in feet) o~ larcest proposed structure ~ , , heigilt: ~ width; ~ length. j. Linear feet of frontage alon~ a public thoroughfare project ~vilJ occupy is~ ~ ft. 3 2. I Iow much natural matena, e.. rock, earth, etc.} will be removed from the site? ~) 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? "~Ves F"INo DIN/A '~1'~ ~ "' a, If yes, for wh~t intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled ~or reclamation?' ~Yes ~No " c..Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Ye~ ~No : 4. H~w many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site~ ' ~ acres. 5. Will any matu~forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this ~Yes ~No · 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of'construction ~ months. {including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated {number). b, A~ticipated date' of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase I functionally depgndent on subsequent phases? ~Yes ~No 8. Will blas~ing occur during construction1 ' ~Yes g, Number of jobs generated: during construction ~ ; after proiect is complete 10, Number o~ jobs eliminated b~ ~his ~roiect ~ ' .' ~. Will proiec: require relocation of any projects or facilities? ' ~Yes ~o I~ yes. exolain year, {including demolition) year. 12. Is surface liquid ~aste disposal involved? ~-'Wes [~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? [3Yes J2~'No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal:~ ' DYes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 300 year flood plain? . ,"~Yes ~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? OYes ~'No a, If yes. what is the amoon~ per month tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste taciJity be used? ["lYes c. If yes, give name ; Iocatibn d, Wil{ any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? OYes e. If Yes. explain · 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? I-lYes I~No a. If yes, what is the anticipated'rate el disposal? . tons/month. b. I( yes. what ii the anticipated site life? ~ years. ' 18. Will lsroiect (~se herbicides or pesticides? OYes ~'No lrJ. Will proiect routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes ~o 20. will proiect produce operating'noise exceeding 'the local :qmblent noise levels? ~Ycs 21. WiH proiect resul[ in an increase in energy use? ~Yes ~No If yes , indicate type'(s) ~ ~l~R~ ~N ~T~ 22. If wa[er Supply iS from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. To[;l ;nticipated ~vnter osage per day gallons/day, ~4. Does proiec[ involve Local, State or Federal iundin~? ~Yes ~o It Yes. explain gallonsh'ninute. · ""25 Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board' OYes J~o City,.Towq, Village Planning Board J~es F'INo City. Town Zoning Board ' OYes I~Ho City. County Health Department i-lYes"~No Other Local Agencies '""~Yes r-INa Other Regional Agencies OYes r'lHo State Agencies ~J~Yes I-IH~ ' Federal Agencies OYes I~ ~uhm~tt~l Type Date C. Zoning,and Planning Information 1. Does proposed act'ion involve a.pl~nning or zoning decision? [~es ' I-1No If Yes, indicate decision required: r'lzoning amendment r-lzoning variance r'lspecial use permit rlsubdivi~ion [~ite ~lan r'lnewfievision of master plan. r-lresource management plan Oother 2. What is the zoning classificati6n(s)of the site? '"g'~ ~' 3. What is the m~ximum potential development of the site if de~;eloped as petrol.tied by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning ot the site? ~' ~ '5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is. the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted ideal land use plans( [~J'es I-iN¢ 7. What are the predomi,~ant land use(s) and zoning classificat,ons within a '/~ mile ~adius el proposed action? 0. is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a % mile? ~'es ONe 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision el land, how many tots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. ;Viii proposed action require any authorization(s) [or the formation of sewer or water districts? ['lyes 11. Will the proposed action ~:reate a demand for any community provided services (recreation. education, police. fire protection)r OYes I~o a, I[ yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? OYes I-1No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? OYes J~o a, II yes, is the existing road nc~work adequate to handle (he additiona( tra~fic~ OYes ONe D. Informational Details Attach any adcJitional information as may he needed to clari,;y your project. If t.here are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, ptease discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I Certdy that the information pro.vialed above is ~ruc, (o the best of m;/ kno~vledge, u / ApplicanUSpqn~ Name ~h¥-f ~j'~.,.3/ Dale_~ ~ [E~ ' ' ' Co~s~alAre~, nd y ,gencr, comp cie Ihe C ,s a[ before proceedin~ 5 · , ' Part 2--~ 3JF_CT iMPACTS A,ND.,THEIR ~, AGNITUDE Responsihili~y of Lead Agency General Information (Read CareiuH','] , "In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have ms' responses and determmat;ons been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. '~, '. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessardv significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an ~mpact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever ooss~ble the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the 5tare and (or 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, w*ll Xary. Therefore. the examples are illu§tra(ive and have been offered as guidance, They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each oauestion. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question, · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 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 cluestion then check the appropriate box (column I or 2) to red,cate the ootent~al size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example prov,ded, check column 2. Ii ~moact wdl occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in coiumn 2 can be mmgated by change(s) in the prolect to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reouct~on is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1 Will the proposed action result in a physical change ~o the prolect E]NO Examples that would apply to column 2 "Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 [~//~ [] [] ~'t.'eS []No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. "Construction on land where the depth to the ~fater table is less than ('~,.~ [] J"/~- [] []Yes t-]No 3 feet. * Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles, j,//~ L-'] [] ~Yes []No * Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within [] [] E~'t'es []No 3 feet of existing ground surface. .r/,'l' · Construction that will c~ntinue for more than 1 year or involve more [] [] ~'Yes []No than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes [hat woukl remove more th.'m l.O00 ,,'T'/0' [] ~ []Yes ~]No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . · Construction or expansion of a ~anllar~, Mndfill ."~.~,~, ~.,¢mb'~- ,~ [] ~Yes r~No · Construction m a designated floodway [] ~Yes []No · Other ,mp,,c~s ~'~ [] []Yes []No I 2 3 Small to 'Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Proje¢! Change, thesJte~(i~,,cliHs dunes, geolo!:,caltt , utc] '.J,~,O L~YFS C C ~MPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as pr~ected~ (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conserva_u~'Law, ECL} [~'NO ~YES Examples that ~vould apply to column 2 o Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ° Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland, · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or~ body of water? ~iq'O [3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ° A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area oi any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5, Will Proposed Action aifect surface or groundwater// quahtv or quanuty~ '"""""""""""""""""~O •YES Exampies that would apply to column 2 ° Proposed Action will require a discharge permit ' Proposed Action requires use o[ a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (prolect) acuon · Prooosed Action requtres water supply irom wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. ~' Construction or operation causing any contamination o[ a water supply system, * Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. e Liquid effluent will be conveyu.) off the site to facilities which presently do not ex~st or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. ' Proposed Action will Iii;ely cause sHta~ron or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action wilt require the storage of petrolt, um or ~ h~:micaJ products greater than 1,'100 gaJlcms. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in dreas wilho[q water and/or sewer serwces · Proposed Action locates comm¢,rclaJ and/or ind~str,,H Iss~'s wi.ch may facilides 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] Can Impact~ Mitigated Project Chan~ ~Yes L'~' No ~'Yes r~No '~"'~ Yesr--INo ~--' Yes ,F~ NO ~Yes '~No L.~ Yes []No ~Yes "--.'No ?Yes L~-JNo ~Yes L..~ NO ~','es reno ~'¢es ~No []Yes []No -~Y es ~No []Yes ~Yes ~No ~Yes []No •Yes E3No Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existin~ drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact [] 3 Can Impact Bf. Mitigated Project Change~. ~,. r~¥es []Yes []No []Yes I-]No ["lyes []No IMPACT ON AIR J 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? [i~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the d,ensity of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ~-JYes []No []Yes []No ~'¥es r-)No ?Yes L_~NO r--Yes ~--JNo ~, 'r'es []No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endan_gere~~-- species? I~N'O r~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ° Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site. over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ' Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threaten_e~ non-endangered species? L'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~N 0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wddlife species. ° Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or olher locally iml)ort,~nt vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the I'roposc, d Action affect agncuhura] I,mdn,~ourc~,~, 'tis [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [-]Yes O, No []Yes []No I--Wes ~--INo []Yes E]No []'res []No []Yes I'-iNo E~Yes 1 Small to Moderate Impact · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of [] agricultural land. * The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres [] of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of 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) · Other impacts: [] 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact · Mitigated By I Project Change r-lyes i'-INo F~Yes []No 'r'~ Yes []No i-lyes ~-iNo IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES~/ 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? GitqO E]YES Jif necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.2'1, Appendix B.) Examples that would appiy to column 2 · Proposed land uses. or project components obviously different from [] or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land u'se patterns, whether man-made or natural · Proposed land. uses, or proiect components visible to users of [] aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aestheuc qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant [] screening of scemc views I:nown to be Important to the area. ° Other impacts: [] ~-JYes ~F-]No ,miYes i'-i No f"'l Yes [--INo []Yes t--]No C IrYTPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 32. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of h~, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ~O [~]YES Examples that would an,~l,, to "l ,) ~ P~ r~ ~ ' Proposed Action occurring wholly or partiaUy.within or substantially contiguous to any facilityor site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or ~ossiJ bed located within the project site. ' Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensHive ~or archaeological sites on the ;~YS Site Inw,n[ory ' Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION F-lYes ~]No []Yes [--INo t-lYes [~]No E~Yes I'-tYes FnYes F~Yes []No I 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION / Small to Potential Can Impaet 14. Will ~here be an ei:fect to ex~sting transporta£~on systems~ ~ Moderate Large Mitigated By ~NO [~'Y E 5 Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. [] / [] ~lYes I"-INo · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ~ [] ~iYes ["~No · Other impacts: [] ~ []Yes []No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15, Will proposed action affect the communrty's sourc I or energy supply? ~4~'O ~,YE$ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of [] [] []Yes []No any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will rec~uire the creation or extension of an energy [] [] EYes []No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two famdy · Other impacts: [] ~ []Yes []No NOISE AND ODOR IMPAC'i~S 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibrauon~a resuh of the Proposed Action? ' [~'NO '~'r'E5 Examples that wou~d appiy to column 2 "Blastin§ within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility, · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) [] · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local [] ambient noise levels for no~se outside of structures ° Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a .~ noise screen. · Other impacts: [] [] ['-]Yes J'--I No [] []Yes r-]No [] ~'~ Yes ["iNn [] EiYes E]No [] Il'res ~No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety__~J []~I~ 0 E~YES Examples that would apply ~o column 2 ' Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e, oil. pesticides, chemicals, radiatmn, etc. I in the (,vent of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chrome Iow level dischar§e or emission. · Proposed Action may result m the bunal of "h,'~/ardous wastnC' in any form [i.e toxic, poisonous, hil:hly reactive, r,~dioacHve, rrrrtatmlL infectious, etc.) ° Storage fatalities for one rrlithol~ ~)r morl, ~:alh,.~ of hqulfm(I Ilaturnl ~as or olher flammable hquids * Other ~mtlacts: 10 [] []Yes i-INn [] []Yes [] [] ~Y~'s Euvironmen~al Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDIX B ORIGINAL POSITIVE DECLARATION September PLANNI1N.G BOARD OFFICE TOV~ OF $OUTPIOLD Town PIall~ 6g09S 1Vlaln Road P,O. Box 1179 William Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Her%er and Angel 108 East Main St. Riverhead, NY 11901 Re:- Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 Dear Mr. EsseKs: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 16, 1996, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board. acEIng under the S(ate Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type I action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning 8oard, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a. Positlve Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of the Positive Declaration for your records. Please contact this o~ce within the next week for a scopJng session date prior to your compiling the Draft Environmental Impact $~atement. Slncereh/, ~ Bennett Orlow_ki Ac~ing Chairman eNC. Town Hall, SS096 ~[ain ]~oad P.O. Box 1179 Seutho]¢l; New York 11971 Telephone (516) ~5-1938 PI-A_NNING BOAi:LD OFFICE TOWb~ OF $OUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of {ntent to Prepare a Draft ElS Determination of Significance September 16, 1996 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pe~aining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review AC) of the ' Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM#: 1000-1579-10.1, 11,1, 15.1 &3.5 Location: E/S State Rt. 25 at Orient Point -SEQR Status: Type i ( X ) Unlisted ( ) Description of Action: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry se~ice to the existing vehicular ferry service. P~ge ~ $~:QP, PositB, e Decl~r~tlon - Cross Sound~ Fe~ .September 16. Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment'Form, The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies, The Cross Sound project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding the following issues: The project is a Type 1 action, which is more likely to require the preparation of a Draft ElS, in addition, the project is located edjacent to the surface waters of Gardiners Bay, Which c:omprises a portion of the Peconic Bay Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The proposed project, may impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA. In addition, the project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48+ acres of County owned land, The proposed action will cause a significant increase in.the intensity of land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded parking, demand for parking in connection with ferr~ operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking access, The proposed action may change the need and use of public and pedes- trian transportation services (including existing bike trail), and may increase the demand for other cammunity services including fire, police recreational 'facilities and utilities. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips which utilize off-site infrasb'ucture facilities primarily ihciuding existing transportati, on systems. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid w~ste generation. Existing and proposed site drainage must be analyzed and controlled. Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry so.ice will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an adverse impact upon the environment, The prqect may impact visual and aesthetic resources, particularly as regards lighting, and use during both daytime and night time hours. The proposed project may cause growth inducing aspects associated with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft ElS. The project involves m'uftiple agency jurisdictions and permits, and the comprehensive review of potential impacts would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft ElS. 10. Impact of passenger only jet boats on marine environment. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental impact Statement be prepared in order t~' provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from ir~volved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures, For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Beard Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Bept af Health Services Suffolk County Dept, of Planning Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources &Waterfront Revita{ization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Dept, of Transportation - Albany & Hauppauge offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency Env/ronmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDIX C UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NELSON & POPE ......... ~ Be~ett Orlowsld, Jr., Chairman To'cra of Southold ?lamfing Board ~ .. ~ To,~m Hall, $3095 Main Road ...... P.O. Box 1179 Southeld, New York 11971 June ?,2001 Cross Sound Ferry Service Inc. Amended and Full Environmental Assessment Form Traffic Assessment Review N&P No. 97106 Dear Mr. Orlowski: This letter is in reference to the Amended and Full Environmental Assessment Form for the Revised Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc., Orient, Town of Southold. Nelson & Pope has been retained to review prior Traffic Impact Analyses and update such materials as appropriate in order to apprise the Board of any Waffle impacts based upon all available data. The purpose of this study is to compare the latest available traffic volume data with previous studies conducted to determine the prevailing parking and traffic conditions on Route 25 in the vicinity of the Cross Sound Ferry. The State of New York has conducted traffic counts in connection with the "North Fork Recreation of Traffic Needs Assessment" (NFRTNA) program, These counts were conducted during the month of August 1998 and have recently become available. The final report for the NFRTNA is not available at this time. Several traffic studies were prepared as part of the application. These documents reviewed by Nelson & Pope gq&P) include the following: Traffic Assessment of Existin~ Cross Sound Ferry Services (updated March 1999, prepared by Dunn Engineering Serv/ces. Traffic Imf)act Stud,/for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion, (September 1997) prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates. 1999 Traffic Volume Report (March 2000) New York State. Department of Transportation. - Correspondence from W. Ugolik, LITP 2000, North Fork Recreational Needs Assessment (April 13, 2000). Re: Cross Sound Ferry June 7, 2001 Page 2 Additionally technical reviews and the responses to review comments were also included in the research for this study. The (NFRTNA) data have been used to verify the conclusions of the applicant's Cross Sound Ferry traffic assessment and to recalculate the levels of service within the Route 25 highway segments east of Greenport using the most recent traffic volume data available. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) reported in the March 1999 Updated Cross Sound Ferry traffic assessments are lower than the volumes reported in the 1999 New York State Traffic Volume Report. Excerpts from the State report are attached (See Attachment 1). The section of Route 25 between Main Street and Narrow River Road is reported by New York State to have an AADT of 5050 vehicles per day in 1999 as compared to the 4200 in 1996 indicated in the applicant's report. The section of Route 25 east of Narrow Pdver Road and west of the ferry terminal is reported to have an AADT of 3600 vehicles per day in 1999 as compared to the 2700 previously reported in 1996. It should be noted that the NYSDOT uses these segments as a broad indicator of traffic activity within the specified section of road. During August of 1996, Dunn Engineering Associates (DEA) also collected additional traffic volumes on Route 25 east of both Narrow River Road and the entrance to Orient Beach State Park immediately west of the entrance to Cross Sound Ferry. In the March, 1999 Traffic Assessment prepared by DEA, they reported a volume of 5620 vehicles per day (ADT). It should be noted that the State generated AADT represented the Average Annual Daily Traffic and thus is.proportioned to be an average over the entire year. These values are not directly comparable but are presented to indicate that actual counts during summer months are Beater than average annual data. These August counts reflec0/ the highly seasonal characteristics of the travel patterns on eastern Long Island and these data were used by DEA to project 1998 traffic volumes. The historical AADT data is summarized in the attached NYS 1999 Traffic Volume Data Report (Attachment 1). The NFRTNA data collected in July and August of 1998 has been applied to the roadway study segments included in the Cross Sound Ferry traffic assessment prepared by DEA. The study data available is for the segment of Route 25 west of the ferry terminal. This is the segment of Route 25 between Narrow River Road and the end of Route 25 at the ferry terminal. Excerpts of Traffic Volume Data for the NFRTNA are included in Attachment 2. The times and other study parameters have been retained by N&P for the purposes of this evaluation. Only the traffic volumes have been changed so that results could be properly compared. Additionally, the 3% annual grow'th rate has been applied to project conditions in the current year (2001). The traffic volumes were reported by DEA in the segments east of Main Street between Main Street and Tabor Road, between Tabor Road and Narrow River Road, and between Narrow River Road and Orient. These volumes are conservative based upon the other information now available. We have therefore retained their 1998 projected volumes and expanded them by a 3% annual gro~vth for a three year period to project the 2001 traffic conditions to maintairi the conservative methodology of the analysis. This will allow the Planning Board to consider the present traffic conditions on Route 25. Re: Cross SoundFerry June '7, 2001 Page 3 The following Table has been prepared as a summary of the traffic volume data compiled from the documents reviewed. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) statistics have been obtained from NYSDOT reports. These volumes represent a 365 day. average traffic volume and therefore do not describe roadway usage during peak seasons. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) statistics have been prepared using week long volume count data, including weekends. All ADT presented in the Table are based on volume counts conducted during the month of August and therefore they are representative of seasonal usage. These ADT volumes have been obtained from counts conducted in connection with the NFRTNA. Study Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 S~Y OF TRAFFIC VOLUM~ DATA W/O Ferry Narrow River Road AADT ADT AADT ADT 5300 5300 2450 E/O Main Street AADT ADT 4700 2650 4150 2700 3950 4200 5920 12490 3570 7400 10710 3550 4060 4950 3600 5050 7750 The data compiled in the foregoing table represents the best information available at this time. The roadway segments are not consistent throughout the various sources used. The originator of the specific data set defines the segment, therefore, there may be overlaps. The count data labeled W/O Ferry was collected between the entrance to Orient Beach State Park and the entrance to the ferry terminal (New York State count location 25 0704 1728). The volume data labeled Narrow River Road was collected near the intersection of a private road and Tmman's Path (New York State count location 25 0704 1706). The volume data labeled E/O Main Street was collected east of the NYS Route 25 and CR 48 intersection. This last location does not have an available NYS count location number. The traffic volume data for 1996, 1997 and 1998 under the ADT (average daily traffic) represents 24-hour counts recorded during the month of August. Therefore, these data include the peak summer seasonal traffic volume increases. The variation can be due to many factors including but not limited to: other uses in the area; out-of-state uses such as Casino gambling in Connecticut, the weather pattern during the summer months, the general economic climate as well as the volume of traffic generated by the ferries. The ferry generated traffic is subject to the same types of fluctuations ~s the other traffic as well as by competition from other transportation facilities. There has been an increase in competition in the transportation sector. A high speed passenger vessel presently operates between Glen Cove, NY and New London, Conn. Re: Cross Sound Ferry June 7, 2001 Page 4 The Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission report that 6760 vehicles entered Orient Beach State Park during the month of August 1998, The two way volume for the month was, therefore, 13,520 trips. Using supplemental daily park trips we have calculated that the park generates an ADT of 450 vehicles per day or approximately 11% 'of the traffic recorded in the segment of Route 25 west of the ferry terminal, The revised Levels of Service have been summarized and compared to the Levels of Service reported in the March 1999 Updated "Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry". As indicated in the attached summary table (See Attachment 3) most of the Levels of Service projected to 2001 remained the same as those reported in the March 1999 updated report. Notable differences are those Levels of Service reported for the eastern most segment which have improved due to lower hourly volumes for the study intervals. These are the result of altered traffic patterns rather than a significant reduction in the overall daily volume of traffic. These improved Levels of Service are due to lower peak hour traffic volume as reported by NYSDOT as part of the NFRTNA project. The only degradation in Level of Service occurs in the segment east of Main Street during the one hour period bet~veen 9 and I0 PM on a Sunday. The Level of Service drops from B to C. This is not a significant change. Level of Service C is considered to be a free flow condition. Copies of the Levels of Service calculations are included in Attachment 4. The previous reports also reported ridership data for the Cross Sound Ferry Orient terminal. While the number of cars arriving and departing by ferry was similar in the September 1997 report and the report updated in March, 1999~ there was a slight reduction in the average number of passengers transported on the high speed vessel. The following table is a summary of the peak arrivals and departures of 1997 and 1999 reported by Dunn Engineering Associates. September 1997' March 1999'* Departures 10AMWeekday 333 329 Sat 10 AM 285 282 Sunday t0AM 264 218 Arrivals 7-8 PM Weekdays 319 286 7-8 PM Sat. 261 262 5 -6 PM Sun 269 285 Source: * DurmTrafficlmpactS~dy Ar CSF, September1997, page41. · * DunnTraffic Assessmem Ar CSF, Updated Mamh 1999, page37 The reduced peak ferry hour traffic volumes, evidenced by the 1998 NFRTNA traffic counts indicates there ma), be further reductions in the use or a different traffic pattern of the Cross Sound Ferry at Orient. Other factors such as area development and tourism can be contributing to the modified travel pattems. P.~ross Sound ~e~ lune '7, 2001 Page 5 A copy oft.he Cross Sound Ferry Excess Passenger Cal~acities Summary Table is included in the Attachments..Th/s Table lists the vessels in use at the site and the vehicular .and passenger capacities of each vessel. The operators at the service report that the car ferries have a two way passenger capacity of 9035 passengers per day beyond the average of 2.5 passengers per car and the passenger only vessel has a two way capacity of 2400 passengers per day. These represent full utilization of all vessdls and the peak daily schedules of thewessels. The summary demonstrates that the passenger only vessel does not generate additional passenger trips as the other vessels have sufficient passenger capacity to meet the peak demand passenger volume. We are of the opinion, based upon the most recent traffic'data that the conditions described in the Transportation Summary section of the "Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry", Updated March 1999, are valid for the year 2001. Based on the review of prior documents and the update conducted herein, we do not expect significant traffic and/or safety impacts as a result of the improvements to the site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, I~rELSON & POPE ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS Peter G. Brown Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 NYS TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA o§o~oooo~ooo 8o~o~ 888~ o~oo8o8o 0 0 0 8°8888°8°888 8 0 O0 0 o8go8o88~88 8o8-888888o8Q8 O0 O0 .8.858808°8 88888888888888 88888888888888 000 O0 o~ ~ 00000 o~ooo~oooo~ooo ATTACHMENT 2 NFRTNA'TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westbampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 I : 62 25 W/O FERRY Start Time : 12:45 I : EB Start Date : Jul 31, 1998 Fri ) : WB End Time : 10:15 : 1.000% End Date : Aug 13, 1998 Thu ************************************************************************** 1 Info : EB Sensor Used : Axle 'ode : Subtraction Divide By 2 : Yes ~2 Info : wB Sensor Used : kxle ~ode :'Subtraction Divide By 2 : Yes Lane Lane ~ Day Time ~1 #2 AYe, Total '/98 Fri 13:00 121 90 105 211 14:00 189 191 190 380 15:00 112 120 116 232 16:00 153 161 157 314 17:00 140 179 159 319 18:00 128 179 153 307 19:00 134 182 158 316 20:00 83 128 105 211 21:00 51 139 95 190 22:00 13 150 61 163 23: O0 5 22 13 27 TOTAL 1129 1541 1335 2670 I~ERCFlqTS 42% 58% A~ A34 PM P~ Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percen~ PM Total Percent 1129 102.6 1~:00 189 16,7% 154! 140.1 14:00 191 12.4% 2670 121.4 l&:00 380 /00 Dunn Engineering Associates :~'~ 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 'ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 1. 1998 Sat ) 1 : EB ~dj. Factor : 1.00 ~ 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane Day Time #1 ~2 Av~. Total L/98 Sat 00:00 3 1 2 4 01:00 1 2 i 3 ~ 02:00 1 0 0 1 03:00 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 18 12 15 30 06:00 139 14 76 153 07:00 162 56 509 218 08:00 156 104 130 260 09:00 192 103 147 295 ~ 10:00 165 !52 158 317 11:00 178 134 156 312 12:00 186 226 206 412 13:00 163 127 145 290 14:00 186 210 198 396 15:00 160 16'2 161 322 16:00 150 187 168 337 17:00 123 210 166 333 18:00 94 !61 !]7 255 19':00 100 207 153 307 ~ 20:00 68 113 90 181 21:00 57 L07 82 164 22:00 21 90 55 !11 23:00 4 13 8 17 ~.OLVR TOTAL mERCEA~TS 2328 2391 2359 4719 49% 51% ~ ~M PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak TouaI Avg. Total Avg. ~q To,al Percen~ PM Total Percent 1016 ~4.7 1312 109.3 09:0 1~2 8.2% 12:00 186 8. 578 48.2 1813 151.1 10:00 152 6.4% 12:00 226 9.5~ 1594 66.4 3i25 130.2 10:00 317 6.7% 12:00 412 8.7% O0 Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N,Y. 11978 ~Page: 3 *** Hourly Multi-Charn~el Horizontal 62 25 W/O FERRY Date Of Data : Aug ~; 1998 Sun EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 WB # Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane Day Time ~1 $2 AYg. Total Sun 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04;00 0S:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 il:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 ~OI/R TOTAL PERCENTS 5 2 3 '? 11 2 6 13 3 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 18 .~ -. 10 20 !12 12 62 124 166 56 111 222 153 53 103 206 203 80 141 283 166 177 171 343 258 170 ' 214 426 211 237 224 448 178 189 183 367 230 230 230 460 235 210 222 445 231 284 257 515 161 239 200 400 235 127 181 362 128 223 175 351 102 128 115 230 39 140 89 179 5 153 79 158 7 7 7 14 2859 2724 2791 5~83 511 49% AN AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. ~ Total Percent PM Total Percent 1097 91,4 1762 148.8 11:00 258 9.0% 15:00 235 8.2% '5~7 %6.4 2167 180.6 10:00 177 6.5% 16:00 28~' 10.41 1654 68.9 3929 163.7 11:00 428 7.7%. 16:00 515 9.2% ~00 16 ' Dunn Engineerin9 Associates 66 Main Street Weethampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 Hourly Multi-Channml Horizontal ID : 62 PS W/O FERRY Date of Data : Au~ 3, 1998 Mon , i : EB Ad~. Factor : 1.00 , 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 'e Day Time ~l %~ Avg. Total i/98 ~n O0 ......... :00 1 2 1 3 01:00 0 0 0 0 02:00 1 1 1 2 · 03:00 0 0 0 0 04:00 2 0 1 2 05:00 2! 2 11 23 06:00 136 10 73 146 07:00 159 39 99 198 08:00 143 65 104 208 - 09:00 190 84 137 274 10:00 138 136 137 274 11~00 145 127 136 272 12:00 16~ 163 164 329 13:00 112 95 103 207 14:00 152 181 166 333 15:00 93 102 97 195 16:00 131 154 142 285 17:00 92 189 140 281 i8:00 89 147 1!$ 236 19:00 62 149 105 211 20:00 37 116 76 153 21:00 31 96 63 127 22:00 7 45 26 52 23:00 1 5 3 6 tOLrR TOTAL 1909 1908 1908 3817 P~CEITI$ 50% 50% AM A~4 PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 936 78.0 972 81.1 09:00 190 10.01 12:00 16~ 8.7% ~66 38.8 1442 1~0.2 10:00 136 7.11 17:00 189 9.9%' 1402 56.4 2415 100.6 09:00 274 ?.2% 14:00 333 8.7~ 00 Dunn Engineering Associates ~ ~. Pa~e: 5 16 66 Main S%reet Wesukamp~on ~each, N..y. Hourly Multi-Ch~n_nel Eorizor~t~l ~'*'~ iD : G2 25 W/O FERRY Da~e of Data : Aug 4, 19-98 Tue ~1 : EB .4 Adj. Factor : 1.00 ~2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 /98 Tue Day Time .;OLrR TOTAL PERCENTS 00:00 2 0 i 2 0~:00 1 0 0 02:00 1 5 3 ,-; 6 03:00 3 1 2 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 17 4 10 21 06:00 95 14 54 109 07:00 152 22 87 ~74 08:00 !12 47 79 159 09:00 [65 ~2 98 ~97 10:00 128 107 117 235 11:00 130 90 110 220 12:00 100 130 115 13:00 95 91 93 186 14:00 103 147 !25 ' 250 15:00 82 101 91 18~~'' !6:00 92 1L7 104 17:00 68 156 113 226 18:00 56 140 98 196 19:00 48 172 !i0 220 20:00 41 63 52 10~ 21:00 17 84 50 ~101.. 22:00 5 61 33 66 23:00 2 5 3 7 1516 1591 1553 3107 ~91 512 ~. .' A24 3AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM ~otal Percent PM Total Percent 807 67.3 709 59.1 09:00 165 10.91 !4:00 !03 6.8;; 322 26.8 1269 105.8 10:00 10Q' 6.7% 19:00 172 10.81 1129 47.0 1978 82.4 10:00 235 7.6~ 14:00 250 ~O ,6 Dunn Engineeri'ng Associates 66 Main S%reet We~thampton Beach, N.Y. 119'78 Page: 6 Hourly D : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 5, 199B Wed -1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 2 : WB 9 Of Lanes : 2 Day Time L~ne ~2 Avg. Total /98 Wed 00:00 3 1 2 4 0!:00 1 2 i 3 02:00 0 0 0 0 03:00 1 Z 1 2 04:00 2 0 i 2 05:00 13 4 8 17 06:00 71 7 39 78 07:00 162 22 92 184 08:00 130 64 99 194 09:00 203 ?4 138 27? 10:00 139 88 113 227 ll:Oo 134 102 . 118 2t6 12;00 118 105 lll 223 13:00 99 ?3 86 !72 14:00 98 159 128 257 15:00 77 77 79 154 16:00 93 125 109 218 17:00 69 155 112 224 18:00 60 145 102 205 19:00 ~6 174 110 220 20:00 25 104 64 !29 21:00 23 88 55 111 22:00 9 50 29 59 23:00 4 9 6 !3 TOTAL I580 1629 1604 3209 PERCEIqT$ 49% 511 AM A~M PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Tonal Percent ~ 859 71.6 721 60.1 09:00 203 12.81 12:00 t18 7.5% , 365 30.4 1264 105.3 11:00 102 6.3% 19:00 174 10.71 ~. !224 51.0 1985 82.7 09:00 279 8.6% 14:00 257 8.0% Dunn Engineering Associates --~, . 66 Main Street ~esthampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 I.~?.,,t ........ _~_ ...... , *'~ Hourly Mslti-Ch~nne~ Page: 7 D : 62 25 W/O ?'ERRY~,~'' · Date of Data : kug 6, 1998 Thu '1 : ER Adj. Factor : 1.00 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 2 LaKe Lane Day Time #1 #2 Avg. Total /98 Thu 00:00 0 0 0 0 0t:00 0 0 0 0 02:00 --0 0 0 0 ~ 03:00 2 1 1 3 04:00 3 1 '2 4 05:00 12 2 7 14 06:00 115 8 61 123 0v:00 ~'i~'' 19 100 200 08:00 120 54 87 174 09:00 ~1.90 46 118 236 10:00 ~.48~'..105 126 253 11:00 ~51~ ~0~ . 126 252 12:00 153 141 147 294 !3:00 ~01 72~-.-~ 86 173 1~:00 -~ 144 188 16~ 332 15:00 ~'i0~ 102 104 208 16:00 -.123 146 134 269 17:00 ~3' 67 82 164 18:00 =~' 274 179' 359 19:00 77 78 77 155 20:00 38 234 136 272 21:00 27 47 37 74 22:00 ~6 ' 185 100 201 23:00 .... 2 8 5 10 ~OIFR TOTAL 1~91 1879 1885 3770 PERCE~S 50% 50% ~M AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak ~ Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent ~ 922 76.8 ~69 -. 8~.8 09:00 190 10.0~ 12:00 153 8.1% 33~ 28.1 1542 128.5 10:00 105 5.6% 18:00 274 14.6~ ~5. 1259 52.5 251! 104.6 10:00 ~53 6.7~ la:00 359 9.5% ~6 Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Weshhampton ~each, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Multi-chamuel Eorizo~'~l iD : 52 25 W/O FEgRY Date of Data : Aug 7, 1998 Fri ~1 : EB Adj. Factor : 2 : WB ~ ~. ~ Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane Day Time ~1 #~ Avg. Total ~98 Fri 00:00 3 0 1 3 01:00 1 1 1 2 ~ 02:00 1 1 1 2 03:00 1 1 1 2 04:00 3 1 2 4 05:00 19 3 11 22 06:00 115 13 64 128 07:00 155 23 89 178 08:00 133 99 116 232 0~:00 161 55 108 10:00 148 159 153 307 11:00 182 !15 148 297 12:00 143 152 147 295 13:00 11~ 136 126 253 14:00 153 175 164 328 15:00 122 138 130 260 16:00 130 164 147 294 17:00 168 138 153 306 18:00 128 173 150 301 19:00 111 197 154 308 20:00 105 206 155 311 21:00 57 138 97 195 22:00 13 131 92 144 23:00 7 54 30 61 ~OLrR TOTAL 2176 2273 2224 4449 PERCENTS 49% 51% A>~ AM PM PM Pe~k Peak Peak peak Peak Peak Total Ay9. Total kvg. ~M Total Percent PM Total Percent 922 76,8 1254 104.5 11:00 182 8.~% 19:00 168 471 39.3 lS02 150,2 10:00 159 7.0% 20:00 ~0g 9.1% !393 58.0 3056 127,3 10:00 307 6,9.% 14:00 328 7.4% 00 16 Dunn Engineering AsSociates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 Pape: 9 iD : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date o~ Data : Aug 8, 1998 Sat 1 : EB · Adj. Factor : 1.00 2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 *************************************************************************** Lane Lane Day Time ~1 ~2 Avg. Total Sat 00:00 1 4 2 5 01:00 1 1 1 2 02:00 4 4 4 8 03:00 1 0 0 1 04: 00 2 3 2 5 05:00 24 5 14 29 06:00 139 12 75 151 07: 00 174 48 111 222 08:00 152 110 131 262 09:00 176 102 139 278 10:00 165 160 162 325 11:00 189 181 185 370 12:00 158 154 156 312 13:00 142 126 134 268 14:00 183 209 196 392 15:00 166 117 141 283 16:00 133 172 152 305 17:00 135 !80 157 315 18:00 114 i46 130 260 19:00 116 156 136 272 20:00-~. 87 81 84 168 21: 00 71 95 83 166 22:00 15 99 57 114 23: 00 10 14 12 24 ~358 2179 2268 4537 52% 48% OLrK TOTAL AM ~4 PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Av~. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total percen~ 1028 85.7 1330 110.8 11:00 189 8.0% 14:00 183 7.8% 630 52.5 1549 129.1 11:00 181 8.3% 14:00 209 1658 69 1 2879 120.0 11:00 370 8.2% 1~:00 392 8.6% Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 119'78 Page: l0 : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : kug 9, 1998 Sun : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 Day Time #1 #2 Avg. Total Sun 00:00 9 5 7 14 01:00 5 02:00 2 5 3 7 03:00 2 3 2 5 04:00 2 I 1 05:00 17 5 11 22 06:00 120 11 65 131 07:00 149 50 99 199 08:00 162 50 !06 212 09:00 173 75 124 248 !0:00 176 152 166 333 i1:00 316 !25 .220 441 12:00 297 142 219 439 13:00 268 t18 193 386 14:00 258 194 226 452 15:00 233 153 193 386 16:00 294 202 248 496 !'7:00 255 236 245 491 iS:00 239 102 170 341 19:00 212 97 !54 20:00 176 81 128 257 2!:00 !20 41 80 161 22:00 110 56 83 166 23:00 14 2 8 16 UR TO T~L 3609 1912 2760 5521 65% 35% AM kM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak ;To,al Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percen~ 1133 94.4 24~6 206.3 ll:00 316 6,8% 12:00 297 488 40.7 1424 118.7 10:00 157 8.2% 17:00 236 12.31 1621 67.5 3900 !62.5 1!:00 441 8.0~ 16:00 496 9.0% ~Y: PG~ROWI~; 0 Dunn En~ineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N,Y. 11878 Hourly Multi-Channel .© : 62 25 W/O FE~RY Date of Data : Aug 10, 1998 Mon 1 : EB Adj, Factor : 1,00 2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 ~ Day Time /98 Mo :00 01:00 1 0 0 1 02:00 1 1 1 2 03:00 1 0 0 1 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 19 1 10 20 06:00 132 6 69 138 07:00 206 22 114 228 08:00 148 60 104 208 09:00 19~ 48 123 10:00 154 109 !31 263 11:00 159 61 120 240 12:00 178 89 133 267 18:00 159 60 109 219 14:00 109 137 123 246 15:00 141 ~6 113 227 16:00 !80 86 133 266 17:00 171 146 15~ 317 18:00 128 118 123 246 19:00 120 118 119 238 20:00 86 61 73 147 21:00 47 62 54 109 22:00 45 67 56 112 23:00 4 0 2 2396 1358 1877 375~ 64% 36% TOTAL PERCEI~TS AM AN PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percen~ 1028 85.7 1368 114.0 07:00 206 8.6% 16:00 180 7.5% 328 27.3 1030 85.8 10:00 109 8.0% 17:00 146 10.8% 1356 5~.5 258~ 99.9 10:00 263 7.0% 17:00 317 8.4% ~Y: HG~HUW~,i ~ Dunn ~Jngzneerlng Associates 66 Main SnreeL 7 Wes%hampton Beach, N.Y. 119 Pag~: 12 *** Hourly Multi-Channel'~orizontal "~'~ ] : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 11, 1998 Tue 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 ~ : ~rB # Of Lanes : 2 ************************************************************************** Lane Lane Day Time #1 ~2 Avg. TotAl '98 Tue 00:00 2 0 1 2 01:00 2 0 I 2 02:00 0 0 0 0 · 03:00 0 0 0 0 04:00 3 0 1 3 05:00 16 0 8 16 06:00 104 6 55 110 07:00 187 22 104 209 08;00 147 47 97 194 ~ 09:00 178 41 fO9 219 lO:GO 161 75 118 236 11:00 165 68 , 111 223 12:00 194 61 127 255 13:00 131 59 95 190 14:Q0 176 91 133 267 15:00 154 47 100 201 !6:00 180 53 1!6 233 17:00 169 ~6 119 235 18:00 160 54 107 214 ~ 19:00 162 79 120 2~1 20:00 11~ 33 73 147 21:00 73 36 54 109 22:00 ~9 23 36 72 23:00 3 3 3 6 DIIR TOTAL 2520 864 1692 3384 'PERCEITTS 74% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Pe~k Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Av9. YJ4 Total Percenu PM Total Percent 955 79.6 1565 130.4 07:00 187 7.4% 12:00 194 7.7% 259 21.6 605 50,4 10:00 75 8,7% 14:00 91 10,5~ 1214 50.6 2170 90.4 10:00 236 7.04:14:00 267 7.9% Dunn Engineerin9 Associates 66 Main Street WesChampton Beach, N,Y, 11978 *** ~ourly ~ulti-charn~e! Eorzzonc~i ,~a ] : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Au9 12, 1998 Wed % : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 Day Time #1 #2 Avg. Total 98 Wed 00:00 3 1 2 4 0t:00 6 0 3 6 02:00 0 0 0 0 ~ 03:00 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 10 0 5 06:00 82 9 45 91 07:00 194 15 L04 209 08:00 131 45 88 176 09:00 215 43 L29 259 10:00 174 67 120 241 11:00 163 58 , ll0 221 12:00 159 93 126 252 13:00 116 37 76 153 lg:OO 203 79 141 282 15:00 118 49 83 167 16:00 144 93 118 237 17:00 191 56 ~23 247 18:00 157 4B 102 205 , 19:00 195 38 116 233 20:00 !06 26 66 132 21:00 75 33 54 108 22:00 24 38 31 62 23:00 6 0 3 TOTAL ~PERCENTS 2474 828 1651 3302 75% 25% A~ AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Ay9. Total Avg. ~M Total Percent PM Total Percen% ~80 81.7 1494 124.5 09:00 215 8.7% 14:00 203 8.2% 238 1~.8 590 49.2 10:00 67 B.l~ 12:00 93 11,2% 1218 50.8 208~ 86.8 09:00 ~58 ~,8%' 1~:00 282 8.5% Page: 14 Dunn Engineer~n~ Associates Cg Main Street Wesuhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** ~ourly Multi~Channel Horizontal *~' ) : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 13, 1998 Thu ~ : EB Adj. F&c~or : 1,00 " : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane Day Time 91 ~ Avg. Total 98 Thu 00:00 2 0 1 2 01;00 1 0 0 1 ~02:00 1 1 1 2 03:00 1 1 1 2 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 15 2 8 17 ~ 06:00 88 9 ~S 97 07:00 1!1 45 78 156 08:00 !07 76 91 183 - 09:00 10~ 102 104 208 qR TOTAL 433 236 334 669 ~ERCEI~TS 65% 35% A~M ~ PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak ~Tota! Avg, Total Avg. AM TotaI Percent PM Total Percenu ~33 43,3 07:00 tll 25.6% 236 23.6 O9:0G 102 43.2% 669 33.5 09:00 208 51.1% ATTACHMENT 3 LEVEL 'OF SERVICE SUMMARY III I ATTACHMENT 4 CAPACITY ANALYSES WORKSHEETS 1985 HCM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Main ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... llAM-12 Noon DATE OF AlqALYS~S ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 ~VALUATION A) B) c) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DES/GN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 89 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 55 / 45 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER ~IDTH (AVG, WIDTH IN FT.) ~.. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING gOb]ES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1,8 2.2 .84 ,97 ,91 E 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .97 .89 -C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .97 .89 D 2 1,6 1.6 .84 .97 .94 1.6 !.6 .87 .97 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 715 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 803 SERVICE LOS FLOW P~ATE V/C A 146 .0~ B 3~7 C 693 D 1267 .59 E 2225 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D 1985 HCM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main St ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OT~E~ INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 75 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 51 / 49 L.~NE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) . . . 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .99 .91 R 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .99 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 ,99 .89 D 2 1.6 1,6 .84 .99 .94 E 2 1.6 1,6 .87 .99 .94 c) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (%rph): 942 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 1256 SERVICE LOS FLOW P~ATE V/C A 149 ,07 B 397 .19 C 710 .34 D 1299 .59 E 2280 1 LOS FOE GIVEN CONDITIONS: D 1985 HCM:TWO-L~d~E HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Main St Ai~A~YS'I'. ............. PGB T~ME OF ANALYSIS ..... 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 8 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION {UP/DOWN) .......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 UST~BLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVC, WIDTH IN FT.).., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 B) CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d N.17 2 1.8 2.2 ,84 .93 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,93 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 D 2 1.6 ],6 ,84 ,93 ~94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 ,93 .94 c) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 371 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 464 SERVICE [,OS FLOW P~ITE V/C A 139 B 369 C 661 D 1209 .59 E 2122 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 198~ HCM:TWO-LANE EIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 11'12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOr8 PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK MOUR F~CTOR ............................. 91 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 54 / 46 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (A¥C. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 B) CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d KY 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .98 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 1.6 1.6 .84 .98 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .98 .94 C) bEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLb~E (vph): 1309 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1438 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C k ~47 .07 B 390 C 697 .34 D 1275 .59 E 2239 1 1985 HCM:TW0-LAi~E E!GHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main St ~NALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 0%"HER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) A/PJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 79 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 43 / 57 LANE WIDTH (PT) ............................. 10 USlLBLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCEN~f NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 t,8 2.2 ,84 .96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .9~ ,94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .96 .94 c) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 1248 ACTUAL FLOW KATE: 1580 SERVICE LOS FLOW KATE ¥/C A 144 ,07 B 383 .19 C 68S .34 D 1252 .59 E 2197 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: E 1985 ~CM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Hain ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 88 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 57 / 43 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) . .. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 B) CORKECTION FACTORS $. LEVEL TERP~AIN c) LOS A E E f f fi B ~ w d HV 1.8 2,2 .84 .96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .gg .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 ,84 .gg .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .8? .96 ,94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS IXFUT VOLUME(vph): 54~ ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 620 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 144 .07 B 383 ,19 C 685 .3~ D 1252 .59 E 2197 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TWO-LA~IE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Main St ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMkTION .... 2001 EVALUATION A} B) £) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 94 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 58 / 42 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) ... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERR~.iN B E E E f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2,2 .~4 .95 .9~- 2.2 2 2.5 .B4 .95 C 2.2 2 2,5 .84 .95 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .95 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 .95 .9~ LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLU~qE(vph) : 1380 ACTUAL FLOW B_AT~: 1468 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 1%3 B 380 C 680 D 124~ E 218% LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: 1985 ECM:TWO-LA/qE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Main St ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... sLrN 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPHI .......................... 50 PEAK MOUR FACTOR ............................. 81 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DO9~) .......... 38 / 62 L~E WIDTH (PT) ............................. 10 USabLE SHOULDER ~IDTH (AVG. lqIDTH IN PT.) . .. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d EV A 2 1.~ 2.2 .84 ~93 .91 2.2 2 2.5 .8~ .93 ,89 C 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .93 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 ,84 .93 .94 E 2 1,6 1,6 .87 .93 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS I~PU~ VOLUME(¥~h): !396 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1723 SEP.VICE LOS PLO';< LA'i'E A 140 .07 B 371 19 C 665 .34 D 1215 E 2133 1 1985 ECM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main St ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF A/~ALYSIS ..... SUN 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTKER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 72 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 50 / 50 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH iN FT.].., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 i .91 B 2.2 2 2,5 .84 1 .$9 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 1 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 1 .94 E 2 1.6 1.~ .8? 1 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLb~E(vph): 658 ACTUAL FLOW RKI'E: 914 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE A 150 .07 ~ 399 .19 D 1307 .99 E 2294 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D 1985 H£M;TWO L~NE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 Wes% of Tabor Rd AigALYST .............. P~B TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVASUATTON A) B) C~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK ~OIJR FACTOR ............................. 76 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWn) .......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) ... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f ' ~ LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1,8 2.2 .84 .93 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .93 .99 E 2 1,6 1.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOLUME (vph): 461 ACTUAL FbOW RATE: 607 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ~ 139 .09 B 369 .19 C 661 .34 D 1209 .59 E 2t22 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TWO-L;~NE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIM~ OF ANALYSIS ..... 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFOP, MATION .... 200% EYALUATION A) B) C) /LDJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 84 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) ......... 56 / 44 LANE WIDTH {PT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHO~/LDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f ~ LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 C 2.2 P 2.5 .84 .96 .89 D 2 !.6 1.6 ,84 .96 .94 E Q 1.6 1.6 .87 .9~ ,94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 548 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 652 SERVICE LOS PLOW P~TE V/C k 145 .07 B 38S .19 C 689 .24 D 1260 .59 £ 2211 ! 1985 HCM:TW0-LANE MIGEWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION B~ C~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... $ DESIGN SPEED IMPH) .......................... 50 PEAK MOUR FACTOR ............................. 61 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DONN) .......... 57 / ~3 LkNE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 3.0 USABLE SHOULDER WZDT~ (AVG. WIDT~ IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERPJ%IN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .96 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 C 2.2 2 2,5 .84 .96 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .96 .94 E 2 1.6 !.6 .87 .96 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 240 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 393 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C k 144 .07 B 383 .19 C 685 .34 D 1252 .59 E 2197 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 MCM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS FkCILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 NeSt of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. ?GB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 11-12 N00N DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFOR/~kTION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) c~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED IMPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 79 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 60 / 40 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG, WIDTH IN FT,),,, 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... S? CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E ~ f f T B R w d HV 2 1,8 2.2 .84 .94 .91 2.2 2 t.5 ,84 .9% .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .8~ .94 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .94 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .94 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOLUME(vph) : 798 ACTUAL FLOW P~ATE: 10!0 SERVICE .~S FLOW RATE VIC ~'~ 141 .07 ~ 375 .19 C 672 .34 D 1228 .S9 E 215~ ! LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R5 25 West O£ Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. ~GB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT PACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK EOUR FkCTOR ............................. 84 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 45 / 55 LA_NE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. W!DTK tN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 59 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRJ%IN LOS T B R w d MV 2 1.8 2 ~2 ,84 .97 .91 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .97 .89 C 2.2 ~ 2.5 .84 .97 .89 D 2 1,6 1.6 .84 .97 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .97 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph]: 720 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 857 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE A 14~ ~07 B 387 .i9 C 693 D 1267 .59 E 2225 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D !985 HCM:TWO-LA/qE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd A.NAI,YST .............. PGB TIME OP ANALYSIS ..... SAT 9~10 PM bATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) E~ C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 68 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DO~$) .......... 68 / 32 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER ~IDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... ~ PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f fi fi T B R w d MV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 ,9 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 ,89 C 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .9 .89 D 2 1.~ 1.6 .84 .9 ,94 E 2 1.g 1.6 .87 .9 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOLUME(vphl : 282 ACTUAL FLOW ~TE: 415 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 135 .07 B 359 ,19 C 6~3 ,3~ D 1176 .59 E 2064 ! 1985 HCM:TWO-LA-N-E HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West Of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF 8USES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 87 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTI©N (UP/DO%'~) .......... 66 / 34 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. USABLE SMOULDER ~IDTH (AVO, WIDTH IN FT.] .., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .54 .91 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .91 .89 D 2 1.6 ] .6 .84 ,91 .94 E 2 1.6 1.~ .87 .91 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 820 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 943 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 137 .07 C 650 .3~ D 1189 ~S9 E 2087 1 FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D 1985 HCM:TW0-LkNE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... RK 25 W~St of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 5-6 PM DATE OP ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION.... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 7 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DO~qN} .......... 40 / 60 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER.WIDTH (AVC. WIDTH iN FT.) ... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E F f f fi LOS T B R w d HV A 2 !.2 2.2 .84 .94 .91 2,5 .S~ .94 ,89 C 2 ,2 2 2.5 ,84 .94 .89 D 2 ~.6 1.6 .84 .94 .94 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 .94 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOL~E (vTh): 981 ACTUAL PLOW RATE: 1401 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 14! .07 m 375 .!9 C 672 .34 D 1228 .59 E 2156 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: E 1985 MCM:TWO-LAI~E HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTMER INFORMATION .... 200% EVALUATION A) C~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 7 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DO~N) .......... 53 / ~7 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SROULDER W,IDTE (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.).., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E f f f R w d 2.2 ~84 .98 B 2.2 2 2.5 .8~ C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 ,98 ,gQ E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .98 .9~ LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 420 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 600 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 148 .07 B 392 .19 C 702 .34 D ~283 .59 E 2252 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TW0-LA~E HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... rT 25 East of Narrow River Rd Alg~YST .............. PGE TIME OF AI~ALYSIS ..... 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) D~DJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 71 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIRD~ION (UP/D0~.FN) .......... 62 / 38 LANE WIDTH (FT) USABLE SHOULDER W~DTH {AVG, WIDTH IN FT.).,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d Hv A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .8~ .93 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .93 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 .93 ,94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (~rph): 359 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 506 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 140 .O7 ~ 371 .19 C 665 .34 D 1215 .59 E 2133 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HC~I:TW0-L~LNE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ~) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 77 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 54 / 46 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USA.~LE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) ... ? PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 c) CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T P R w d [IV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .98 ,91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 D 2 1.6 1,6 ,84 .98 ,94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .98 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 257 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 334 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C k 147 .07 B 390 .19 C 697 D 127S .S9 E 2239 1 GIVEN ~ON~TTT©NK. R 'BY: PGB~G~N~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS ***************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East o~ Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TiME OF ANALYSIS ..... 9=10 9M DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OT~ER INFORMATION .... 2001 ~VALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS· PEKCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 5 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 59 / 41 LANE WIDTH (PT) ............................. 10 USABLE SMOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) ,., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ~' LEVEL TERRAIN c) E E E f f f LOS T B R W d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 ,$4 .95 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,95 .89 C 2,2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .89 D 2 1,6 1.6 .84 .95 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .95 .9~ LEVEL OF SERVICE RESUL'i'S INPUT VOLUME (vph): 57 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 183 .09 B 418 .21 C 716 .36 D 1257 .6 ~ 2170 1 bOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: A 1985 HCM:TWO-%ANE HIGMWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... RL 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 11-12 NOON DATE 0E ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICbES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 83 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 54 / 46 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. %gIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERR.kIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .98 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .98 ,94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .98 c) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 449 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 541 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE V/C A 189 .09 B 431 .21 C 739 .36 E 2239 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM :TWO-LAI~E HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East Of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 4-5 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... '1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPM) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 81 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 44 / 56 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.).,. 7 PERCENT NO PAS~ING ZONES .................... 50 s) CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2,2 ,84 ,96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9~ .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,96 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 ,84 .96 .94 1.6 ,87 .96 .99 c) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (v-ph): 278 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 343 SERVICE LOS FLOW R3%TE V/C A 186 .09 E 426 .21 C 729 .36 D 1281 .6 E 2211 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of NarrowRiver Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TTME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 9-!0 PM DATE OP ANALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 0 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 0 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MPM) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 53 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.).,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 B) CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 1 2.2 2 2,5 ,84 .93 1 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,93 1 D 2 1.6 1,6 .84 ..~ 1 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 ,93 I LEVEL OF SERVICE RESL~,T$ INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 121 ACTUAL PLOW RATE: 228 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE V/C A 196 ,09 B 457 .21 C 783 D 1305 E 2255 1 'BY; PGBROWN; 63i 724285~; Av~-z/-u~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LAI~E HIGNWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... ANALYST .............. TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... OTHER INFORMATION RE 25 East of Narrow River Rd PGB SUN 11-12 NOON 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECP, EATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 81 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 68 / 32 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE S~OULDER W'IDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .9 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .9 .94 E 2 ~,~ 1.6 .87 ,9 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPLrE VOLUME (vph): 488 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 602 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 174 .09 B 397 .21 C 681 .36 D 1196 .6 E 2064 1 LOS FOE GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TW0-LAI~E ~IGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Nar£ow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFOP-MATION .... 200% EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECRE~I'IONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK KOUR FACTOR ............................. 75 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 38 / 62 LANE WIDTH (FT} ............................. Z0 USABLE SHOULDER ~IDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.).., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 ,93 .91 B 2,2 2 2.5 .84 ,93 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,93 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .93 .94 .87 .93 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOLU~E(vph): 395 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 527 SERVICE LO8 FLOW R~TE V/C k 180 .09 B 410 C 704 .36 D 1236 E 2133 LOS FOR GIVEN COi~DITIONS: C BY: P~ROWN~ 63~ 7242855~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGE TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF ~ECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED {MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 53 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... $0 / 50 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USTkBLE SHOULDER'WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN PT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS T B R 'w d HV A 2 1,8 2.2 .84 1 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .8~- 1 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 1 .89 D 2 1.~ 1.6 .84 1 .94 E 2 1,6 1,6 .87 1 .94 LEgEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOLUPIE(vph) : 172 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 325 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C k 193 ,09 B 4~1 .21 C 757 .36 D t~29 E 2294 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B ATTACHMENT 5 EXCESS PASSENGER CAPACITIES C> $CH.D, ;:' ED. ~5 L.D. 40 M.D.60 F 1.9 CouNTY OF SUFFOLK %.2T SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, -against- PlaintifF, Index No. AFFIDAVIT CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Defendant GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, YR., being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I have been a member of the Southold Town Planning Board since 1979. 2. I am familiar with the site plan approval for the Orient point ferry terminus of the Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 3. A tax map of the terry terminal property is attached as Exhibit A. Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc. owns parcels numbered 1, 2 and 4. Parcel I is Lot number 15-09-10.1, which will be referred to as the "Parking Lot." Parcel 2 is Lot No 15-09-11.1, which houses the ticket offices, will be referred to as the "Ticket Office Lot." Parcel 4 is Lot No. 15-09-15.1, has a snack bar on it and will be referred to as the "Snack Bar Lot." Lot 3 is the terminus of Route 25. owned by the State of New York, and divides Lots I and 2 from Lot 4. 4. The three ferry parcels are currently zoned Mil. The uses permitted in the Mil zone are set forth in Southold Town Code Section 100-121. A copy of that law is attached as Exhibit E. This law provides that "ferry terminals" are permitted with a special exception permit from the Board of Appeals, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board (~ecfion 100-121[B][2]) 5. Site plan approval was obtained in 1984 for a vehicular ferry operation which operated tN-ce boats at a peak schedule of 12 trips per day. The 1984 site plan approval covered the "Ticket Otb. ce Lot" and approved seven parking spaces. Since the ferry operation involved ve,hicle trans- port, the Planning Board felt there was no need to make formal provisions for vehicle parking. 6. The operation has grown incrementally over the past decade to encompass four boats operating 16 trips per day at peak schedule. A copy of the June 1995 ferry schedule is attached as Exhibit C. 7. la June 1995 the Planning Board approved a site plan to add 69 parking spaces to the original site plan. The spaces were approved on the "Parking Lot." The Planning Board was told that these spaces were being added for long-term and employee parking. The Planning Board was not advised of any proposed change in the nature and intensity of the ferry service. 8. Within three weeks al~er receiving site plan approval for the 69 spaces, Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc. announced its intent to operate a high-speed, passenger-only ferr~ service, with a passenger capacity of 350, operating at six round trips per day. Defendant proposes to imple- ment this passenger-only ferry service on July 19, 1995 and has advertised the service as available as of that date. A copy of the advertisement which appeared in Newsday on July 9, 1995 is attached as Exhibit F. Defendant has issued a new ferry schedule announcing six daily trips of the "Express Service" passenger-only ferry. A copy of the new schedule is attached as Exhibit G. 9. The Planning Board is charged with making the determination whether a site plan approval is required for a change in use or intensity of use of ~n e*'~,ti:~!~ .:~?.ration per Southold Town Cede Section 100-250 and 100-253. A copy of these c;','.i~;a:~zes ace ~..ached as Exhibit H. 10. By resolution, the Planning Board has determined that the prol~osed addition cfa high- speed, passenger-only ferry is a significant change in the nature and intensity of the ferry operation winch requires the terry operation to apply ['or and receive s revised site plan approval prior to implementing the change in use, A dopy of'that Resolution is attached as Exhibit L. 11. The Planning Board has determined that the introduction of passenger-only terry service is a significant alteration from the existing vehicle ferry service, inasmuch as passengers must now leave their vehicles on the ferry site instead of driving them onto the terry. The site was never dc- signed to handle these parking demands. The change in use is significant regardless of the numbers of passangnr-only ferry trips proposed 12. However, the proposed implementation of six passenger-only ferry trips per day is a significant difference in intensity of use. This change fi~rther exacerbates the need for Defendant to obtain site plan approval prior to implementing the passenger-only ferry service. 13. To date, the Planning Board has not received or approved a revised site plan which addresses the significant concerns created by the proposed change of use. Cross Sound Ferry has not spoken to the Planning Board about the proposed change in its operations. 14. The current parking situation, as it exists prior to the introduction of the high-speed, passenger-only ferry is strained. The recent popularity of the Fox'woods Resorl Casino in Connecticut has resulted in an increase in the numbers of cars and on-site parking. A copy of the June schedule of Cross-Sound Ferry, attached as Exhibit C, promotes a complimentary shuttle bus service to Fox-woods. This encourages passengers to leave their vehicles in New York, rather than taking them to Connecticut as was past practice. These vehicles are now parking on the "Snack Bar Lot," which is a dirt lot that has not been designed, constructed, marked or approved for parking The vehicles park in a haphazard fashion which creates baTards to both pedestrians and vehicles. 1S The "Snack Bar Lot" has never had site plan approval for use as a parking lot. The Southold Town Code requires all properties which are pan of the operations cfa business to come in for sile plan approval Defendant has failed to obtain such approval, and must be enjoined from using the "Snack Bar Lot" for parking untii it has such approval and can safely handle the parking Icad that is now being placed upon it 16. The increase in numbers of parked vehicles has resulted in complaints of vehicles parking on nearby private properties, or on the State Right-of-Way. The current parking situation is seriously strained. 17. The proposed change in service to include a passenger-only ferry will place unbearable strains on the site. There are only '74 spaces approved for the ferry operation. In a worst case scenario, if the passenger-only ferr,j, service transports the capacity of 350 passengers per trip, at the proposed s'tx round trips per day, and the passengers drove two to a car, the proposed use would generate the need for an additional 1,050 parking spaces. The 74 approved spaces are clearly inadequate. 18. Site plan approval is designed to address the parking, loading and access problems which the new se~wice will create. If the passenger-only service were instituted before these issues were addressed, there would be serious ba,ards to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Southold and the users of the facilis,. Vehicles would be parked in un~afe areas, passengers would have to travel great distances or cross rough, undrained and unlit area.s, them would be illegal parking on adjacent properties, and a seriously chaotic situation would arise. 19. Site plan approval will also address the serious traffic issues which arise when the proposed passenger-only service generates a possible additional 200Ovehicle trips per day. The traffic must travel along a single highway, Route 25, between Orient and Greenport. This two- bane, rural highway will be profoundly impacted by the long lines of cars travelling to and from the new passenger ferry. 20. Kesidents of the area between Orient and Greenport currently experience long lines of ferry vehicles which prevent turns on or offRoute 25, loud traffic noise and speeding vehicles. The two-lane, rural nature of the road makes regulation of these traffac hazards vex difficult. The anticipated increase in traffic would worsen this situation. 21. In its press release, Defendant has suggested that these traffic problems may be mitigated by creating a Long Island Railroad-bus link between passengers and the ferry. However, the railroad only runs one train daily to Crreenport. The five other passenger-only ferry round trips will require passengers to drive their own vehicles to the ferry terminal. If Defendant is permitted to institute the passenger-only ferry service without site plan approval, there is no assurance that any efforts will be made to mitigate the increase in pat',ring and traffic. It may well be that lives will be unnecessarily lost before the issues are addressed. Sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1995. Notary PulSlic -- UNDA J. COOPER Natary Public. Stale of New Ym'k/.-~, No. 4822563. Suffolk County Term Expires December 31, 1~ G~chie Latham, Jr. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v'{33 Updated through 1%20-2001 PART Il GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE XII, § 11)fl420. Purpose. The purpose of the Marine II OVIII) Dis~-ict is to provide a waterfront location for a wide range of water-dependent and water-related uses, which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters and which, in general, are located on major waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island Sound. § 100-121. Use regulations. In the Mil District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is m~'anged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following [one (1) use per eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of land above mean high water, unless otherwise specified]: A. [Amended 5-9-1989 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted uses and, except for those uses permitted under Subsection A(1) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) One (1) one-family detached dwelling per single and separate lot of record in existence as of the date of adoption of this A~ticle. (2) Marinas for the docking, mooring and accommodation of recreational or commercial boats, including the sale of fuel and oil primmSly for the use of boats accommodated in such marina. (3) Boat docks, slips, piers or wharves for charter boats carrying passengers on excisions, pleasm'e or fishing trips or for vessels engaged in fishery or shellfishery. (4) Beach clubs, yacht clubs or boat clubs, including uses accessory to them, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and racquetball facilities. (5) Boatym'ds for building, storing, repairing, renting, selling or servicing boats, which may include the following as an accessory use: office for the sale of marine equipment or products, dockside facilities for dispensing of fuel and, where pumpout stations are provided, rest room and laundiy facilities to serve overnight patrons. (6) Ma25culture or aquaculture operations or resem'ch and development. (7) Boat and mmSne engine repair and sales and display, yacht brokers or mm4ne insurance brokers. (8) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, school districts, pm'k districts and fire districts. (9) Retail sale or rental of fishing, diving or bathing supplies and equipment if accessory to a marina or boatya'd or ship's lofit or chandlery. B. Uses pem~itted by special exception by the Bom-d of Appeals. The following uses m'e pewnitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, subject to site plan approval.by the Planning Board: (I) Restaurants, excluding outdoor counter service, drive-ins m' curb-service establishments. Such prohibition shall not prevent service at tables on a covered or ufieovered terrace or porch incidental to a restaurant. (2) Ferry terminals. (3) Transient hotels or motels, subject to the following conditions: (a) The minimum area for such use shall be not less than three (3) acres. (b) The nulnber of guest rooms permitted in the hotel or motel shall be determined by the proportion of the site utilized for such use and the availability of public water and sewer. The maximum number of guest units shall be one (1) trait per four thousand (4,000) square feet of land with publ/c water and sewer. (4) Fish processing plants. (5) Fish markets, which may include a combination of wholesale and retail sale of finfish and shellfish. (6) Museums with a nautical theme or mX galleries. C. [Amended 5-9-1989 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Accessory uses. The following uses, are permitted as accessory uses and, except for residential accessot3, uses and signs, which m'e governed by Article XX, are subject to site plan review: (1) Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by § 100-3 lC(I) through (7) of the Agricultural- Conservation District, and subject to the conditions of § 100-33 thereof. ~ CODE OF THE ToWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v~33 Updated through PART 1[ GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE XIX, Parking and Loading Areas [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989] § 100-191. Off~st~eet parking areas. A. Off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, are permitted accessory to any use specified below. Any land which is developed as a unit under single ownership and conlrol shall be considered a single lot for the purpose of these parking regulations. Reasonable and appropriate off-street parking requirements for structures and uses which do not fall within the categories listed below shnll be determined by the Planning Board upon consideration of all lhctors ent~a/ng into the parking needs of each use. For those uses not specified in the schedule, there shall be a periodic monitoring of off-street pm'king conditions to ensure that the purpose of this Article is satisfied. In addition, the planning Board may waive all or a portion of these requirements within the Hamlet Business District where it shall find that municipal parking facilities within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed use will adequately serve the proposed use. Required Number of Type of Use Parking Spaces Accessory apartment in existing 1 per accessory apartment in l-family dwelling addition to 2 for l-family dwell- lng 1 per 250 square feet of sales Antique shop, auction gallery, arts and crafts shop and work- shop Apartment over store Auditorium, meeting hall Automobile laundry 1 per apartment in addition to business requirements 1 per 50 square feet of seating area, but not less than 1 per 4 seats where provided 1 per employee, plus a 10-space queuing line area for each laun- dry bay Bank Beach club or swim club Bed-and-breakfast enterprise Boardinghouse or tourist house Boat and marine cng/ne repair and sales, if separate from ma- rina 10 spaces or 1 space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area or 3 spaces per teller, whichever is greatest, plus a 5- space queuing area for each drive-in teller 2 spaces per 3 members 1 space per guest room in addi- tion to residential requirements 1 space per guest room in addi- tion to residential requirements I space per 250 square feet of gross floor area Required Number of · ype of Use Parking Spaces Boatyard, including boat sales and rentals Bowling lane Building, electrical or plumbing contractor's business or yard Cold storage plant College Conference facilities Drinking establishment Fish market, including whole- sale and retail sale of finfish and/or shellfish Food processing and packaging including fish processing Fraternal or social office or meeting hall Funeral home Gasoline service station, partial self-service Gasoline service station with mi- nor indoor repair facility Greenhouse, floral shop, flower shop, nursery or similar facility, either enclosed or unenclosed Home occupation, including home professional office, except physician or dentist Hospital Hotel or motel, resort and tran- sient Sales and rental portion, 3 spaces, in addition to marina re- quirements At least 4 spaces per lane 1 space for each employee, plus 2 spaces 3 spaces or 1 per 800 square feet of gross floor area 0.5 space per student, plus 0.75 space per staff member 1 space per 4 seats in the larg- est assembly hall or meeting area, plus ! space for each 4 seats in classroom facilities 1 space per 3 seats or 1 space per 100 square feet of floor space, whichever is greater 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area 0.75 space per employee or 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater See "office" 1 space for each 3 seats pro- vided therein or 1 space for each 100 square feet of space available for public use, which- ever is greater, with a minimum of 25 spaces 3-space queuing area for each pump, plus 1 space for each em- ployee Same as gasoline service station above, plus 2 for each bay 1 space per employee, plus 3 spaces, or 1 space per 200 square feet of sales and/or dis- play area, whichever is greater 3 spaces per home occupation, plus 2 spaces required for sin- gle-fami]y residence 1 space for each bed 1 space for each guest room and 1 for each employee or 1 space per guest room, whichever is greater, pins accessory use parking as required Type of Use In-sero:ice training facilities for employees Laundry plant or dry-cleaning plant Laundromat Library, museum or art gallery Light industrial uses Mariculture/aquaculture busi- Marina Membership club, country club, go~f club or public golf course, tennis club Motor vehicle or mobile home salesroom or outdoor sales lot, including rental of equipment Multiple dwelling (3 or more faroilies) Studio 1-bedroom 2-bedroom Nursing home or proprietary rest home Office, business, governmental and professional, except physi- cians or dentists Office for physician or dentist 1-family detached dwelling Personal service shop, barber- shop or beauty parlor Philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious institution PIace of worship Printing or publishing plant Professional studio or travel agency Required Number of Parking Spaces See "conference facilities" 1 per employee, plus 1 per 200 square feet of customer 0.75 space per washing machine See "auditorium" 1 per employee or 1 per 500 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater See "light industrial" 1 space per boat slip, mooring, dock space or similar unit of capacity, plus 1 space per employee At least 1 for each 2 members or accommodations (such as lockers), whichever is greater, plus 1 for each employee 1 per each 600 square feet of showroom and sales lot area, plus I per employee 1.5 per dwelling unit 1.5 per dwelling unit 2.0 per dwelling unit; 0.25 space is required for each bedroom in excess of the first 2 bedrooms 1 for each bed 1 per 100 square feet of office floor area 5 spaces per physician or dentist 2 spaces per dwelling 2.5 spaces per service chair 1 space per bed See "auditorium" See "light industrial" See "office" q~pe of Use Recreational facility, fully enclosed, commercial Repair garage Repair shop for household, busi- ness or personal appliances Research, desigu or development laboratory Restaurant, drive-in, curb ser- vice take-out or formula food [Amended 5-16-1994 by L.L. L.L. No. 9-1994] Restaurant, except drive-in Retail sale or rental of fishing, diving or bathing supplies or equipment; ship's loft or chandlery Retail shop or stere, other than those listed herein Roadside farm stand School, elementary School, secondary Shop for custom work and for making arficlestebesold at re- tall on the premises Storage yard Theater or cinema, other than outdoor Tourist camp Townhouse 2-family detached dwelling Veterinarian and animal hospi- tal Warehouse or storn~e b~fildi~ ~' Required Number of Parking Spaces 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area, except court sports, 5 spaces per court, and rink sports, 1 space per 200 square feet of rink area 4 spaces per bay, plus 1 space per employee l space per 200 square feet of See "light industrial" 1 space per 2 seats or I space per 50 square feet of gross floor space, whichever is greater 1 space per 3 seats or 1 space per 100 square feet of floor space, whichever is greater If separate use, see ~retail shop"; if accessory use, i space for each employee, plus 2 spaces in addition te primary use At least 1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area Minimum of 4 spaces per stand 2 spaces per classroom, plus au- diterium requirement 2 spaces per classroom, plus 1 per 10 students, or auditerium requirement, whichever is greater See "retail stere" 1 space per employee, plus 4 spaces, or 1 space for each 5,000 square feet of storage area, whichever is greater See "auditorium" 1 space for each accommedation, plus I space for each employee, plus 3 spaces for visiters See "multiple dwelling unit" 3 spaces per dwelling 2 spaces per employee or 1 space per 200 feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater 1 t~r 1 or~ ~a~-to f~ ~ of ~r - Type of Use Wholesale business, including lumber and other building prod- ucts Wholesale/retail beverage distri- bution Wholesale/retail nursery and/or sale of plants Yacht club Required Number of Parking Spaces 1 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area I space per 150 square feet of gross floor area 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for retail use or 1 space for each employee, plus 3 spaces for wholesale use, with minimum of 4 spaces Same as "marina" CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v133 Updated through PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 108, ZONING ARTICLE XXV, Site Plan Approval [Addad 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989; amended 5-23~ 1989 by L.L. No. 9-1989] ARTICLE XXV, Site Plan Approval [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989; amended 5-23- 1989 by L.L. No. 9-1989] § 100-250. Applicability. This ga'ficle shall apply to every land use that is permitted in the Town of Southold except the single- family home use on a single and separate lot as set forth in Article m, § 100-3 IA(l), and customary nonagricultural accessory uses to a single-family resideatial home use as stated in the Town Code. Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the character/sties of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval. In alt cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved. CODE OF THE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v133 Updated through PART Il GENERAL LI~GISLATION Chapter 44, ENVIRONME~NTAL QUALITY REVIEW Chapter 44, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW [HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold 5-9-1978 as Local Law No. 3-1978. Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Wetlands - Sec C_h. 97. § 44-3. Compliance required; exceptions. [Amended 4-2-1996 by L.L. No. 1-1996] No decision to cma7 out or approve an action, other than as a Type 1I action, shall be made by a town agency until there has been full compliance with all requirements of th/s chapter and the Rules. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RJcnard G. War~. Chairman Geerge Ritchie Latham, Jr, Bennett Odowski, Jr. Ma~ S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Ma~n Roa(3 P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yor~ 1197; Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES July 14, 1995 8:00 a.m. Present were: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr. G. Ritchie Latham William Cremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Absent: Kenneth Edwards Mr. Ward: rd like to call the July 14, 1995 special meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board to order. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Orlowski: Mr, Chairman, rd like to make a motion that WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the body charged by law with requiring, reviewing and approving site plans; and WHEREAS, ArlJcle XXV, Section 250 of the Southold Town Zoning Code grants Be Planning Board the authority to require site plan approval where there is a proposed change of use or intensity of use. ('Any change of use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval.' emphasis supplied); and.. WHEREAS, the Cross Sound Ferry Inc. will iniUate a high speed passenger ferry service in addition to its regular daily run of vehicle ferries; and WHEREAS, this change in service reoresents a significant change in the nature of the ferry service use, because th~ F ?:;??::~ s~rvice will create an additional need for parking; and WHEREAS, the passenger-only ferry service is proposing to add an additional six round trips, at an additional 350 possible passengers per trip, which will be a 40% increase in the quantity of ferry trios; and ~oumo~o ,own r'tanntng doaro 2 JUly WHEREAS, there appears to be insufficient parking on site to handle the current demand for car parking as evidenced by the overflow of cars being parked along State Route 25 and on private residentially zoned property adjacent to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal; and WHEREAS, the Cross Sound Ferry Inc. will initiate the high speed passenger ferry service in addition to its regular daily run of boats on July 19, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Cross Sound Ferry Inc. has not obtained the requisite site plan approval; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Planning Board has determined that the passenger-only ferry service is a change in the use, and further, that the proposed six new trips per day will be a significant change in the intensity of use; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ~ese changes trigger the need for a revised site plan review to consider the parking, traffic and other impacts which will be caused by the proposed service. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Moron carried. All in order for a motion to adjourn? Mr. tatham: I move we close. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Mo~Jon carded. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adioumed at 8:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard G. Ward, Chairman Ma~a A. Jones Secretary SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. and ADAM WRONOWSKI, Individually and as Custodian For JESSICA WRONOWSKI under the Connecticut UGMA, Petitioners, REPLY AFFIRMATION For a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against~ PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent. Index No. 96-26389 Index No. 97-01312 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI, ESQ., affirming pursuant to CPLR 2106 states: 1. Your affirmant is special counsel to the Town of Southold in connection with this particular matter and is fully familiar with all the facts and circumstances herein. 2. This affirmation if made in further support of respondent's instant Motion to Dismiss both of the above referenced proceedings and in reply to the Affidavit in Opposition submitted by Thomas F. Whelan, Esq., counsel for Cross Sound. 3. While this reply is focused on the Article 78 proceedings it is important to note that the Article 78 proceedings are just a part of a broader situation which cannot be ignored. It is undisputed that the Planning Board issued a resolution in July 1995 determining that the introduction of a High Speed Passenger Only Ferry ("High Speed Ferry") and parking on the Snack Bar Lot required Cross Sound to obtain revised site plan approval. Cross Sound did not challenge this resolution. Cross Sound first sought a variance and/or special exception from the ZBA to permit parking on an adjoining residential zoned lot called the Trust Parcel and permit increased parking density. The applications to the ZBA were made to accommodate parking needs generated by the High Speed Ferry. Then, at the Court's direction, Cross Sound submitted a site plan application to the Planning Board which purported to include only the Trust Parcel and the Snack Bar Parcel. However, the Planning Board required a comprehensive integrated site plan of the entire ferry site. Cross Sound, by its counsel Mr. Esseks, represented to the Court on July 11, 1996 that Cross Sound would comply with this request and submit a site plan for the entire site. On July 29, 1996 Cross Sound submitted a comprehensive site plan for the entire Ferry Site and the adjoining Trust Parcel. On July 30' 1996 the Planning Board then declared the "action" to be a Type 1 action. On September 16, 1996 the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration. On December 16, 1996 the Planning Board adopted the Scope Outline. The two Article 78 proceedings were commenced. [acopy ofthe Planning Boards July 14,1995 resolution is annexed hereto as exhibit A] 4. The determination of one question will resolve this motion to dismiss both Article 78 proceedings. The question: "What is the "action" under SEQR review?" 5. Cross Sound's Article 78 proceedings fail to state a cause of action because they are based solely on a definition of "action" that is blatantly incorrect as a matter of law and fact. The facts are part of the record in this case. 6. A reading of the definition of "action" in the SEQR regulations supports the Planning Boards decision. THE SEQRA REGULATIONS 7. Under SEQRA a lead agency is established for each "action" subject to SEQR review. 8. The Planning Board is the lead agency for both the site plan application and the ZBA applications seeking an increased parking density and a change in use and/or special exception to permit parking on the adjoining residential zoned lot. 9. As lead agency the planning board is responsible for classifying each action as either a Type I, Type II or Unlisted action. NYCRR section 617.6. 10. The Planning Board, by resolution, classified Cross Sound's "action" as a Type I action. Cross Sound's counsel was notified of this Type I determination. Cross Sound cannot now attempt to annul the Planning Boards Type I designation because it was not timely challenged. A copy of the Planning Board's resolution is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 11. Pursuant to the SEQR regulations, after determining that the "action" was a Type I action the Planning Board, as lead agency, had to make a "determine the significance" [i.e. issue a Positive Declaration, Negative Declaration or Conditional Negative Declaration.] NYCRR section 617.6 and 617.7 12. SEQRA states that "for all Type I actions...the lead agency making a determination of significance must: "(I) consider the action as defined in sections 617.2(b) and 617.3(~) of this Part; NYCRR section 617.7(a) [emphasis added] Section 617.2(b) states: "projects or physical activities, such as construction or other activities that may affect the environment by changing the use, appearance or condition of any natural resource or structure, that: iii) require one or more new or modified approvals from any agency or agencies" 617.2 (b) 617.3(g) states: "Actions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or only to a part of it. (1) Considering only a l::.r~ cr seg~ne.nt ~f an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR....related actions should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible" 13. 14. (2) If it is determined that an EIS is necessary for an action consisting of a set of activities or steps, only one draft and one final EIS need be prepared on the action provided that the statement addresses each part of the action at a level of detail sufficient for an adequate analysis of the significant adverse environmental impacts ..... " The comprehensive site plan, High Speed Ferry and ZBA applications regarding parking are inescapably linked. They are the "activities or set of activities" which comprise the "action" subject to SEQP,_A review in this case. SEQRA section 617.7 entitled "Determining Significance" states that the lead agency... "to require an EIS (i.e. issue a Positive Declaration) for an "action" must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact." 15. The Planning Board, as lead agency, after consultation with its environmental expert, issued a Positive Declaration determining that the "Cross Sound project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of the site sensitivity regarding the following issues". The Positive Declaration then list not just one but ten issues which provide the basis for the Positive Declaration. See Exhibit D of the Affidavit of Bennett Orlowski. 16. Many of the ten issues listed are found in Section 617.7(c) (1) which lists criteria which "are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment". 17. When the "action" subject to SEQRA review is defined as the comprehensive site plan of the entire Ferry Site and the Trust parcel (which necessarily includes the High Speed Ferry) and the ZBA applications for increased parking density and a 18. change in use and/or special exception to permit parking on an adjoining residential lot a cursory review of the SEQRA regulations reveals that the issuance of a Positive Declaration and Scope Outline adopted were valid. When the "action" is defined as set forth in the proceeding paragraph the Article 78 petitions are rendered moot. CROSS SOUND'S POSITION 19. Cross Sound has apparently adopted the position that the applications pending before the ZBA and the Planning Board only apply for proposed parking on the Trust parcel. That these applications were simply filed as a normal business move and that SEQRA review should solely focus on the parking lot. 20. This defies reason, is contradictory to the record and is contrary to the definition of"action" subject to SEQRA review. 21. Cross Sound is asking the Court to utterly ignore and disregard the following facts: a) the Planning Board determined by resolution that the introduction of a High Speed Ferry and parking on the Snack Bar lot required revised site plan review; [omitted in Cross Sound's petition] b) the Planning Boards resolution of July 1995 was never challenged or appealed by Cross Sound Ferry [ omitted in Cross Sound's petition] c) that the Planning Board commenced an action to compel Cross Sound to seek the required site plan review; d) that Cross S,, :r,. ~, ':::-~'~'..:~,.: -f the Planning Board's resolution and legal action, sought ZBA al' ~:r~'.~ ~c~ i::cr::' ~ parking density on the West Parcel and a change in use or special exception to permit parking on an adjoining residential lot called the Trust Parcel to accommodate increased parking needs due to the High Speed Ferry. e) by direction of the Court Cross Sound submitted a site plan application on April 11, 1996; [omitted in petition that the site plan was submitted at the direction of the Court] f') that this site plan application referenced the entire Ferry site and specifically included the Snack Bar Parcel as well as the Trust Parcel. In addition this site plan application and LEAF referenced the High Speed Ferry in the attached letter of Dunn Engineering [petition is contradictory, in paragraph 41 states that the site plan includes the snack bar lot and in paragraphs "52" and "55(a)" the petition states that the site plan application is only for the Trust parcel] g) the Planning Board deemed this site plan incomplete and demanded an integrated site plan including the entire ferry site; [omitted in petition. Petition also omits that, contrary to paragraph "44' additional submissions were made through July 29, 1996] h) Cross Sound, by its counsel Mr. Esseks, represented to Justice Henry that "The Planning Board has asked for an all-encompassing site plan submission (including DOT land), which is being prepared and will be ready for review and initial discussion on Monday, July 29, 1996" see copy of letter dated July 11, 1996 from Mr. Esseks to Justice Patrick Henry annexed hereto as exhibit C. k) that on July 29, 1996 Following up on his representation to Justice Henry Mr. Esseks, delivered a letter to the Southold Town Planning Board on July 29, 1996 stating: "At the last Planning Board meeting, the Chairman requested the applicant to submit an integrated site plan to include a) the west parking lot parcel; b) the terminal/queing lane parcel; c) the north/south portion of Route 25; d) the snack bar parcel; and e) the trust parcel. Such a plan has been prepared and submitted today to the Board. A copy was given to Valerie Scopaz, the Town Planner and Robert Kassner, the Site Plan Reviewer. By this letter I agree, on behalf of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. that said proposed comprehensive integrated site plan shall be one of the alternatives within the SEQRA review process. My understanding of 6 NYCRR Part 617 and the SEQRA process itself is that an alternative within the SEQRA process may become the actual approved project.: See copy of the letter from Mr. Esseks to the Planning Board dated July 29, 1996 is annexed hereto as Exhibit D 22) Sound's position that alt that is pending is an application for a parking lot is not supported by the complete procedural and documentary history of this matter. 23) The petition, on its face fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law under SEQRA. Cross Sound's position would result in a segmented review which is contrary to the purpose mid intent of SEQRA. 24) Cross Sound cites case law that states in an Article 78 proceeding where a motion to dismiss has been filed for failure to state a caus~ of action "only the i~etition is to be considered and all of the allegations are to be deemed true". 25) However, assuming arguendo that this is correct, this does not permit petitioner to can selectively omit key document~, representations or events which are part of the record. In addition, this does not mean that petitioner can misstate documented facts and not be held accountable. 26) We respectfully request that the Court take Judicial Notice of the proceedings and documents which constitute the record to date. WHEREFORE, based on the above Respondent respectfully requests that both Article 78 petitions be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action SUPREME COURT OF TKE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OFSOUTHOLD, -against- Plaintkff, Index No. CON[PLAiNT CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC Defendant Plaintiff', complaining of the Defendant, alleges 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff, Town of Southold, was and still is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and situate within the County of Suffolk. 2 At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant was and still is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and doing business within the County of Suffolk. 3. At a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, held on July 1 l, 1995, the Town Board ordered this action prosecuted on behalf of the Town. 4. Local Law No. 1-1989, now codified as Southold Town Code 100-121(B)(2), provides that a ferry terminal is permitted to operate in the Mil zone provided the use has a special exception permit approved b ,~:. ~,::a;:, ~',: seals, and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board 5 Defendant operates a ferry terminal on three parcels, Tax Map Nos 15-09-10.I, 15- 0%11 1 and 15-09-15.1, zoned Mil. at the terminus of Route 25, Hamlet of Orient, Town of Southo[d, County of Suffolk 6 Defendant currently operates a vehicular ferry, service h~* 'een Orient Point, New York and New London, Connecticut Under this operation, the vehicles are driven onto the ferry and are transferred from one point to the other. The peak schedule currently calls for 16 round trips per day. 7. On June 23, 1995 Defendant armounced a proposal to expand its operations to include a high-speed, passenger-only ferry service fi.om Orient Point to New London. The proposal is for fen3, service, carrying 350 passengers and no vehicles, to make an additional six round trips per da), Under the new proposal, passengers' vehicles will have to park at the Orient Point ferry terminal 8 Southold Town Code Section 100-250 provides in part that "any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require site plan approval." The Planning Board is charged with making this determination. 9 The Planaing Board has held that a proposed change to a passenger-only service is a significant change in the nature and intensity of the use, which requires review and approval of an amended site plan to address the need for adequate and safe aprking and traffic handling. 10. At an estimated two passengers per car, the new passenger-only service could generate an additional 2100 vehicle trips per day or over 500,000 vehicles trips per year, which would have a serious effect on the tx:c, lane highway and primarily residential neighborhood which is the sole access to the ferry, operation. I 1. At an estimated rate of two passengers per car, the new passenger-only service would generate the need for a possible 1,050 additional parking spaces. 12 Defendant has been asked to obtain site plan approval prior to implementing the proposed high-speed, passenger-only ferry service. Defendant has refused to comply and proposes to institute this service without applying for or obtaining site plan approval and without mai~ng adequate provision for parking and traffic. 13 If Defendant institutes the high-speed, passenger-only ferry service prior to site plan approval, there ~vill be serious parking problems, forcing people to park in unsafe, unmarked, distant and congested areas, all to the detriment of their health and safety and the the detriment of nearby property owners who will be encroached upon by Defendant's customers. 14. If Defendant institutes the high-speed, passenger-only ferry service prior to site plan approval, there will be serious traffic problems in as much as there will be possible 2000 new vehicle trips on a narrow rural highway, without any analysis of the road capacity or possible mitigation measures 15. By reason of the aforesaid, Plaintiff and the residents and taxpayers of the Town of Southold will suffer irreparable harm~ damage and injury if Defendant is not prevented fi.om violating said Ordinance. 16. Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law for the reason that if Defendant continues the aforementioned use of said premises, the injury which will be done to Plaintiffcannot be compensated in money 17 Plaintiffhas requested that Defendant comply with the requirement for site plan approval and Defendant has refused. It is therefore necessary to seek the Court's aid to enforce said Ordinance as it applies to Defendant and to seek to enjoin and restrain Defendant from violating the provisions of said Ordinance. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges as a part ofthis cause of action each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs numbered 1 through 11, with the sarne force and effect as though the same were herein again set forth. 19 Defendant has site plan approval for 69 spaces of parking on Lot No. 15-09-10.1, and for 5 parking spaces on Lot No. 15-09-I 1.1. 20. In the re~m~lar course of business and on a daily basis Defendant permits its ferry passengers to use Lot No 15-09-15.1, as a parking lot accessory to the ferry operation. 21~ The Southold Town Code Section 100-13 defines a "Parking Lot" as an off-street, ground level area, surfaced and improved for the temporary, storage of motor vehicles. 22. A site plan is required to ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided to satisfy the parking needs of the proposed uses on site and that the interior circulation system is so designed to provide convenient access to such spaces consistent with pedestrian safety, pursuant to Southold lown Code Section 100-252(B). 23 Said Lot No 15-09-15 I does not have site plan approval and, absent such approval, may not be used as parking i ~ i':r i->~:~:~:. '?'s business. 24. Use of said p~king lot w2houz s~re plan approval creates a dangerous situation for persons parking there, inasmuch as such parldng lot is unpaved, unmarked, does not provide for safe circulation, is overcrowded, and has inadequate drainage The situation is also dangerous for the environment as vehicles are parking close to wetland areas. 25. By reason of the aforesaid, Plaintiffand the residents and taxpayers of the Town of Southold will suffer irreparable harm. damage and injury ifDefendant is not prevented from violating said Ordinance. 26 Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law for the reason that if Defendant continues the aforementioned use of said premises, the injury which will be done to Plaintiff cannot be compensated in money. 2? Plair~tiffhas requested that Defendant cease its use of the property in violation of the Ordinance and Defendant has refused It is therefore necessary to seek the Court's aid to enforce said Ordinance as it applies to Defendant and to seek to enjoin and restrain Defendant from violating the provisions of said Ordinance V,"riEP..EFOP,.E, Plaintiffdemands judgment against the Defendant as follows: 1. Defendant be enjoined and restrained from instituting or conducting a passenger-only ferry sep,,ice until Defendant seeks and obtains site plan approval. 2. Defendant be enjoined and restrained from using the parking area on Parcel No. 15- 09-15.1 as parking accessory to the ferry operation until Defendant seeks and obtains site plan approval. 3. That the Court issue a mandatory injunction ordering Defendant to obtain revised site plan approval for the site of the ferry operations in Orient 4. This Cour~ grant Plaintiff'such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, together w~th the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: Southold, New York July 14, 1995 LAURY L. DOWD, Town Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 6 SUPREME COURT OF TH]E STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Plalnti~ -~ains-t- CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, Defendant STATE OF NrEw YOKK1 SS COUNTT OF SUFFOLK) X Index No. VERIFICATION THOM. AS WICY-J-IA~£ being dui?' sworn, deposes and says: I am the Supe,"',qsor of the Town of Southold; I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof; that Se same is true to my knowed~. ,~xcept as to the mat~ers //?? therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as t~ose rs I b~//eve to be Thomas Wickham Sworn to before me this t4th da), of July, 1995 Notary Public 6/ JUDITH T TERRY Nolery Public, Slate o~ New Yo~ NO. 52-034~963 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Plaintiff, -against- CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Defendant. EDWARD FORRESTER~ being duly sworn, deposes and says: Index No. 6}5-- AFFIDAVIT 1. I am the Town Investigator of the Town of Southold and have been such since.June 1, 1995. 2. During the week of July 10, 1995 I have visited and photographed the Cross Sound Ferry terminal site at the hamlet of Orient in the Town of Southold. I have attempted to determine a baseline for the parking requirements of the Cross Sound Ferry's current vehicle-ferry service, prior to the institution of the passenger-only ferry service advertised for JuLy 19, 1995. 3. There are three parcels involved in the Cross Sound Ferry operation, The "Parking Lot" area is currently under construction and will add sixty-nine new parking spaces. These spaces are not currently available for parking. 4. The "Ticket Office Lot" has five approved spaces and serves as the staging area for vehicles driving onto the current vehicle-ferry service. 5. The "Snack Bar Lot" is currently being used for parking, although the use of this lot a.s a parking area has not been approved by the Southold Planning Board. Tho "Snack Bar Lot" is a dirt lot, with a snack bar building on the west edge. The balance of the lot is used as an ad hoc parking lot. Parking areas are not marked, the lot is rutted, water pools in depressions during rain a~d there is no lighting of the lot. Automobiles park extremely close to the high-water mark and adjacent to residentia/ly-zoned properties. 6. I have taken photographs of the "Snack Bar Lot" which accurately represent the lot as it appeared at the date and times noted in the photographs. My estimates oftbe number of ears parked on the "Snack Bar Lot" are set forth below. The photographs represent five views oft.he lot, and are taken on July 1 l, 12, 13 and 14. These photographs are attached as Exhibit I. July 11, 1995 10:45 a.m. July 12, 1995 11:15 a.m. July 13, 1995 12:05 p.m. July 14, 1995 10:45 a.m. 120-130 vehicles parked 130- 140 vehicles parked 115-120 vehicles parked 115 vehicles parked 7. Further parking takes place on Route 25 as shown on Exhibit J. The estimated numbers of cars I saw parked on this area are as follows: July 11, 1995 10:45 a.m. July 12, 1995 11:15 a.m. July 13, 1995 12:05 p.m. July 14, 1995 10:45 a.m. 17 vehicles parked 31 vehicles parked 15 vehicles parked 18 vehicles parked 8. All the above photos depict the parking conditions as they exist prior to institution oftbe passenger-only ferry service. Sworn to before me this /~/ day of July, 1995. Notary Public/` LJNDA J. COOPER Notary Public, State of N~. Yor~ ?e No~4~22563. Suff~l; Cour~ ~. rmt~,p~resDscemb~31, 19 /,' d Forrast~.,] FORI'i NO. 3 TOWN OF SOU'I~IOLD BU II.I}ING D F. PART~IENT $OUTI1OI.D , N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DEC SOL:;'MULO iOWN PL~NN!;qG BOARD To William W. Esseks (agent) Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & 108 East Main Street Adam C. Wronowskl Riverhead, New York llgOI PLEASE TAK~ NOTICE that your application dated 'Novambe'r ~: 95 establish parking for far.fy terminal in residential zone (Lot increase density of existing parking (Lot B)-in conjunction with for permit to · ' ~k~'£ff~ 'fly Lb't' 'lbboU'l~-~;']~.'l'- ................................. at Location of Property . 4]875 & 41190 Route 25 Main Road Orient, Rouse No. Street Hamlet County Tax M~p No. ]000 - Section 15 BLOCK 9 LOT 3/5 & ]0.1 & 15.] Subdivision ............................... Piled Map No .......... Lot No ........ is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . .Up.d.e.r..A.r.t.i.c.l.e. ~ ........... Sectiou 100-250 any change in use or intensity of use uill require site plan approval by the Planning Board. Under Section 100-191A reasonable and appropriate off street parking requirements for uses which do not fall withlu listed categories shall be determined by the Planning Board upou consideration of all factors. Sectioa 100-254B (4) of the Town Code empo rs the Planning Board to vary or waive parking requirements a part of site plan review process. Regarding Tax Map Parcel SCTM ~1000-15-9-15.1 au approval by Planning Board of site plan is required. ~is Department is not in a position to accept applicants statement as evidence of pre-emistiug parking use. Under Article III Section 100-3 IA the proposed parking spaces are not a permitted use in the R-80 district· Under Article XIX Section ]O0-]glR proposed parking spaces for ferry terminal are not located on the same lot as the use to which they are accessory, nor within 200 ft. walking distance of such lot. - Action required by Zoning Board of Appeals. Action also required by Board of Town Trustees & N.Y. State Dept. of Environmental RV I/fi0 B,~,~d i n~.k_Lgs pe c t o CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v133 Updated through 11~20-2001 PART Il GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter ID0, ZONING ARTICLE XXVI)I, Administration and Enforcement [Last amended 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1- 1989] § 100-284, Certificates of occupancy. § 100~285. Penalties for offenses. For each offense against any of the provisions of this chapter or any regulations made pursuant thereto or for failure to comply with a written notice or order of any Building Inspector within the lime fixed for compliance therewith, the owner, occupant, builder, m'chitect, contractor or their agents or any other person who commits, takes pm-t or assists in the commission of any such offense orwho shall fail to comply with a written order or notice of any Building Inspector shall, upon a fu~t conviction thereof, be guilty of a violation, punishable by a fine of not exceeding five hundi'ed dollars ($500.) or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) days, or both. Each day on which such violation shall occur shall constitute a separate, additional offense. For a second and subsequent conviction within eighteen (18) months thereafter, such person shall be guilty of a violation punishable by a frae not exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.) or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) days, or by both such f'me and imprisonment. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, vi33 Updated through 11-20-2001 PART Il GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE XXV, Site Plan Approval [Added 1-104989 by L.L No. %1989; amended 5-23~ 1989 by L.L. No. 9-1989] § 100-253. Approval of site plan required, § 100-253. Approval of site plan required. A. No building permit shall be issued for any su-acture or building for which use a site plan is pmsuant to this Chapter 100, until a detormination has been made by the Planning Board as to whether a site plan or an amendment thereto is required and, if required, that an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan has been secm~ed by the applicant fi-om the Planning Board and presented to the Building Inspector, along with all necessary approvals and permits as may be required by other public agencies. [Amended 5~15-1995 by L.L. No. 8-1995] B. No regrading, clem[ag, tree removal or any other work in preparation of future use of a site, except limited cleating needed to undertake sm-vey work or soils investigations, may take place or be permitted to take place until the site plan has been approved by the Planning Board. C. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any building, structure, premises, lot or use of land covered by this Article unless the structure has been completed (whether the stmcture is being constructed, renovated, reconstructed, altered, moved o,' put into use), and the site is developed in accordance with an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan. D. Upon request of the o,araer or his authorized agent for a certificate of occupancy, the Building Inspector shall issue the certificate, provided that said Building Inspector, along with the planning Board, shall find that such building or structm-e and site is in conformity with the approved site plan. E. After a certificate of occupancy is issued, there shall be no exterior alterations of a building that expand the footprint or any revisions of the site m' changes of use without first obtaining Planning Board approval. F. Failure to obtain site plan approval shall be a violation of this Article and shall be subject to such penalties as are set forth in § 100-285 of this chapter. G. Upon recounnendation of the Planning Board and approval of the Town Attorney, the Building Inspector may revoke an existing cefftficate of occupancy upon a showing that the subject premises is being occupied or used in violation of an approved site plan and may direct that such occupancy or use be discontinued. The Town Attorney is authorized to conunence pr.:~.::e~:~i~¥:'~ ~ a com-t of appropriate jmisdiction to reslzain said use or occupancy. P~G BOARD OFFICE' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Rnad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fsx (516) 765-3138 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Date Received 'Dale Completed Filing Fee APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN New Change of Use Re-use Ex'tension Revision o¢ Approved Site Plan Submitted, without prejudice, pumuant to the direction of Hon. Patrick Henry, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, reserving all rights and claims to ell pre-existing legal, conforming and/or non-conforming uses. Name of= Business or Site: Local3on: Address: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. E/S State Route 25 at Orient Point Main Road (Rt. 25], Orient, NY Name of= Applicanb Address of Applicant: Telephone: Owner of Land: Agent or Person responsible for application: Address: Telephone: Site plans prepared by: License NO,: Address: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 2 Ferry St., P.O. Box 33, New London, CT 06:320-0033 (cio Esseks, Hefter & Angel) (516) 369-1700 . Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronewski William W. Esseks Cio Esseks, Hefter & Angel, t08 East Main St,, Riverhead, NY (516) 369.1 700 John J. Rayncr, P.E. & ES., P.C. P.£. No. 53385 - LS. No. 49318 P.O. Box 720, Water Mill, NY 11976 Telephone: (si e) 726-7600 APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YOP. K COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Willia~ W. Esseks, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at c/o 108 East Main Street, Riverhead in the State of New York and that he represents the owner of the above property and that he is the attorney for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. which is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the ~ite Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, has been clearly established and is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Plarn~ing Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. (Attorney for Owner) Sworn to me this llth day of Aprbl, 1996 ? NOT/~Y PUS'~IC, ~t~E ~F ~;~ YORK NO. 405d~25 - SUFFOL~ Plannir~ Board Site Plan ADpllca[Jon 8,943 Ad, Tolml Land Area of Site (acres or squ~re fee~) · W II & R,~oZoning Dlsl~ict ExJs~ng Use of Site Snack ear and Parking Proposed Use of Site Snack Bar :~nd Parking * Gross Floor Area of Exist/ng Structure(s) * Gross floor Area of Proposed Struc",ure(s] * Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) * Percent of lot for Parking (where applicable) * Percent of: Lot for Landscaping (where applicable) Has applicant been granted a variance and/or spe:!sl exception by No Board of Appeals - Case # & Board of Trustees - Case # & * · to be determined on oompletlon of further mapping NY Stale Oepa~ Q~]ent of Environment_si Ccnse~ation. Case # & date Suffolk County Department Healtb ~-'-..ry,c~s¢ = - Case # & date NIA Case Number Name of Applicant Date of Decision Expiration Date Other Will any toxic or hazardous mat~r!::~, zs defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at me site? If so, have proper permits been o2~rn~d? Name of issuing agency Number and date of perrni( NO ACT/ON (~XCA VAT/ON OR CONSTRUCT/ON) MAY EE L/NOE,~TAI(EN UN'/IL APPEOVAI. OF SITE PLA/V BY PLANNING BOARD. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT ?0 P.ZOSECUTION. Preliminary Site Plan Study for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Situate Orient Town of Southold Suffolk County, N.Y. April, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. Cross Sound Ferrv Introduction Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. operates a ferry service for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and freight across Long Island Sound between Orient Point, ..New York, and New London, Connecticut. Terminal operations are maintained both at Orient Point and at New London, and consist of vessel mooring facilities and loading ramps, vehicle queuing and parking areas, ferry office, waiting room, snack bar and restroom facilities. Cross Sound wishes to enhance its parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal, and intends to devote an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel (hereafter termed the "EaSt Parcel'i) for additional parking. Cross Sound has retained the services of John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. to assist in the preparation and filing of applications and supporting documents for regulatory approvals which may be required for the enhanced parking. This preliminary report is intended to initiate the site plan review process with the Town of Southold by providing certain preliminary information, describing an ongoing site plan development effort, and posing certain questions for the Planning Board which, when answered, will facilitate the completion of a properly detailed site plan. Existtnc~ Use Cross Sound currently owns land east of the eastedy end of State Route 25, which land currently supports a building housing a snack bar and an unpaved parking area which represents a portion of the company-provided parking for ferry patrons, That property is termed "Snack Bar Parcel" in this report, and it consists of 1.4449 acres as computed from.the deed descrip'?.c:~. ~t ~ ir~ ~he Wll zoning district. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P,C. 2 C~oss Sound Fen-v View facing westarty across perking on Shed< Bar Parcel '~oward TerminaJ Building, wi~ Snack Bar building visible at left. Prooosed Addition East of the Snack Bar Parcel is property owned by Adam C. Wronowski, individually and as custodian for Jessica Wronowski, which currently is zoned R-80. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., can acquire the Wronowski property, termed in this report the "East Parcel", and provide additional parking spaces. For purposes of preparation of a site plan, it is assumed that these two parcels will be treated as a single lot. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 3 C~oss Soun~ Fen'v View facing westerly across East Parcel toward Snack Bar, showing vacant area with existing parking in background. Preliminary Site Plan During the fall of 1995, Dunn Engineering Associates studied the subject properties and others for the purpose of recommending methods of increasing the amount and efficiency of parking for ferry patrons. Using information from reference materials published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Dunn Engineering recommended that a parking geometry be developed using a parking stall width of 8.5 feet, a stall depth of 17.5 feet and an aisle width of 26 feet, and estimated that approximately 500 parking stalls conforming to such dimensions could be delineated on the four parcels (West Parcel, Terminal Parcel, Snack Bar Parcel and East Parcel). A preliminary site plan based on the Dunn Engineering approach was prepared, in a schematic fashion, in November of 1995, by John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. That site plan must be considered preliminary and schematic in John J. Raynor, P.E, & L.S., P.C. 4 Sound Fen'v nature because it was based on generalized site conditions which are insufficient to permit a more precise determination of areas for necessary site improvement elements such as areas for drainage recharge, for transitional buffering along property lines and along the interface with the Gardiners Bay shoreline, and for circulation and interchange with adjacent roads and drives. For purposes of this initial submission, a drawing entitled "Composite Map of properties of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc." is employed as a preliminary site plan. While recognizing that the Town Code will require that further development of the site plan be presented at a scale of 1"=20', we have provided this preliminary plan at 1"=40' for convenience of viewing at this stage of our discussion. That plan depicts the basic parking configuration resulting from the Dunn Engine.ering recommendations, characterized by a sedes of parallel aisles running essentially north and south, with sever~J potential locations for access from that portion of State Route 25 that separates the Snack Bar Parcel from the Terminal Parcel. Superimposed on that basic design are preliminary representations of setbacks to be observed in adjusting the parking layout; indeed, one of the most important aspects of the preliminary site plan discussion will be to agree upon the setback dimensions to be used. Drainage design computations and general configuration are not included at this stage, but will be incorporated in the more detailed drawings to come, It is our intention to propose a drainage design which uses manufactured subsudace leaching structures such as InfiltratorTM units or ContactorTM units to provide storage volume for stormwater while still using a permeable parking surface chiefly composed of compact gravel. Documents under Prel3aration The Town Code requires that a final site plan depict specific kinds of existing conditions, both on the subject site' and on neighboring properties within spec{fi~8'di~t~.~¢~-Ui~'iti~n o~"Si]'~' 8b. te~ on property not controlled by the applicant using conventional ground survey methods is usually problematic. Therefore, we are currently in the process of producing equivalent base mapping John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 5 Sound ;erry using aerial photogrammetric methods. To ensure that the mapping is as current as possible, we have elected to base it upon new aerial stereopalr photography, flown especially for this project. Production of such aerial photography is necessarily dependent on weather and natural light conditions and the existence of snow cover; it is not uncommon for orders for such photography to be delayed pending a simultaneous occurrence of ~cceptable qualities in each area of concern. In this case, photographs ordered some time ago could not be flown until late March. The photographs have been analyzed by a photogrammetrist to identify points for ground control by conventional plane surveying methods. Acquisition of that ground control data is scheduled shortly. Thereafter, the photogrammetdst will use that data to calibrate an analytical stereoplotter, and proceed to generate a topographic base map for the project and adjoining parcels. The resulting detailed map of existing conditions, together with a digital terrain model of the site, should be available sometime in May. Aedal view of site taken in late March, showing some of the ground Cen~ol points to be Ioe. ated by conventional survey methods.. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L,S., P.C, 6 Cross $oulld Ferry Issues for Preliminary Site Plan Review During review of the preliminary site plan, several issues can and should be addressed if the subsequent detailed plans are to be developed efficiently. Those issues include, but may not be limited to: What setbacks are to be observed from the various bounding property lines or natural feature lines? What landscaping treatment is to be employed in the setback areas to provide transitional buffering of neighboring properties? Will the Town recognize and adopt the recommendations based on Institute of Transportation Engineers research presented by Dunn Engineering, and authorize this special case use of adjusted dimensions for parking stalls and aisles? If such recommendations are accepted, should they be employed for existing parking on the West Parcel? Will the Town entertain a drainage design for permeable sudace parking that employs InfiltratorTM or ContactorTM units ? What level of parking area lighting should be employed to afford safe access to parking and how should that need be balanced with the probable desire to minimize pemeption of such lighting beyond the site perimeter? Which of the multiple opportunities for access between State Route 25 and the consolid.-.,ted S!;~:~,!~, Bar/East Parcel should be developed further i~.~ ~,~:~, ,.:.~...:;~vj ,:L:~ iled site plan to come? John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 7 Cross Sound Ferry Enclosures 1) 2) 3) Town of Southold Application for Consideration of a Site Plan. Application Fee of $600, based on 4 acres (3.944) of site at the rate of $150. per acre. No new building is proposed. Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) prepared originally in connection with applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, which applications are being resubmitted concurrently with this site plan application. 4) · Preliminary Site Plan dated April 8, 1996. John J. Raynor, P,E. & L.S., P.C. 8 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATtON : ~, Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effec- on the environment. PIesse c, amplete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considerec as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additiona! 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 i,nve~tigation. If information requiring such additional wor~ ~ unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Expansion of off-street parkin~ facilities at existing f6rry terminal LOCA~ON OF AC'rlON (Include Street Addre~, Munlclplil[y ln~ County) S/S Main Road (west of terminal) and E/S Main Road (east of terminal) NAMEOFAPPUCAHT~PONSOR (individually & a~.custodian) l Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski BUSlNESSTELEPHONE (516; 369-1700 ADDRES~ c/o William W. Esseks, Esq.; Esseks, Hefter & kn~el C,TYI~3 108 East Main Street, P. O. Box 279, Riverhead I STATE I ZtPCODE ~ 11901 NAME OF OWNER(Ifdlfferenl) I BUSINESSTELEPHONE Same as above I ) ADDRESS CI~IPO I STATE I ZIPCOOE DESCRI~ION OFAOTION The applicants are seeking a public utility use variance to allow parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A waiver or variance with regard to the size of parking spaces is also being sought in order to maximize off-street parking on a parcel that contains an existin~ gravel parking area. If the variance is granted, the number of spaces will increase from 69 to 80. this 1.193 acre parcel is zoned MII. Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A, if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1~ Present land use: C]Urban r-ilndustrial ICommercial ~lResidential (suburban) r-IForest r-iAgriculture IOther vacant 2. Total acreage of project ar~a: 2. 498 acres. (R- 80) APPROXIMATE ACREACE 1.193 acres (MII) Meadow or Brushland (Ndn-agricultural) Forested Agricuitural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock.earSh or f~ll)_(earth rd..~ravel. , C~Rura[ (non-farm 3. ~,~:~ac ~ przoo,'ninant soil type(s) on project site~ Haven loam. fil'l_43 landaCres & beadhS0 acres a, Soil drainage: IWeII drained 75 % of ~Jte ~Moderately well drained __ % of site IPoorlydrained ,,25', , % of site b, If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within sci] grou~ 1 through 4 of the NY.~ Land Classification System? 1.69 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppin8s on project site? C]Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION l. 51 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres .76 acres 2.20 a~res · 08 acres .0g acres · 91 acres 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: W0-10% lO0 % ~]10-15% 915% or greater % 6 Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? fflYes INo '; 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? fl'lYes laNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? 3'7-+ (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primar~'.principal, or sole source aquifer? IIYes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? C'lYes WNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that 'is identified as threatened or endangered? ~Yes ~No According to J'ose!0h Lombatdt. Technician Identify each species 12. ,*,re there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological iormations~ I-lYes WNo Describe 13 Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? r-lYes WNo If yes. explain 14 Does the present site include scenic views known'to be important to the community? ~Yes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project ar. eat'. 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: a. Name Gardf. ners Bay b. Size (In acres) 17 Is the site served by existing public utilities? WYes f"lNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist 'to allow connection? WYes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ' r-lyes ~1o 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. A~icle 2S-AA, Section 303 and 304? i-lyes WHo q9. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 61~7.?. lyes ~No (Pecon~c Bay Estuary) 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous ~a~tes? ~'lYes BNo 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 b. Project acreage to be developed: 3.6gl acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped nnone acres. d. Length of project, in miles: NA elf appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existin8 221' ; proposed 6.468 acres. 6.468 acres ultimately. (i.e. "approved. & pre-existing parcel: 220 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A One Family Two Family ~nitially Ultimately i. Oimensiohs Cin feet) of largest proposed structure ~./A height; 'width; __ j, Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 88 (upon completion of proj~c:;~ :~*~a~ ~:~taci~d letter from Dunn Engineering ~k4uJtipJe Family Condominium length. ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e,, rock, earth, etc.] will be removed from the site? g/*0* tons/cubic yards ~dredge ~poil previously deposited on site. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? eyes ONo ON/A a. If yes, for what intend,~ purpose is the site being reclaimed? parking area b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? eyes nNo c. Will upper subsoil be ~t~ckpiled for reclamation? DYes "eNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? ]..51 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes "eNo 6. If single phase.project Anticipated period of construction 2 7.. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 'i c, Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases~' 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes IIINo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction none 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project none 11. Will I~roject require [elocation of any projects or facilities? months, (including demolition). month year, (including demolition). month year. DYes ; after project is co, replete rlYes "eNo if yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes "eNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sew.ag.e, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged '. ' 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes "eNo Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? OYes mhlo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of p. rgject located in a 100 ~ear flood plain? .., 16. Will the project generate solid'waste? DYes "eNo · · a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes r']No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanita~ landfill? r-lYes e. If Yes, explain nNo 22. 23. 24. Dbes project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes. explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes "eNo 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? DYes "eNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes "eNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels[' nyes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? "eYes ~No If yes . indicate type(s) Electricity for parking area li~htin~ If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/~ninute. Total anticipated water usage per day N/~ · gallons/day. OYes "eNo ',;.; "eNo Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board C1Yes City, Town, Village Planning Board ~lYes City. Town Z6ning Board IIIYes City. County Health Department DYes Other Local Agencies DYes · Suffolk ¢~:v. Other Regional Agencies t'J. annzng uOm~llYes State Agencies NYSDEC; BYes Federal Agencies nyes C. Zoning and Planning Information BNo E]No BNo BNo reno nNo Type Site Plan E lub ic Utility Use variance rarK~n~ space size variance Zoning Action Tidal Wetland Permit Submittal Date Pending 1[/9/95 pending pending 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? BYes ."3No If Yes, indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Bzoning variar~ce nspecial use permit nsubdivision Bsite plan .'--1new/revision of master plan [resource management plan Clother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? MII& R-80 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 69 parkine spaces on M-II parcel. &. 219 spaces on R-80 parcel 4, What is the proposed zoning of the site? Publ(c Utility Use $ What is the maximum potential dev61opment of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Current proposal represents maximum development 6, Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses ir) adopted local land use plans? BYes DNo 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a. V~ mile radius of orooosed action? omm rc al overnmenta n i M II) to west, Residential (R-80) to north and 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoiningJsurrounding land uses within a % mile? BYes 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum,lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require';a'fly authorizationCs) for the formation of sewer or wa~er districts? r-lyes '[1. will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services [recreation, education, police. fire protection)? il-lYes a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? I-lYes i-3No 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? r-lyes ~No a. if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ** f-iYes CINo ** see attached letter from Dunn Engineering D, Informational Details Attach any ~ddh'{~:~i information as may be needed to clarify your proiect. I~ there are or may be any adverse ~acts associat .5',,,.'~' :'u. ; '~osal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or ,~,:: d them, E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my know[edge, . , or John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S.~ p.c. as agent for the app~icant/spons _ Date 11/9/95 Applicant/Sponsor N~ne. $ignature~/~~~- ' ($ose~h Lombardi) Title Technician z/ .'. If the act~'on is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 66 Main Street Westhampton ~each, N.Y. 1197B 516-288-:1480 P,O. Box 279 108 Bast Main Street Pdvechead, New York Ii~01 Cross Sore:z[ Ferry Speed Fe:ry ~mie~ eu=e~dy cdsts ~o~ a~m~ 325. ~ou~ ~ ~ not ~mple~ a v~cle ~ ~dy of~e To~ C~e ~ f~ a ~cte o~ ~ of 4 ~s ~ 1 ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ 200 v~c,,{-- ~. doubt {~{~-~ m 1~ vol~ 1995 indlca~es that. thc flz~'t mcmh~ trip leavin?, Orient Point ia the most hca'v,3v Ioad~l, almcs~ ~ ~ capaclt7 cf' thc fcrry on ~me days. The second f~'ry trip mmewhst Ie~ fifll, rognk~ :20 to 210'/, ,,.,,a,.,. fl:~ volume cazti~d by the f~:~t lea:ry. tTui:d ~ ~ ca:tits l~s~ I'~..a 2~A of the rar~ capacity widte M~. Wiul.~ W. Eee~ F_2q, Dee2_mbcr 5, 199.5 2',m Orien~ cerr7 cvc~ fewer pas~ngcr~ l'nc myer: is ~rue of trips erri'ving from ]q'¢w Lomton. Thc le~ two trips ere heavily loaded, ~ fora'th ferry ca:ric~ Ices t~,~ 20% of its capad~, ~mt ~h~ tln~c e~rli~'c ~ps arc ooly Ii~l~ly loaded. not ~ 1995 Thc High SI)ced F~,,j ~'~ricc cxi2~t.~ cd h .,,~,,dy g~'~-'- vehlcul~ Uil~ The Dcccmt~r ';. 1995 mo~ convc~cut fcrry nnu ~re ,1,~o~ fully Loaded. The cons'~ on trafSc gcucr~icu alTCar~ to be ~.: Z~,,~ scrvic= and the desire of ImUOn~ io um, cl at ~ t/mos oflt~ day ,,-,~ ce~mln daym of th: week. Ti= proposed pmzi~ng ~ provige mor~ convenlc~ _-~__ 1~,~,,~ for those p~.U'o~ ~ ,,4,,g d~c fcrry ~crvic= Iris not ~c~,~ dmz ~ l~n of,~',,,,-~_ p=k~ will..i~, a=l of ltd./f, g~.r~ ~ u.~ ~ the f,m'y. Bv~u if -mw u~¢ im ~u~ o~i somuc f~-y mum th~ =~v u~ ~ uno ~ 8r,'-,~- .t/un tt~ ex~ ~ or,he ,~ f=ry from O~ ~ ti= last f~u-y &~, New Ba.~l on the foregoing,, thc a~vcrm to q~e~tiou (3.12 Lm ~ folluwm: above pre~e~ leve~ l~'pons=: Thc l~oj~, incrc~.~ in 6'~c, w'n/ch wouM only occur for · ~oud of two hours ~ daT, will no~ be ~iw,{~c~n~ in terms of mb= overall U,~uc ac~'=sing ~h¢ Cmr, s Sound Fer~y $i~ Ti~ =uw= is "No'. If you have =ny questions or ru:[ulm any addidona~ infommtion, ptuasu contakt me. P,.ON..~T:'O N. HU./,, P.E. L95086/ Town H=II, 53095 .%[aln Road P.O. Pox 1:T9 Sou:hold, New York !!9':: F~-~ (516) 765-3136 Telephone (5L6) 765.1938 PLANiNING BOA_RD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft ElS Determination of Significance September 16, 1996 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations caroming to Ar'[icle 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Enwrcnmental Ccnservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the 2reposed acficn' described below may have a significant effect on th, e enwronment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Crcss Sound Ferry SCTM#: 1000-15-9-10. I, '~1.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Location: FE/S State Rt. 25 at Orient Point SEQR Status: Type I ( X ) Unlisted ( ) Description of Action: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. Page 2 SEQR Positive Dec,aragon - Cross Sound Ferry September 16. 1996 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Cross Sound project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding the following issues: The project is a Type 1 action, which is more likely to require the preparation of a Draft EIS. In addition, the project is located adjacent to the surface waters of Gardiners Bay, which c~mprises a portion of the Peconic Bay Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The proposed project may impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA. in addition, the project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48+ acres of County owneC land. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the intensity cf land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded 'parking, demand for parking in connection with ferry operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking access. The proposed action may change the need and use of public and pedes- tric, n transportation services (including existing bike trail), and may increase the demand for other community services including fire, police recreat;onal facilities and utilities. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips which utilize off-site infrastructure facilities primarily including existing transportation systems. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid waste generation, Existing and proposed site drainage must be anel~rzed and controlled. Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry service will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an adverse impact upon the environment. 7 The project rdey impact visuEI and aesthetic resources, particularly as page ~ SEQR Positive Dec!oration. Cross Sound Ferry Seplember 16, 19.c6 regards lighting, and use dunng both daytime and night time hours. The proposed project may cause growth inducing aspects associated with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft ElS. The project involves multiple agency jurisdictions and permits, and the comprehensive review of potential impacts would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft ElS. 10. Impact of passenger only jet boats on marine environmenL The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Enwronmental Impact S[atement be prepared in order [o provide a means to assess the .'~ignificanca of the ~mpacts of the project, to cb[sin input from involved agencies and the commumty, acc to research possible atternsdves -=ne miticjation measures. For Fu~her Info ,rmation: Ccntact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number:. (516) 785-1938 Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeal~ Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk Cc,,nty Dept of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources &Waterfront Revitalization Division ' NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Dept. of Transpe~ation - Albany & Hauppauge offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Ar'my Corp of E~gineers Federal Emergency Management Agency p ~2'ClN G B OAi~D RICI-L~.D G, W.~P.D Chairman GEOgGE RITC~E ~L BEN~ O~OW$~, ~LLL~M J, CREMERS ~ETH L. EDW.~S Town Plall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou~hold..N'ew York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-i938 July 30, 1996 PLAN-NL~G BOARD OFFICE TOVFi%r OF SOIJTHOLD William Esseks, Esq. 108 East Main St Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM# 1000-15-9-I0.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks: The following resolution was adopted by the $outhold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, July 29, 1996: BE iT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board star[ the coordination process on this Type I action. The subject property is classified as a Type I action because it is considered an unlisted action that exceeds 25 percent of the threshold of a project or action involving the physical alteration of 10 acres and occurring substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland. The property. subject to alteration is 3.93 acres and is contiguous to County owned ' parkland. .... = contact ~his omc= if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Chairman cc: John Raynor CROSS SOUND FERRY SEQR $COPINI.~ OUTLIN'E T~is outline ~ovldes ~ scopi~ do~ment for us~ by ~ Pl~n~ng Bo~d ~utbold in det~mmmg ~he coment and f~r~t of ~e ~mft ~n~ro~ent~ ~pa~ 5tatRme~t for Cross Sound Fe~. Attache~, ~d ~oe a p~ o~ t~ outline is the Posiuve Decl~auon tot the proposed ~c~on, whic~ pro.des a brief des~ption ~[ ~ proje~ ~d lls~ sig~fic~t envsronment~ ~a~ wh~ formed ~e b~ for ~ P~i~ve D~d~a~on. o~thne h~ been prepped ~th Input ~om ~e ~mult~t to t~e PI~ ~ ~d substanttve co~en~ Irom co~m~on ~euers lre~eo up un~ ~t~ ~s omffne) ~nve ~en ~rpo~!ted imp te scope where appropriate. ~ ~e tpp~c~t should ~cogn~ ~.~9~ ~c~ agen~ ~tt i~ t ~p~at~ enti~, ~d fi~e ap~hcafions wit~ ea~ jur~o~cuon ~ o0tam ~ec~.~e~.~. pro,ss is intend~ to pro,de comprehe~ive ~d im~o~ mform~t~ f~ ~e.deRssion m~g process ~ot ~e by ~volve~.~enc~es ~ pr~i~ ~eir o~ ffn~ ~d ~ssum~ d~cis~on~ on their t~spe~ive ~rm~ts. ~ ~ ~ ~e~ntat~on aad~ l~'confo~nncc w~th Ihe intent of S~OR to ~rebens~ addr~ i~$ of env[~l . Thc do~ment should be concise but ~oro~h, ~ documented, a~rate, ~n~stem. Tech~c~ ~ormatlon ma~ be synced ~ the ~dy of ~e d~ent ~cbed ~s ~ A~endix. Renew for ~ece~t~ce or certification of the D~t ElS will tnvotvc ~evi~w of co~t~n[ ~or con~or~nce to ~e fm~ s~oRe,.?d *C~ttr~tO ?sure that correct deal in more det~t ~it~ me ~pecffic ~e~m~l ~o~ation presenteo ~O th~ ~s~s B~sed on tcview, substantive comments received flora ~]vcd a~enct~ ~ the public hearingpr~ess, ~d appropriate d~e~ion from the lend ~en~, av~ ~ ~u oe prep~e~ which w~?~nd to ~1 su~staRtive ruminants on the Draft ElS. ~e Piing Board will be res~nstble for ~e ptepttguon, content ~d accura~ of ~e F~m~ ~IS, ~d~is do.mere ~11 be used ~ a b~sts f~r en~ age~ to prep~e a Statement of ~adm~ ~d for ~se in s~rucm~g petit or approv~ dens,ohs. · Overall, the l~l.~nnln~ Board see. ks a detaned Desc'ril~tion of ~be F?po~d Froject including d~entauon o~the follo~nff: bac~ovnd ~nd~Bto~, lock.on, de~ ~d l~yout, recb~g~ h~ water supply, s~!~~ di~, ~u~tl~ o~sit~ c~e,. ~te ~c~ss,. men.sins tot op~ spnce pr~non, ~o ~te accel, i ne ~n~ro~n~ ~e~tmg ~ Pote~ti~ Si~ific~ut ~pacts secfio~ m~ be ~mbined, to discuss ~g, n~bmld ~ build condl~ons. Impacts should be ident~edas short t~m or long term. In addison, ~ sc~on s~ould beptovided whkb identifies ~mul~ve ~pacts of I~e pro~sed pr~ecc ~om~stem wtth SEQE Dr~t EIS luldclines, ndditlo~l ch~pte= o~ ~e Poten~ $1~mnt lm~ts set,on should include ~rowth ~duclng ~pe~, Irrev~stble ~nd ~rett~ev~ble ~om~tment of Reso~ces, and Effects on the Conse~ation of Ener~ Resour~s where a~ropr~ate. Adverse Impacts whi~ can'no~ be avoided shall be idemifie~n ~ separa~ se~ion. Consideration of one or more ~ternanv'es wi~ ~e required to address o~er scen~ios regard~g ke~ r~ources. The following ~utline pro.des an updated fo~m for ~e conlent and prep~t~on of ~ Dr~t ElS. TA.SLE OF CONT£I~gS AND SUMMARY A Table of Conlcms a,d a bt,cf summ~uy arc rcqturcd for Sc Dr;lf~ EIS. The Table ~ Conleats aad summsry '.vi~U thc]uric: B. C. D. DF. SCP~TION Of' TH]~ PROPOS£D ACTION ~d p~k;~ a~a ~cs ~d ~tory Of ~ ~ ~, ~e ~gO~ Of ~d~r~tCz ~d ~du~ng o~hip ind 1~ C~do ~ of ~de~tcr Iud) ~mltt~ ~d dre~ ~to~ ~h,d{~ ~h~c=t ~ S~ ~ fill ~ ~ublic need for thc pr~g~, ~d m~{~ ob~ b~d on adored dc~lup~nt pla~ .- su~ m~ddp~ objecti~ ~m ~d ~ ~ ~ ~tab~ uc~ fur t~ 3. Obj~c~i~S of the ?ojca,~r ~ c~pan~ ~ ~d ~ ~ nat~ O[ ....... 1, Estab~h Ic~ephic sltc ~ - F:oHic I~tion ~p of upl~nd ~d ~dc~tcr lands. Id~n~iiy ~a of p~bllc I~d w~& ~p~ers ~ t~ =a~ ~ ~mcr of subject pro.try, ~d ~blic ~css to t~ site ~ appropr~te. 2, ~scr[ptloa of site a~ -- R~ france ~d ~tct ac~ ~ ~ter- tchdo~lp ~ S~te R~d ~ I~ ~ fo~ p~ Description of ~tlng ~bg on ~b~c~ pm~rfics and ~ c~-c~ost p~l. C. D~IGN ~D ~YO~ 1. To~l Site ~ - dcs~ ~iM ~d ~tent~ ~te ~o aad d~e d~ feature ~or~rated hto ~e pm~ed p~. ~ ~ ~ ~ Sbucturcs - ~s~ ~cd s~u~, hd~g ~ p~cd p:u~g ~m~fling ~th e~ti~ ~ for walt~ r~m and ~a~ ~u~nt. 4. F~ki~ .. D¢~r;~ t~g and ~ par~ e~n~ nnd ~o;~d paring 5. Rc~r~ -- Present mcth~ ~ ~ormwatc~ re~a~ capa~ ~d d,~ rcq~cmcu~. ~s~i~ ~sc~ ~rnln~ ~d me~cs to miflim~ over'nd flow ~d pro'de adequate sto~m~tcr rc~ ~p~. Fggc 2 Cross Sound F~rry Draft ElS ~coplng Outline S,mit~y Dispos,~! *- Describe sanita,"y disposal methods, dcs~ llow. n¢¢dod aclditlonad capac~t?, ss *~pproprlate. Dcscr;~: sunltnry desi~i how of ferry terminal b~Ud~& snack b~' an~ residence.. 7. W~lcr Supply -- Ability ¢o mcc~ Artklc 4, pdv~t~ water s~tcm s~o~ds quarry, 8. Lan~scapM& -- Dcr~{~ p~oposcd I~apln8 to ~p;m~ or ~u~ ~d aes~betlc qu~i~ ~ro.o~d ptd¢cL CONSTRU~ION AKD 1. Co~ruct~on a) Anticipatcd ~riod of const~c~on. b) S~edule ~ ~nstru~on ~i~t~s -- Lc. Wi~dllfc scnslt~ty and ~y Ol,crat~o~ -- ~s~ fmurc m~cmcn~ of proposed ~rojcct felloWeS co~truction, i.e. m~mcn~nc~ oibuildlngs, ma~% ~, crc. AOENCI~ ~ ~PROV~ -. ]i~ ~d agcn~, ~voh:d age,cs ~d b)tcrcslod appli~iion. Dc~r~c permit biRory where appropriate, 2. 4. $. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, lT. To.~t Plannlns Board Soutbold Tow~ Board Town Board of Tr~$tccs Town Z. on~g 8oard of AppC~s Su~olk County Dcp~tmcnt of Hca)th Sconces S~Io~ County Department of Public Wor~ Suffolk County Du~tmcn~ of Park~ Rc~catlon and Consc~afio~. Suffo~ County Placing CommEsion and ~parlmcnt of ~lannlng ~cw Yot~ State Department o[ EnGronmcnt~ Consolation. Hew York S~ate Dtpa~tmcn~ of T~portation Nc w York Sta~c Department o~ Scale NOw 'fork St~tC Offi~ of Par~ Rc~ntion & Historic Prcsc~at;o~ U.S, Army COrps of Eng~cers Fcdct~ Emcr~cn~ Manngem~t A~ncy North Fork ~nv~onmcnt~ Coun~ U.S. Dcp~tmcnl of A~icvlture ~lum ~d ~ OIhcr I1. EXISTING. biO. BUILD AND BUILD EiI'~iRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Thls Section Should gcsctlbc ~st~ng cnHzonmcni~ eond~, future cmlro~ental ~n~OnS ~ the project ~ a~ implemented, and fututt conditions on~ ~e p~ct ~ c~pktcd. Idcngfy thole rc~ccs that m~y bc adv~sety c~ bcncGd~ly affc~cd ~ ~e proposed actbn and ~cq~c ~sco~ion. D~c~s ~ ~a~o~cnt~l coa~gons in sufficient detail to determine if slg~c~t ad~rsc or ~F~ impacts are c~ctcd, ldent~y impacts as Ions or sh(~tt tct~ where ~ss~le and pro'dc ~D~aIC chapter Indues dls~ssloo cf c~ulatE~ impacts. Conslslcnt ~i~h SEQR Draft ElS ~idc~ees, additional chapters Of th.~ ~oteatlal SiS~ont Impacts section ~ould inctuflc Or~'~h Indu~g ,~s~cU, Ir;~vcrslbl¢ and lr~tr;t,,ablc Commi~cnt ~r Resources, ~ E~cts on thc Conscrvallo~ of Encr~ Rcso~cc~ where appropriate. An ~ppropriatc dcs[~ year sho~d ~c sciuctcd for ~u~l,J~ng tru~c, ~;r and nolst centiliters. Cross Sound ~'er~ Dr~n IHS $~,'opl~ OutJln~ In riew of'.he De: that the ann':at operation in 'dudes a pa.qseage~/vehlcle la:try and a passenser only e.,dsling c~,:dkions will i~,4ud¢ thc c'J.'rcnt oper,~ion. In ;addition, ce;:-':in .ddklonal Dn~ b~cludin$ ~c easterly pi:cai an~l pitts of thu State right-of, way arv in u~c for parkir:$ and circulation, lad ds~'efore sho~d be dcsen'bed. Fm'thcr, o~hcr infertile:leu coecernlng cflvlronmeatal conditions coat.cd in this .,;ection shall include parcels and the State ri~C-of-s~y where it scpitatcs ~e two westerly psreel$ from thc ~'o ~sterly 1. Sut~url'~c at) ~mposi6on ~d ~c~ of su~f~ ~ · To de~ of ~V fcc: ~undwetcr; pm~dc a summa~ of test hole ~formitlo~ 2, a) List of soil t~s ~ $ugu~ Coumy Soil b) D~ d ~il ~.. Distr~utlo~ ~il t~ at prujc~ site ' M~tify ~:ta~ dune, ti~ m~h o~ s~clal fcat~ s~ as · r~ ~ d~e ~d'~ formn~o~ on ~c s~ site ~d I~ pr~i~ to 3, T~aph~ a) Dm~i~ion ofto~aphy at projca site, partlcol~rly any ~cu of steep sle~ or dr~n~e ~e~. WATER R~OUEC~ ~ ~ ~ctlon should add:ms the llslcd hsuvs ~ :bey ~K~ to thc ~te db~ for thc ¢~ci~ u~ ~d ~y pro. cd ~;. L Orou~dw~t~ a) ~l;on and dc~iFi~ of aquifers and rc~argc ~. dc~h of~t~r :able ~ ~e~,~cnt dlsc~ ~d~-surfacc water intc~-relatio~p; ~sc~r~ to w~tcr; tid~ fl~t~ti~ ff rdev~t. dct~m;fle e~ ~tet quality beneath ~ site ~ uti~pa(~ ~tcr supply d~tc~i~ ~ flow b) McntJfi~tlon ~ print u~ a~ level of ~e of ~o~d~t~ l~oa of ~sti~ ~i~lt~ e) Orou~watcr/wat~ ma~cmcnt ;egulatlons - ~ stud~, s~ ~ound~ter w~¢e. stoe~w~t ~om ~ ~ toa~ ~ ~, formation ~th&tcs ~ ~ ~ 2. Surfac~ Water a) ~scri~ any a~b}' ;urfa~ wat~ i~dudlng .~SDEC surface ch~sificatioa water qu~ity and saB~ty ,,.% cha,ract~ristlcs and ~ Estua~. ~ra~g~ dc~cri~ ~fin~ ~aln~ pattc~ on sttc ~d ~ ~ area. 4. - lou~ fl~ ~fl~ ~ ~e tubjcct ~tc and dcs~ llmltatlo~, fe~t~, a) ~t ~ctati~ t~cs on thc ~oj~ ~m a~d w;thin ~e su~nd~$ area; ~y ~to dk~oa of sltc ~t~fio~ ~mmuulty ~ vn;~u~ ga~ ~d ~d~d ~ at haMtat f~ ~dllfe c) Conta~ N~ Natur~ Herlt~e Pt~ for ~matlon ~n~rning ~qSc d) Dc~i~ habitat ~c~ ~4 b~l~l &~act~;sti~ threatened ~d s~ of s~ c~ccrn C) d[~c~ v~q~¢ ff~a ~ m~ ~flmcnt i~ ~1~ to acti~t~ ~dudcd at thc s~c~ 2. Wildlife a) PrO~& a Dst ot~dli~c ~li~ag ~ habit,ts ~ c~cd oa ~e. la.to dat~ of su~ and ~ s~cl~ i~mified on to dot. AC spcfl~ ~ctcd ~ ~tc b~cd ~ h~t t~. ~) C~t~t NGtvral HcrRqc Pro~3m for ~e r~ of c) ldcnt~y ~de~d, ~at~d or S~dcs ~ S~ thin.cd ~d s~dcs ~ s~d~ contra. a) Dc~crJ~ s~t~n~ (~ct~tcd and ~avcg~tate~ and a~at ~ ~ aud ~&ctcrist;~ b) Indicate mcth~ of d~in~tioa apd ~.c;~s conta~cd for '~;;on or ~ngcs with jurls~o~ g~ciflcaRy contect To~ USACO~. c) ldent~ nluablc [unctlo~s ofwcth.~ on slit and ndji~ut AIR R~OURC~ -. ~ ~ should ~ ~ rcsoutC~ ~ ~ ~ Page (;ross Sound ]Ferry Dmf~ Z:IS Seeping Outline blctcerological ConditJ~a.~ - descri~ ex, aria8 mctcorologlcal ~n~ti~ ~ pro~mlty to Ori~t, ~udln~ ~onal ~ds, ~bient Air Qu3~t)* - date:re;nc ~ O~ty Impact - dc~crm~c ~p~ct a~l~is ~o~ ~b~i~ ~ ~r~n mo~dc u~ qu~tztl~ meth~ ~d ~zd s~cd ~ thc field. T~td~SPORTA'F/OH *- ThL~ scion shall Jnclgde the State right.of.way ROWs throu~ thc residentlnl patc~:l and tho private ROW on the nmth~ly boundary of~¢ t~ cmtcrly parcels. Dcscr~c and idcntlfy all patties hivln~ tight to acccss thc aoflherly ROW. Identify ~oundarie$ of.~id ROW and deed restrictions to usc of s~gr~ ~ auy. L. Ex~stiag Trar4p0rtallun Sct'~ccs - ,~aparate passeuSer only scr'~c~ dar& from vehicle and pa~scag~:r service, l~sct'ibc oti~a/d~tlnafion of clk:nteJe. Deso'iba gea~ a~ivlty perils 0.e. bear./truck tra~c. Boy Rout outings, etc.). a) De~¥tion of a¢¢c~ ~ tho ~tc and ~t~nal road dtaulation. b) Dcscrigt.{on of turret level of use of.~ccs, peak ho,rs or use ~hlcle mix ~ of existing traff"sc c) Obt3]n latest trifle volume data for Route 25. in the vicinity of ~b~ pro.~ect, from tho ~w York State D~t~'lment of Transpertatlon ~NY$ ~OT~. d) Obtala State Accideat Su~llance System (5ASS) data fat the latest available three )'car ~crlod. Accldcm data tO include all accld~t~ a~oog Route thc ~ ~ ~ Route ~ and ~Je Street f.C~,.~a~ to th~ ~st~m cad of Route ~. e~ C~uct tr~c ~]ume ~ountr on Route ~ ~mcd;atuly ~g of ~ pro, ed O~m ~p ~m~ ~om O~ ~d F~ ~g~ ~d~, trip ~t~ioa ~na ~a~ ~ ~ State 2n fr~ ~c ~e~i~ of ROut0 ~ a~ Ma~ St~et (G~rO m ~e fcr~ te~ St~t (Gr~en~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~u~ to the ~ ~ a~r~ tc~ent rates. 2. ~ra~ation S~cm lmpa~ a) Hs~(c the in~c~ed hourly ~c ~lvmc to ~ ~cncratcd by ~c ~o;c:t site. diffc~fl~atinV ~ ~ pr~ecr_ ~'tcrmJnc thc ar~a ~c ~o~h fact0ts used ~ ~ iotcrscctiofl ~NYS ~out~ ~ ~ PaSo6 Dc, at Els SCOlang Outline C~tc~te thc future levels of sc~cc for Rou~e 25 Qu~t~y ~ gener~cd ~c ~m~ hued upo~ e) Dcic~mine ~cr ~pa~ such as untnt~:m~d g) ~sti~ish ~ ~ ~w ~rojc~cd) ~ p~ ~w ~om I~g- h) ~ ~q~ o~ ~ ud ~d sku ~p~meu~ to P~]~ Tr~s~on S~ -- ~ publ~ ~it se~ (~d~) e~,blc ~.e. b~, ~, ~ ~ s~t~, etc. l~ude~d~ fl~ f~om termlna~ ~nte' buxt~ ~o ~,~ fo~ pi~- up ~: ~ I0 ~. ~t~ ~ ~n~ and ~ a) Dc~pdon of tho ~ l~d u~ of t~ proje~ c) D~;~ e~ ~c~ip on ~e s;tc ~fld in ~e ~d zoning to fut~ la~ ~<e uea~ ~d ~fl L~d ~ pl~s 1. Educ~fiofl~ fadli~cs - d~ ~ f~llt~ and location ~lati~ to the toad. 2. P~l~ prote~OA · dlscu~ Icvcl Of pub5c sc~ ~ proHdud et sc~i~ O.e: s~cd c~or~m~(, park~g, ~tlo~, a~nts, ~rc ~otcctlOfl · d~uss st~t~ of F~¢ protection h~ities ~ Or~nt ~d s~tab~ s&m¢ to h:~ndlc lu~l et' haz'~trd at the site. Rc~cetlond h~i~ - d~cu~ ~etvs ~ I~ou o[ ~c~o~ (~c~ti~ ~ Orlcu~, ~du~g StSc ~d Count? wl~crs. Historlc/P~-~ic ~Cbn ~d &~ of h~ areas or Orbit. Nokc Rcso~s l~ls on ~tc a~ at p~o~fly ~ of nc~st ~ce~or. b) Establ~h appropriate c) Idcnt;f7 aoEc so~s ~atcd ~th subject usc ~d condu.~ ~l~b to dutc~m;n~ ~c~ a~ve ~mbJent noise b~<cd on e~st~S ~d b~ld con~ti~. OCher Rcs0urces ~md Impacts A. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS C. IRR~VF..RSIBLE ,AND IRRETILIEVABLE COMMITMI~NT OF RESOURC. F~ D. EFFECTS ON TIlE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ]ENERGY Rr;SOURCE$ IlL MITIGATION MEAsUREs TO MINLMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Dc,~crlh~ measorc$ to rudu¢~ o¢ avid p~.cngal adverse impucts ld~gficd ;n Section I% The foH~g Js a brief Usting of t~i~ mcMurcs ~qed for ~mo Of ~c major arc~ Of ~pa~. Notu~l GEOL~Y 1. ~ubsurface a) b) ~sc ex.rated material for land r~clamatloa u~e zopsoil stoe~pilcd durin~ COnS~Uc~on for ~Oratlou ~,t ~p~ -* ~ ad~¢~s p~tcction of duaC and ~a~ formatlous d~ ~cl ~cr construction, ~a ~ $cncral ~imize dlsturbafl~ of aon-coostructioa slt~ 4csl~.tnd ~plemcnt $0~ ~on control pl~ Pa~e 8 Cross ~ouad Ferry b) d~ ~d~quace ~d c~o~n d~ccs to pt~cct WATER O~o~d~atcr m~c natural uca~ reduce f~d arc~ dc~ s~s to pro~e adequate m;t~lton of ~l/~e~e ~mm p~ked ~d tr~c on site. 2, Surface wa~r a) ~C ~ O[ sou ~r~ion ~trol 1c~qvcS dur~ c~n and o~tatlon ~m~lcs: ~y balc~ tum~t~ rcscoradou of ~gctatien to dlst~d dc~ ~dcqUatc stormwa~er control d) pro'dc ~tback from ~ ~d ~cctlon TBRR~TR~L ~ AQUA~C ECOL~Y 1. VcSctation/~dHf~ a) ~stHct ~carlng tO O~ ~0~ ~ nc~ p~csc~ part of ~tc ~ a ~t~ aft~ co~Uuct~n, lan&~ ~tc with n~tur~y p~csc~ c~s ~;On of nat~ ba~tat e) prvHdc Eaka~cs to oth~ ~t~ and h~ita~s ptcsc~e ~ wedands ~d ~tl~od functus throu~ sc~acks ~OISE g~SOU~ L Buffers, barriers, operational initiation, tre~c m;6gacion, etc. ~cor~uraCud ~o thc projc~ ~ ncc~ to miolm;ze noise impacts ltumao A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Tran~po/tati~n sy~tc-'~, park~& ~r~t;o~ crc. a) dl~cu~ ~cr~l ~r~a~ ~tter~ pro.sod and ml~te problems. ~S m~me~ of ~[fic flow to ~d c) dc~ i~qvit~.~d ~e t~ to ptoj~ siCc to ~ p~jected ~c flow B. ~D USE ~ ZONING L E~dn8 ~ ~ ~d ~o~ng a) ~slgU p~CCt to ~mply ~th e~s~o$ la~ ~C plans b) des;~ run.hal and ~su~ly ~p~n~ fa~llty to set sta~*fd ~d pr~ccd~ for ~t~e sur~un~ ~nd use C, COMMU~TY SER~C~ 1, Pol;c~/~e P~otc~io~/~afc~ Page Drl~ £1S ~opb$ road pd~ee arcs a~l sl~It~tt lind ~ur~. Hktotic/M~cul~ - ~ a~quat* ~z~o~ of site ~o ~ for Ot~r,r R,=sour~'~= sad impact Mitlgailun A. CUMUL.~TIV£ IMPACTS B. GRO%~H I~U~G C. ~REVERSIB~ ~ [RR~EV~ COMM~M~ OF R~OUR~ D. ErrOrS ON T~ USE AND ~NSERVATION OF E~RGY R~OU~ F¢. Al)VERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CAHNOT ~g AVOIDED IF T~ FROJE~ 1S IMP~K~D ]dentlf1 those Idwrlc ~n~Onmcntat cffcc~ ~ Sc~;on IV t~t can ~ ~ctcd t0 ~te r~tr~c~ Of ~ mJtiga{io~ m~$ures cn~dctcd in Se~io= V. v. AI.;I'gRNATIY~S ~ o~ accc~able to ~c ~mpl~ a~ezgo~ that a paMcul~ ~t~nall~ K or ~ not fca~b~. TLc No Action ~lcrnati< most ~ A. ~T~NATIVE ptovi&; complete llst of rcfereflcC$ and contacts ~tilJzcd irt preparation of thc: r~potc APPI~NDIC~S Follo,~Ing is a list of matt;rials typkally used in Suppor~ of the liI$. List of ,Jnclc~lyin$ St~td~.% ~po/t$ a~ ~forma~a ~n${dcred ~ t~Jicd ~ [~ prcp~$ statcmcnL TeCtal c~iblti (~ ~y) at a lc~lc s~le. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Determination of Significance Notice of Determination of Non-Significince Town of Sou~old Board Cottt~tCf: ~naet~ Orlowskl, Chahxna~ Town of Southold planning Board ,4ddr~ss: Town Hall, 53095 Ma/~ Road P.O. Box 1179 SoW, hold, NY 11971 Date.. Ausu~t 13, 2001 i~Sued putsulmt to 6 NYCICR Pm 617 of the implemefl'dag regulafons pertaining to EnvJtamnmta] Quality Review - SEQR) of' the Env~ronmenteJ Coflser~at~on Law and Town Code of the Town of Somhold. The leed qmcy lua dmerm~ned I~ the proposed sc~on described below will not have a significant efRIcl aa 1he elwJrol~ent. This detennL.~don pmvJdee a detailed description of~e proposed project' md malines the mmic~-~G~s o~ ~he Bom'd h~ mak~g this determination: Crosm Sotmd Ferry Services, Inc. ~ Attire The site lies in t~e Hamlet of Ofmt at Orient Point, coincident with the tin.sam of NYS Route 25. Thc site consists of three parcels, idJ ~ MIFJAe 1] (l~]) zom~ and bi currant act. Jvc usc a~ a ferry tctmi,,,! for CFoss Sound Ferry Sendces, ~nc T~e subject of ~e applic~o~ i~ the 1.46 a~te Snax;k Bar parcel. · gCIT~No.: 1000-15-9-15.1 a f~av/t~{ ~ cat-c, an'yin8 wssels and w~-on pa~scna~r New Ym4c and New London, Connecticut. The fen'/route provides Cr~m Selmd gerry ~e .rv~'~___~ la,:., Side l~hu~ Approval, Soutbold m ~ inm'.dt.a~ ~ c. ce. nec6o~ and a~sists in providing aa altcrrative la ~ 1o ~ultnnm' nlm:Is, and ~o provide n,bli~ionai walk-on passenger capacity and improved ~ Cro~ Sou.ed Fen7 adl~d a ki~h.q~ed, pass.&er-only fcaT service in 0lo mid-1990's. Croe~ ~ Fef~ ~ o!I~~ this ~ ~ pa~l~ngct o/dy ferry ~rom ~le Orient Poim Terminal, pmvidin~ oonnee6~ to N~ lxmdon which serv~ as a link to t~c Foxwoods C~ino in ~ and other pm~l~et-cely dmtinatieat. This service involves sch~luled daily ~ I~d tmivala ~ ~e~asita~ ~ shot~ t~rm parking of cars for the walk-on passengers ~ ~ ~ Icrvic~. ~ tile gait aevcta] yeart, the use of this somce has stability:d, and ~ of t~ m~ice i~ c,~idemt in thc traffic ~valuafions, parldng neecL~, and IIIIIt/tl~ll~iell ituprovcme~ plan pmpo~d by Croll Sound Ferry and under consideration by C~I~IauIM F~ S~vioae, inc. n:quem lite plan ~ ~m ~e Sou~old To~ Pl~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~u~g on ~c pfo~ si~. ~ a~ition, ~ ~.~ ~l~ ~ ~ on ~ ~m p~l r~cn~ ~ ~ ~c S~ck ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~c p~l rcfe~ to u ~e Tc~ P~cel (~ ~ ~ offs ~ 25). which at~ ~si~ oriented, are incorpora~! into the sit~ plan as follows: · Coattn~t Ex~srtng ]aarklng on the Y~ck ~Or Parcel: Thc applicant bas used thc Snack ~ l~rc~l for mmtnal patt.4~,~ ami ~611 continue to do so; l~ad Re-Grading and Application of Stone/Gravel ro Snack Bar Paring Area' To ~ ~ie ~ o~ws~ ~ si~;~t ~1 ~d ~u~ ~c n~ber of c~sti~ ~, ~ S~ ~ ~ su~ ~11 b~ m-g~ ~ su~ ~ cl~ ~vel (the~e ~mp~mant~ w/Il ~mp~w ~stomer safe~ and dramage facdi#es); Curb Stop~ and ~a~ ~l Fence: Cross Sold ~11 ms~l ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~e peter of ~ gravel p~k~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~1 ~on to ~lin~te ~e ove~l parking p~ p~ ~ ~c~t by ~hiclcs; ~ Crott Wa/k: Pot tmw. hn' (/~det~an9 safety, a cross walk is p~pos~ to bc I~al~l: ~m~ ~ 25, ~ ~ Snack Bar panel and ~he Tcrmlnal Par~l (paxc~l ~eet o~Route 25 Cr~ ~lmd Il'erry ~e~'~ f4~, Sit~ Plan Approval, $outhold Part,of? Cro~ ~ud Ferry 5ethics, I~., Slle Pla~ Approval, Southold I. TII lile ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cn~ for D~c~mg Si~ifi~ce ~ co~in~ s ~ I E~ ~ F~ ~, T~c Assessm~t of E~sting Cross Sound Fe~ ~ (~ ~ 1~9, p~ by ~ ~ S~ces), o T~ '~ S~ ~r ~ C~s S~d Fe~ P~ La Exp~si~ (~tember 1997; ~ ~ F~ ~h-~i~ ~ F~ for ~e ~s~ Site Pl~ Applica~on ~r C~ ~ F~ ~, ~. (~y 1999; ~ by ~r-Scienc~ Res~ch Ass~ia~, ~ ~ F~ P~ ~, p~ by Nels~, Pop~ & V~this, LLC, ~ted June, ~1, ~ludi~ ~ ~c ~ M~ ~d~ ~ lu~ 7, 2001, . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ,~om ~ N~ York State D~mt of Tr~spo~tion ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~blic ~1 ~ ~s sup~li~ by ~ applic~1, ~e public, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e pr~ pmj~. Ad~i~ suppo~g findings ~ 2, Tie Cliletia for ~iei.~ Significaace are specifically evaluated as follows with respect to this ~ aaveme ebaz,~ ia ~ ah' quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, Ira~e or ~ Isve~; iecma~ in solid waste production', a substantial increase in erosion, grov,~ff~attr or ~rjf~ water quality, tra. O~c. noffe levels, solid waste production. ootton, leaching or dr~nag~ problems will occur. Review of the Environmental Assessment Part l.flnds that there Is no chtrnge in the site coverages between exls#ng and proposed ~til#ans, No stg~oant phystcal alt~rnation of the subject site ~s planned connectlon wtth os a ,t~Jl~lO~ of the proposed project. The EAF Addendum contains an assessment of natural · ~ concluding that no stgn~cant Impact will occur. t'ttOO/n:es with ~s )',.,~t~I,,~,~ i~'r:,3cts. ~twtlarly the Part $ EAl;.;.rt.:,'~ ~.~ ~,, ~/~ i bwn comes to a similar conclusion, ~e mn'rail Site iS 4.00 acres tn stte (with modifi~at~ons proposed only for the Snack Bar parcel) t~l is mid az an ~srlnslf~r~y terminal which has oppressed on the sub./ecs site for more than $0 .~m~. ~I~ $lt~ Ol~qmn~ ar~ currently tn e~$fence at~d serve as an Important rater-state ~por~tfo~ cortr~'tion with Connecticut. Thc proposed action will not ~:ignlfcantly change P~e 4 of 7 De~ruthitJ~ d SIpdflcince Cro~ S~mad l~er~ S~rvJce~, Inc., SJ~ Plan &pp~viZ, $outhold ~ ol~tra#ont ~ that mr qwaltty, groundwater or surface water quality, traffic, noise levels. laird wa. tit praduc, ffon, or flooding, erosion, leaching or drainage problems will occur. Review of t~ gn~tronmental /~$srntnt Form Part I finds that Ihtre i$ no change tn the site coverages b~t~etn txtttlng and protnMed ~on~#on~. No stgntflcant physical alternation of the subject site tt ~ m a fun~ttort of the propased project The E.~F Addenttum contains an assessment of natltMl resouroes with artttlysts of their relation.~ht~o to the project site, the e~clst~ng operation ~ Iht proposed lite co~lgt~oru. The following resources were evaluated: surface s~dlt/Mln~gr~phy, grmwMwa~tr, surfac~ water, dralnagt, vegetation, wildlife and wetlands. In all an~t, Iht proposed l~roJect wa~ not ea~t~ected to cause a significant change or adverse impact with r~$1~ct to t~$e r~sottrces, the a]~pllcant ntbmltted traffic analysts with documentatlot~ that ~ f~rry wm only ~q~ of sevvral sautes of traffic tn Orient Point, and adequate gaps and transportation ~vstem opera#ohs would be maintalnect At ~, ~d g_.4F Atkitrdum ~nta~ru an assessment of natural resources which included an Mhultlon of vegetarian, wildlife and wetland resources. This evaluation identified floral and fduw~l species alsocta~td with the lilt, and concluded that "due lo the lack of overall e~:tst~ng art4ltt habitat, the prot~os~d site plan thouM not result in an increase/n negattve impact to the tt~Vori~d wtldll~ ". In addt#on, iht proposed tire plan improvements will add over~a~ ll ~'tte hl~dtt:~l~'tg apld a landslips buffer and guard ra~l around the perimeter of the paring/use m'~tt/ ttdt Mil provtde additional habitat and will protect buffer plantings and non.use areas froth fr~ro~chmtnt. c, '!~ ~ of tl~ aa,A~k,m~,~d characterizes of a Critica/ Envirofun~ntai Asea as dm/lnmd punuant ~ ml~vision 617.14{g). ~ ~dl;'Ada~tt~um lr, dca~s that the tub jeer site ts witMn a Cri~cal ~nwranmental Area ~ ~r ~l~nt ~ ~omhip of th~ ~sig~on to the ~rre~t operation and the ~ lilt p~. ~ ~ly~it ~nol~ts t~t "Shoe no physical mod~caaon~ to the site are bt~ p~t~d which wlH a~t the ~lt~ of the o~tte C~ la~ the fmplementaaon of the ~ ~tte p~ t~M ~t ~sult m ~-e c~nges to the Coun~-owned C~ land. ~, tM o~t~ C~ ~ l~ted along the coa~tllne will conanue to ~nc~on as a ~r ~ ~ an tm~nt sa~a~ agai~t any threat to the Bay". ,ii 'lira ~ ofa nv,~-ii,~ Ixmflict with ~ community's current plans or goals as officially approvcd ~'[~pOtdd project kad been tmluat~d m t~rtnt of land use, zoning, and land use plans that ttaabltth a cornr~t~lty *f plan~ and goals. The project is not in conflict with adjacent land use as the north 1~ #eparat~d from the project by the e~:lstlng State highway and includes County tl~a~t la~ OhS o~I medium d~n~tty residential lot, and a uttllty pareel. To the east is ~t residtnt~al lot oontroiled by Cross Sound Ferry beyond which is other privately ~ to the we~t it the balance of the Cross Sound gerry site, b~yond which ts a trat~t~on u~# tz~soclttt~d with the .glum hland l%rry Terminal and parlang areas, and to the Is the l'rutte# a~cdd beach and u.,~rwater land which the ferry relies on for marine Page Delenmim~o~ o~ Sllll~cmce C~ ~d Irene) ~r~4ce~ lac., Sl~e Plato ApprovAL $oulhold ~/~t~porta#on In ttrm~ o/toning, the project site ~s rece~ved prtor s~ plan appro~ls 1995, ~ t~ ~t t~ co~ttent with the Ma~ne 11 zoning destgnaHon ~nd use t~l~ng t~ ~l ~att~nt R~toli~non Prog~m and the State Coastal Management a~ the P~lc ~ Prog~m we~ evalua~d, a~ it was determined that the ~t in c~ wtt~ the~e pl~. ~t u~ Is a wa~r~ependent u~e a~ ~s therefo~ wt~ ~s~l ~ ~nt ~ll~ by p~Wdtng water~epe~ent uses where ap~p~ate ~ p~ded other rt~ou~es are not a~rsely a~ected. ~ tmpaitt~m ofth~ c~tat~t~ or qual~ of important historical, atch¢ological, architec~und, or ~ re~OUr~s or of ~istinS commu~, or no~h~orhcsxt ~t~racter. At rtt~ the ;~rry terminal ts an historical use of the site which c~rrently exists, and is not lltopot~l to bt tl~O~rtt~ altered. As a r~sult, the project will not impair important cul~ral r~taur~tt or cornn~ntty/netghborhood charoct~r. It ts noted that the proposed project will result tn Intprm~ments tO site atsthetYc$ through additional landscaping in conner#on with the Snack ~ttr loarwl. f.. A:m~ elum&e ia ~he ~ of eith~ the quantity or t3q~ of ~¢rgy. ~ pro. postdproJect Involves use ofentrg3, forfa~illty and ferry operations. The pro./ect will not r~tult Ir~ a major change In the use o/either the quantity or Ope o/energy. 1~ ;~brry terrnlna! hat Irnpl~tn~nted improvements In o~rotions over the years to ensure the ~ltlt a~l safety of pat~ngtrs and site v~sltors. 7~he proposed project will re.rule in the Ir~t~m~nttnt of pedestrian movement within the .~ite through planned site improvements. ~ltlltltmaI lmprowtrntnts planned will Improve safety and services and will reduce congestion ~ tra~c tnconwra~c~ through site plan rnod~)gcat~on and long-term opera#onal tr~prowtntnts. A ~ e,~ ia U~o ag, or imo~ity of ug, of land including agricultural, open spac~ or ~ reaourc~, or ia i~ c, ag~ity to ~uppon m6sting ~ ~t tt Itotproposttl to cl~ngu stsntj~cantly; h~r, reaso~ble ~mprowment~ a~ made tn ~ ~ ~a~ ~e~ of t~ general ~lace. The planned tmprovements will allow C~ ~ Fe~ ~ l~ ~fe o~o~ tn a ~ner that will Mlow the ~ili~ to better ~ t~ t~snng ~. ~tth n~ ~ ~c, the p~ect ~ ~een sub, ecl to exte~t~ t~c t~ ~ly~t~. ~ ~g~ a~iated with the htgh-speed~r~ h~e been e~aluate~ aver a ~ of ~ at ~n of t~ ~roll ~c s~, ~rMng ~eeds e~lua~o,. Su~ey~ find t~t the ~ m~d ~ffc ~nttl on~ a ~on of the volum~ ~re~ent at the terminus o/NYS Route 2~. ~ ~/u~ ~ ~ttn ~l~nd ~r a 4.~ar ~n~ a~ Is found to be ~aable. ~e~el of · t~ ~l~laHo~ ~ ~ ~n~ndfl~ co~ao~ do nat ex~t for long periods along ~ ~ af ~tt 2~ bu~n G~en~rt ~ rhe termini. Par~ng appears adequat~ for t~e ~ ~l olde, ~t~ t~nn wlH asst~t with ~ssenger sofe~. Long-term plans ~ ~n w~t~ ~ wlH~nher t~ co~Oo~ ar the termtnus of the State highway. ~ ~ at ~ ora ~ munbnn' of people r,o a place or places for more than a few day~, e0~ to ti~ mmin~ of Ineple who would ~ to such place abseat the action. Ce~ ~m~d Ferry ~r'vto~, lat..., $1~e PI~ Approval, Soutbold 1}tr~ It no ac#on propos~ut tn conntctfon with thts project or project site t~t would attract a ~ t~ ~*~ of ~stnger~ ~ ~sttor~ ~tng the fa~ll~ for generally short amc ~t mtnut*~ to a ~. ~'~nes l~ng short-term (~tly or owrntghO ~r~ng will be ~~ by ~ng a~t~t~ ~ a~nce planning to se~e the n~eds of ~ssengers. '1~ ~on of a rn~tarial dmulnd for other a~dons lhar would result in one of thc above ~ groavot~d proJtct will not create a mat*rial demand for other actions that would eracerbate or c.r~ttf oth~r impacts. ~ in lwo or mo~ olonlt~ of lbo eavinammat, no one Of which has a si~aifican~ impact on d~ ~avimamont, but whta comkltn~ tog~- r~ult in a substantia/ adverse impa~ on the ~ gropot~d proJ#et lnvalw~ not significant physical site altera#on, and therefore will not ntmlt tn ~ombintd envlronrntntal effect. ~ ~' rear, tel~ed I~ionl undmaken, funded or approved by an agency, flonc of which has or ~ladd have a ~ ~ on ~he mviw~-~u:at, but when co~sidered cumulatively would m¢c.t l~r* ar~ no ot~r p, ndtng projects In the v~cintty of the project site which when considered ~atnidattwly with the proposed proJtct would result In significant adverse environmental Tl~ ~ ~ ha* ~ · auml~x of site design f'~amres and operational improvements which ~ ~ in ~ th~ I~ prolxnot s~ plan and fa~ihiy operations will not result in a significant ~" I~ ~'l~a~ion Inh~ ~n th~ Proj~-'t Tl~ ~ hl~ providM miti~lion through projec~ design and operational modifications, Projm ~ f=lur~ intmdmt by the applicant which shall be shown on the site plan prior to a~ro,~i ~ ~ored u follovn: · ~ of m~b ~ alm~ tl~ ~, w~'t~rn and southern borders of the Snack Bar e ~ ofa woodm or m~al 8uard rail along the I~lth of the eastern border of the Snack Bar · fOrtub ~;:~, ~?~r:~,~3 ~. r..,., to ~ d~pl~"uiom sad apply stondgravel to tho surface Ot is ~ ~/;~*~' ;~.y ~ld~la~:d action within 100 fret of Tntstees dextgnated wetlands will require ~1 of th~ Town Jln~t~tt); * ~' ~ /'ofaxts~~~adjm~ttotl~patkln~a/ca.nonthcSnackBaxParcel; · IMlall Iow i~miiy ~ -q~'y r.,~,,~g fro' pM, swisa safm'y during ~,ning hours o£ operation; and Page ~ of 7 l}etesll~at~w of Sllnifl~tece Creel ~4nmd In~rry Serv~:e~ fee., Site Plan Approval, So.thold · ~ S~il~ cto~-w~ actms NY$ Rou~ 25, for pedestrian access b~'ween the Snack Bar Patti nad th~ Tem~na~ Pare~l ~wltA appropriate NYSDOT outhort.~at~on~l, Time Inmltm~ minimize potential envitonmantal impacts to &e maximum ex'tent pr~t~eable, and ate ~ in lhe project desist These mansutes address long-term concents of the Plann~g Board with re~a~t ~o the Cross Sound Fray lmninal opera, ohs regarding drainage, a~th~cs and safety. The measm~ inc~lx~'~ into the llit~ plan improve site c~nd~6ons on a site that is already bi operation. As · t'esu~t, the site plan is viewed as ben~t~ng ~e heal~ safe~y and enviroarnental cendit~ons of the l)e~erm~t4~l ~ $i~cmncc Creed Sated Ferry SeevJce~ ~e., Site Plan Apvrov,,t, Sou~boJd P9~ l~' ~ - ~m'aem~do~ Coat$ct: Bennett OrJowdd, Town of Southokl Phnn~ Boe'd 'Fow~ Ibll, 53095 M~ P.O. Box 1!79 Sou~hold, N~ 11971 Telephone: (516) ';65-1938 C,1'~ ~tha, No,ce Sent to: ~ : ':~lrtL lqYSDEC Pqe g of'; SMITH, F[NKELSTEI~, LUNDBERO, ISLZR A~WD YAEAi~OMEI Hon. John J. Dunn Supreme Court, Suffolk County 235 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 November 25, 1997 Re: Cross Sound Ferry vs. Town of Southold My Dear Justice Dunn: I am writing for the purpose of forwarding to you a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold on the evening of November 24, 1997, together with a copy of the report of our environmental consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, regarding the submitted DEIS of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. I believe that our expert's report tritiquing the DEIS will assist you in your review of the document. Of cdtical importance is the fact that Cross Sound Ferry Service's DEIS does not reflect the Comprehensive Site Plan filed with the Planning Board on the 29~h day of July, 1996, and in fact, does not reflect a Site Plan which has ever been submitted to our Board. I believe that this deliberate deviation from the Scope Outline and from the represen~tions made to the Planning Board arid the Court is so egregious as to require immediate judicial intervention. I request that Your Honor reschedule tf3e adjourned conference as soon as you have been able to review the DEIS and the materials submitted herewith. Respe~fully FJY/rd Enclosure cc: William W, Esseks, Esq. Janet Geasa, Esq. NELSON, I:~OPE & VOOI=II"IISj I. LC Nowmber 24, 1997 Bennett Odowski, ,Ir., Chairman Town of` Southold Plannln$ Board cio Francis $. Yakaboski Smith, Finkeistein, Lundberg, Islet and Yakabosld 456 GfiEL~g Avenue, Comer oFLincoln Street P.O. Box Riverhcad, New Yore 11901--0203 Cross Sound Ferry So-ices, Inc. Review o£ Drat~ Environmental Impact Statement N&P Project No. 9'/106 De~r Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that we have reviewed the Drai~ Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) for the above referenced project received by the Planning Board on behalf' of the applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (CSF). The document consists et'three (3) volumes, noted as follows: Draft, Environmental Impact Statement Appl.'ndices for thc Dra[~ Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Study for P~oposcd Cwss Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion The Drai~r, ElS and Appendices are dated October 1997, and the Traffic Impact Study is dated September 1997. The first volume o[' the Dral~ ElS contains a Proposed Site Plan tbr the project prepared by John I. Raynor with a last revisinn date of September 1.7, 1997. This review ia intended to determine the scope and adequacy of`the document for the purpose oF public reylew. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) and the predecessor company Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. was contracted by the 'gown of Southold Planning Board as lead agency to assist with the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) administration and review of'the Cross Sound Ferry application, including recommendation for issuance of a Detemth~ation of Significance (Positive Declaration) and the preparation of a SEQR Scoping Outline to establish the scope and content requirements of the Draf~ EIS. The subject DraR EIS has been reviewed in consideration of the SEQR. Scoping Outline issued by the Planning Board as lead agency a~d dated December 16, 1996, and with knowledge of meetings, letters and associated scoplng process issues and documents. Traffic review wa~ completed by transportation engit~eers of Nelson & Pope, LLC, and other aspects oF the review were completed by environmental professionals of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LI.,C. At this time, we believe that the document is not consistent with the SEQR Seeping Outline and further contains factual errors, omissions, and required clarification in order to constitute an aor~ptable public review document under SEQR. If the Plannin§ Board is in agreement, we sullgest that this review be directed to thc applicant For revision based on the tSIlowing specific comments'. DP~,l~'r p. iii Definitions of Key Terms. Several definitions of ky terms are incorrect or incomplete and should be corrected as follows: Proposed Action; Tile proposed action is the submission of a site plan for the Cross Sound Ferry terminal, as a requirement of the Planning Board and the court, to address the change of use or intensity of use on the subject Cross Sound Facility. The particular change of use that resulted in the need t'or a site plan on the overall facility was the introduction of' the high speed terry, Sea/et. Tho applicant has in addition, proposed to expand the Cross Sound Facility to include the Trust Parcel, in anticipation that this addition would alleviate parking issues that have caused congestion and operational problems along NYS Route 25 and the terminal. This is a voluntary remedy that may address some of the~ issues, but does not preclude the need for an overall site plan as required by Article XXV, Section 250 of the Southold Town Zoning Code, the Plaanin8 Board and tho court duo to tho change of use or intensity of use. Even if the application for the Trust Parcel were not part of the application, an overall site plan would be required for reasons outlined above. The definition omits the ZBA application for increased parking on the West Parcel, and omits the Site Plan application which includes modifications on the Snack Bar Parcel. Proposed Site Plon; The Proposed Site Plan defined on Page iii and included as a pull-out in the DraiOt EIS, has never been mbmitted to the Planning Board and is now first being introduced as part et'this Draft EI$. This is not the action or the site plan which resulted in the requirement of'a Draft EtS. Project Site; The project site should be defined as including thc overall Cro~ Sound Ferry Facility, as the overall facility is under review based on thc change of use or intensity of'use, (,"rosa' ,S'ouJ*d Facility; The definition of the Cross Sound Facility omits an additional tax parcel owned by Cross Sound and adjacent to and part of the facility, specifically the underwater land parcel SCTM No. I000-15-9-16. p. x Table of Content. v, The review and organization of the document would benefit from the inclusion of a List of Figures, as well as a List of Tables. page 2 of 12 Cr~s ~ound F~rry Draft F,[S Revim,~ p, 6 Background and History. The chronology beginning on Page 6 contains a number of errors and omissions that axe pertinent to the background and history of the applications. The following changes are required: November 7, 1905; grease amend to reflect that the building permit application also included the West Parcel, SCTM No. 1000-15-9-10.1. April II, 1996; The summary of this application shoutd note that the site plan was submitted as a requirement of the Planning Board and under direction of the court. The plan that was submitted was identified as a "Preliminary Site Plan" not a "Site Plan" as required. The Long EAF accompanying the application was in fact the previous ZBA gAF, and was not specific to the n~quired site plan. This initial submission which included the Toast Parcel and the Snack Bar Parcel was found to be incomplete. July 8. 1996: A major milemone involving a Public Hearing ott the Site Plan, is omitted fi.om the chronology. July 9, 1996; A major milestone involving a written request for a comprehensive site plan from the Planning Board Chairman to Cross Sound via applicants attorney, is omitted from the chronology. July 11, 1996; A major milestone involving the representation of applicants attorney to the court that an integrated, comprehensive plan covering all of.Cross Sound's parcels was in preparation and would he submitted to the Planning Board on July 29, 1996, is omitted from the chronology. July 29, 1996: The chronology incorrectly indicates that the comprehensive site plan was submitted as a "courte~". An overall site plan is required by Article XXV, Section 250 of the Southold Town Zoning Code., the Planning Board and the court due to the change of use or intensity of use. The terminology is not consistent; the chronology indicates that an "overall integrated concept plan" was submitted; however, the plan received by the Town is identified as an "Alternative Integrated Site Plan". p. ll Prqject Desiget eatd Layout. Thc project site is identified as thc 2.47 acre Trust Parcel. The list of major milestones contained on Page 6 indicates that the pending site plan application submitted April 1 l, 1996 is "to create new parking on the Trust Parcel and in increase in the number of existing available parking spaces on the snack bar parcel". These inconsistencies should be reconciled in consideration of comments relating to the chronology noted above. The project site should identify the overall Cross Sound Facility, and the proposed project should be revised to include the Snack Bar parcel. p. 13 bb:isting and Proposed Parking. Some indication should be provided regarding the adequacy of the proposed project to meet the demand for increased parking, The parking need should be established based on employees and ridership. It is noted on Page 21, that a crew of' appmximatdy 100 workers is needed during the busiest season, and Cross P#ge3efl2 Cn~s Suund Fer~T Dr~t EL~ Review p. 63 p. 81 p. 82 Land Use attd Zoning: Exlstietg Condition. Ex/sting Non-Conforming Uses o. the Project Site. Tho document should indicate if other non-eonforrnlng uses exist on the overall project site. Land Use and Zoning: Existing Cottd~tions. C;o.formance ~ the Proposed ~'tion to ~i.~ing f~td ~v* P~*, L~. Coastal poli¢y 25 d~ls ~th the overall sce~ quality of the co~ ~m. The conelud~8 ~t~e repealing t~s poli~ in~mtes, ", , , with respect to the sites ~sto~ and its existing condition, the propos~ s~te plan co~d be co~idered ~ enh~cement and should be dete~ined consistent with Coastal Policy 25". ~e est~lishment o~p~king ~eas, ~sles, lighting, drainage and occupancy by ~ ~y ~ ~55 cars, is not ~nsider~ ~ e~aneement to over~l scenic quality as comp~ed with mr~ open sp~ ch~ter, agd~lmr~ use ~d/or vaunt land. It is noted that ~e u~ of the ~uth p~ of the site for dredge spoil will not change b~ on our understanding of thc proposed proje~. T~s policy an~ysis requir~ more discu~don in order to justi~ the conclusion. [xtncl (rise and Zoning: Existing Conditiom'. Co.formance of the Proposed Action to Existing La.d Use Plans. Orient Landraark Desigttcttlott. A statement is provided that the "... proposed action does not include the Snack Bar parcel..."; however. Page 6 the document indicates that rite Snack Bar par.eel is part of the pending site plan application. The discussion should be expanded to include potential impact considerations regarding the overall project site. Section d) on Page 8:5 should also be consistent as well as any other similar references in other sections of the document. Land U. ve attcl Zo,tng: A~#cipated Impact. Impact o, [_~ttd Use. Impact on Zoning. As par the soaping outline, this section should include a discussion ol'potemial lighting impact (diffuse and direct) on adjacent land. From a land use impact perspective, rapport should be provided in a narrative discussion concerning the use of a residentially zoned parcel for parking purposes. The discussion should include ~ review of each adjacent land uSe with a statement of the potential impact o[' the proposed project on the adjacem use. This information was requested in the seoplng document. From a zoning impact perspective, the impact and precedent setting nature of the action should be explored with respect to expansion ot'a parking us~ associated with the existing Mil ferry terminal, into an adjacent R-80 low density residential zoning district. Page 83 indicates that, "... the evaluation of the impacts o~'the proposed action ~ it relates to the zoning on this site will be conducted by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals during the course of the review of the application eurremly pending beC'ore them and therefore can not be discussed in this DEIS". The ZBA is an involved agency under SEQR and therefore relies on documentation contained in the Drat~ ElS to make their findings and decklon. Accordingly, the impact of the project upon land use and zoning Page 6 of I~ Draft ~lS Re¥1eW p. 8d p. 90 p. 93 p. 94 p. 97 p. 98 p. t02 issues is required to be discussed in the DraR ElS. The statement noted above should be removed and the appropriate information provided. Community ,%rvtces: Existing Conditions. Fire Protection withbz the Orlott Community. The seeping outline requires an account of any restrictions which may e~ist on freight shipping of hazardous materials; however, this information is not provided. Comraunity Services: Anticipated Impact. Anticipated Impact on Fire Protection. In order to maintain a safe condition on thc project site, and consistent with the Fire Chiefs recommendation and the applicants intent, it is recommended that stronger language be provided regarding the Io~ation and timing of the installation ora fire well on the subject site, The applicant may wish to make this part oftbe current project description. Visual Resources: Anticipated Impact. Please indicate if them will be a visual impact due to illumination of the land surface and/or diffuse lighting. HistoHc/Pre-lIistoric Resources: F, xisling Condition. The document should indicate the significance of any ot' the existing historic structures on the overall project site, ~s per the seeping outline. Noise Resources: Eristing (?onditlotl. Anticipated Impact.. The Noise Impact Study included as an Appendix was reviewed in detail and comments are provided in a separate section below. All changes in study methodology and/or conclusions resulting from revisions should be accurately reflected in the text of the Draft EIS. It is noted that Page 97 of the Draft ElS indicates ambient noise was determined at the property line of the nearest receptor; however, the location of ambient noise data collection points is not specified in thc Noise Impact Study. Cumukaive Impacts. The definition used in the pre-amble to this section should reflect a SEQR related definition of cumulative. Identify the rationale for discussion of cumulative impacts, and provide a condusory statement based on this rationale and analysis. Mitigation Mea.vures to Mininli:e £'nviromnental Impact. Provide mitigation for removal of soil tbr installation of drainage systems. ~1'' r~4 ~tiC [~:~ ~ '.5~,'ation or changes in mitigation that are necessary as a result of' revised im-~,,/~ ~': 2.'_dy~is ::..z:c'~, d be reflected in this section. p, 107 Mitigation Men,cures. lh~ers and Barriers. The method for installing shields or other physical barriers to restrict transmission et' construction noise, should be stated. This comment is extracted from the 'Noise Impact Study which is reviewed separately, Draft p. 113 Adverse 'Ett~ironmental ~lffects that Cannot be Avoided ~f the Project is Implemented Additional adverse envlronmental affects should be noted as necessary based on the revised impact analysis. Areas which may require listing in this section include; soil removal and construction impacts, impact on transponatlon systems, impact on community noise levels and land use impacts due to precedent. p. 116 Alternatives. The Drag ElS should provide a more detaaed analysis of'the integrated site plan. 5coping documents and Planning Board input are clear in stating that an integrated site plan of thc overall Cross Sound Ferry site is a preferred alternative. Since the proposed project has not been modified to rellect integrated site design, an honest evaluation of the integrated site plan alternative is required. It is reconunended that eflbrts be made to develop a concept that will coordinate site use, improve safety, circulation, access, and long4erm objectives of the Planning Board and project sponsor. Reasonable efforts should be made to resolve those issues bulletcd on Pages 116-1 [7, in order to prepare an integrated plan. Contact with NYSDOT toward achieving integrated site design should be documented. It should be noted that poss~le coordinated improvements do not need to occur all at once but could be phased. Mitigation for pedestrian safety, coordination with the Snack Bar parcel referenced on Page 6 as well ~ in Alternative B (Page 118), need for cross access fi.om ROute 25 through thc Snack Bar parcel to the Trust Parcel, and other aspects el.overall facility use, all ampli~ the need ['or integrated site design. A realistic plan tbr integrated design should be prepared and submitted, and used as a basis for analysis. This request is consistent with the seeping documents, meetings and input from the Planning Board. 118 Alternatives. Alter~tative Par~ingLot Size. The combination of the Snack Bar and Trust Parcels is discussed in this alternative; however, b'~sed on Page 6, this is actually the pending site plan application under consideration. The integration of these sites should be provided in graphic form and discussed and analyzed hs the proposed project consisten~t with the pending site plan application. APPEP~DICES FOR THE DRAFT E[~ N__qi..se Impact Study A-153 F~i.vting Condition. The second paragraph indicates "... noise r~adings were performed in the vi6nity oF the two sensitive receptors in the study area, identified as the two residences on the north side of Route 25 opposite the terry property". Figure B is intended to present the locations at which the readings were taken; however, each house itself is identified in the figure. Antbient noise levels should be determined based on readings at the residential property line, as the use area el.adjacent residents includes yard areas. I55 ,[ZxtM/rtg Coodilion. The statement, "As can be seen, ambient Leq readings oF 53 and 54 dBA prevail during times of'low activity at the terry...", is not supported by Table A, which does not include Leq levels below 54. Page $ of 12 Crl~ ~und Fer~y ]}cart Ets A-I$7 A-159 A-159 A-t6! The last sentence indicates that insect activity contributed significantly to ambient noise levels. Insect activity may therefore falsely elevate the Lcq, as insect activity is not expected during all seasons or during all times of the day when ferry and parking lot activity could cause a perceptible '~ncrea~c above ambient noise. This issue should be resolved. Tab/eA. Thc method of determinatlon of Leq should be indicaled, including, the date of readings, the number of readings, the frequent7 of measurements, etc. Were readings taken at a time when the Snack Bar parcel parking area was being utilized. Parking Lot Noise. The statement, "This noise impact is generated by the existin8 operation, which is of considerable greater magnitude than the expected in.tease due to the proposed action." is not supported. The parking lot is nearer to the receptors (pa~!cuhr!7 Receptor ~) than the c::rr'2nt operation. The next paragraph in tho report, which concludes that the impact is expected to be I~s than 3 dBA, is not supported. If necessary based on analysis, please provide a method of mitigation of site generated noise. Traffic Noise. Please provide a rel~xence for the relationship between traffic noise and an increase of 3 dBA. (;onstructio;t Noise. Please discuss how shields or other physical barriers will tm used to limit construction ooise. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The following is a page by page discussion of the review of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates (DEA) for the Crf~s Sound Ferry project. Based on this review it appears that the analysis performed by DEA cloaks the potential impacts associated with the CSF traffic. Detailed comments are provided below based on page numbers front the Traff~c Impact Study: lz 3 Study Procedures'. Provide a discussion and hourly tabulation of the existing parking accumulation at the site and an analysis of the proposed conditions. p. 6 Description ~f Accesx for the Site aim Internal Road Circukttion. A sketch of the existing and proposed parking and staging areas wotdd be extremely useful in reviewing Ihe document. F7 P,,:'a:;<; F '~vide a description of parties having right to access the northerly right-of-way, as well a~ ooundarics and d~d restrictions associated with this right-of-way, as per the scoping outline. Ronte 25, Exislilzg Conditions. Provide source tbr 1996 data. Clari~ AA.DT md ADT, The discussion oFNYSDOT volume data and summer volume data is difficult to follow. Cross Sound Ferr~ Draft £[S Review p. 9 p. 13 p. 14 11. 16 £. 18 p. 28 £. 3O p. .to The nature of traffic issues, parking issues and concerns shou[d be indicated in this section. Please discuss heavy track traffic. Boy Scout outings, etc.. as per seeping outline. Cross $olmd Ferry $ervices 7?affic ver. ms Background Traffic. Provide computations and source of the data for thc calculation of Cross Sound Feny traffc. Provide the occupancy factor and its Source. During tho computation ofthe existing CSF traffic what was the capacity of the boats? Based on review of Figures 2-7, it is noted that the O~ent terminal traffic is a major contributor to the volume during most of the day; however, the text indicates the contribution of Orient terminal traff¢ is "minimal". Thc traffic study should include and clarify this informatkm. Vehicle Mix, Route 25. Vehicle mix data provides is for weekday only, Provide vehicle mix on the weekday and for Saturday and Sunday during the peak ferry activity, Accidem Summary. As per the August 18, 1997 meeting with DEA and N&P in attendance, provide Police Department Accident Data to supplement SASS data. The definition of non-reportable accidents should reviewed and determined if it is correct, ir so then clarify the Table 3 description on Page 16. Accident Rates. Please indicate the nature of improvements performed during tho NYSDOT project to improve the traffic accident rate - provide a discussion. 1996 Report Accide,ltS. There seems to be an acc[dent severity problem as well ~s an issue with drivers ~alling asleep. 7 Day Traffic ~blume Counts for Route 25 Immediately West of the Prop~xsed Project. As indicated on Page 57, thc ferry service increased from 1996 to 1997. Tho 1996 traffic data collected needs to be adjusted to account for this sRuation. Availability of Public TransT~ortation. Please indicate the rider'ship of the S-92 bus, if known. What are the travel times to intervening poipts (Tanger, Riverhead, Greenport)?. Compare cost &the Trolleys of Long Island with the ferry walk on and drive on tares. Trip Passenger and Vehicle Data. In regards to the vehicle occupancy of the CSF, there are discrepancies between the data presented on Page 30 versus the information presented on Page 40. The data presented in Table 9 varies from that indicated in the tcxk this information must be clarified as it provides the basis for the traffic analysis. The vchldo occupancy must be computed during the peak departure times presented on P~'.',z 4L Irt addition, the occupancy of the boats during the peak times must be provided ;.;ase:~ c*n these discrepancies, it appears that there may be an understatement of thc veh/,:o2av truffle ~enerated by the cgK Additionally thc date/day and time of the manual counts must be providcd. Finally there is a discrepancy in the report nomenclature in both thc figures and the tcxt~ re~ardln§ the Sea Jet aud Sca Jet ~. It is assumed this is thc same vessel; however, it is cx~nt~i~g and should be clarified. Page 10 ar 12 C~s Sold F~rry p. 41 Ia. 42 p. 43 p. 49 p. 53 p. 54 p. p. 59 p. 61 p. 64- p. 72 Peak Hours of Use. Figures 14 through 19 have no correlation to the CgF activity. Please provide the correct information. In addition, the computations for the vehicular traffic should be provided. Auto Vessel/High Speed Vessel. Please provide a t~ble of boat size, capacity and capacity during the survey as mentioned above, similar to that which is provided on Page 20 of DraR EIS. Sources of Existing Trcr.~c, Cro.v.~ Sound Ferry Services. The intbrmation presented in the last paragraph ks unclear and needs to be revised. Sea,venal Variation. Pl~se provide justification for the Route 25 seasonal activity. Non-Motorist Activin. Please provide sources for the non-motorist activity analysis. On page 53 the Route 25 shoulder is lisled as 7 feet while on page 54 it is listed as 8 feet. The analyses need to be recompiled using the appropriate shoulder width, Tranaportation: Anticipated Impact. AnticipatOd l,'ulure Traffic Growth. The computation of the ferry growth neglects to include the increase in ferEt activity in 1997. This appears to be significant since ridership increased in 1997, 11.6% over 1996 levels. The growth t~actor needs to be recompiled including the 1997 data. F_.s. timatfon of Traffic Volume following Constr~ction of the Propo.~ed Actio,. The estimated traffic by tho propo~d action needs to be recompiled based on the comments raised above. Based on the information presented it appears the impacts associated with the proposed project may by masked due to the tier that the analysis does not analyze all o~ the peak CSF times indicated on Page 41. An analysis needs to be prodded which investigates these periods as well as the highway peak periods. In addition, justification for the distribution of passenger growth should be provided. Additionally, a table of' the arriving/departing CSF hourly traffic existing and proposed with an indication of' boat capacity should be provided. Quantificotiott of Project Site C3enerated Impacts Based upon the Level of Service Calcatlation.~. The analyses presented in this section requires revision based on the comments listed above, The analyses as presently compiled, indicates that further analysis is required to properly assess the impact of the CSF traffic. Critical intersection(s) must be studied and any impacts identified, In addition, mitigation must be provided for all locations which display a change in Level of' Service since ~'cwer gaps will be available at cross streets and driveways, Pa~e I1 of 12 Cross Sound ~erry Draft £I$ Review p. 73 p. 74 p. YS- p. 79 /L~sessment of F_oasting and Propa~ed Site lmprovemenl$. The meaning of pedestrian "sanctions" should be clarified. The saoping outline required a detailed deseriptlon of the pedestrian environment, including, pedestrian flows from terminal to boats, boats to parking for pick-up areas, parking to beach, eta. This should be discussed more fillly to provide a basis of understanding for analysis and implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Deterratnation of Safe Traffic Flow Vobtrae with Respect to Cyclists and Pedestrians. Comments relating to pages 53 and 54 must be included in this analysis. Transportation: Summary. Thc summary needs to be revised incoqoorating the information listed above. If the Planning Board is in agreement with our analysis of the Draft EIS, it is recommended that the document he revised to address these comments. We find it advisable to at,bruit a revised document rather than submission of an addendum whieh tends to be more contusing during the publJo review and comment process. The consultants on behalf ~f the applicant should review the revised document for consistency. In cases where revisions in response to comments o~ur in several parts of the text, the changes should be consistent throughout the document. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the Town Planning Board in review of this Draft ElS. Please feel flee to call should you have any questions. Very truly yourS, Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Page 12 of 12 Mr, Cremers: Mr, Chairmag, I'll corer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southoid Town Planning Board'accept the report of it's environmental consultant, Charles Voorhls, di~ted November 1'4. q997, Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr, Orlowsk~: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? those, In ¢avor? k~/es'. Mr, Orlowskl, Mr. Ward~ Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr, Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. SITE. PLANs - STATE"ENVIRONMENTAL QUAI FrY REVIEW ACT Draft Environmental Impact Mr. Orlowski; 6ross ~und Ferry- This proposed site plan is to add additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Et. 25 In Orient. SCTM# '~000-15-10,% '11,1. '15.1 &' ~.5, At this t~me I'd like to make a motion. : WHEREAS, this Board on July 14, '1995 determined that. the applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. was required to seek revised site plan review for its ferry terminal operation at Orient; and WHEREAS, an action was commenced to enCorce this Board's resolL~lon tO such efCect;.and WHEREAS, the appilca'n~, upon direction rthe Court and this. Boardl prepared and filed a sire'plan On April l'l, 1996 which was.deemed lncamplet~ In 'that, among o.{her things, the ~ppllcant had not Included the entire site In its sl~e plan; and WHEREAS, this Board required th~.t the'applicant submit a site plan encompassing the entire fern/terminal sltb; and WHEI~EAS; the ~.ppiicant thereupon represented:lo the Court and this BOard that -an a'll-ef3compasslng site plan" wduld 'be .prepared'and SUbmitted: qn. July 29, f996; and al'lQ submit such a elto.clan oh July'29; ~996; and WHEREAS, upon the submission Of said comprehensive site plan this Board 6 Nov~o3ber 24. 1997 commenced the ~EQRA review process, determined that this was a Type I action, isst~¢d a Posit. rye Declaration, and ultimately adopted a Scope Outline ori the '16th day of December, 1996: and WHEREAS, applicant, has submt~ed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement purporting to be in compliance with the Scope Outline; and WHEREAS, this Board and Its environmental consultants have reviewed the Draft Environmental:Impact Statement; and ' NOW, THEREFORE,-BE IT RESOLVED that the Draft Environmental Impact St.~tament submitted by Cross Sound Ferp/Services, Inc. on the '15th day of October, 1997, be and hereby.Is deemed incomplete; an:l This Board 'finds, among other things that the site pla~) submitted.with the DEIS Is a plan which has never Peen submitted to this Boa~d and which plan, If It had been submitted to this Board, would not. have been accepted; and Is not a site plan which encompaSSes the entire ferny te[mlnal site; and B~ iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is hereby directed :~o complete the ODS In accord'with the'adopted Scope Outline and which revised DEIS must consider and answer the concerns raised In the report of this Board's consultants, Nelson, Pope & VOorhls, LLC, which report Is dated the 24th d{]¥ Of November, ~997. Mr, Cremora: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowskl; Motion made and seconded. Any quCstlons on'the motion? Thor Han.~en: Are we open for comment and questions here, or is that for you? Mr. OdowslrJ: That'.sJust for us. Mr. Hanson: Wa'Ii.have a chance though to relic ,wOn':t.we? Mr.. Latham: One. question.from me. It says on our program, "the proposed sfte pi'an is to ~dd'addttlonal Parking.to a previously ~¢proved ferry terminal". What' does that mean? Mr. Kassner.. Well, we have a.prevlo~sl¥ approved site plan, Mr. L~tham: We didn't approve the ferry terminal. ~ut~ld To~ Pbnnl~ ~:~ 7 November 24, ~997 Mr. Edwards: That was for the employee parking site, Mr. Latham: Well, it doesn't saythat, We didn't approve {he whole terminal I just want to go on record r~ying that. Mr. OrloWS~: The records wlil note that that Is not exactly what we're discussing, We're a.ctually diScussing, the whole site and the total site plan. Mr. Latham: We did approve part of It, not the whole thlr~g. Go ahead Ben. Mr. Orlowski: Motlon made and seconded. Ail those In favor? Ayes: Mr. OrloWskl Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremora. Mr. Ward: I abstain. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward abstained, Motion carried. Mr. Hanson: Do we have a chance to ask a question or two or maP, e a comment? Mr, Orlowski: You can ask a question. What would the cor~ments be? If it's anything abou~ the DEI$; that Is ~111 Doing reviewed and we havenft deemed' it complete. Mr Hanson: We that understood, I think from when you read your piece there.'But I did read the Voorhls report to you and'l do have a question or two on that but.. Mr. Orlo...wski:iwe have a new report from Mr.' Voorhls that.came in this aftemo.on,' and It's an updated report and you can get ~ copy of mat tomorrow rn~ming, probably after l'O.o'clOck. Mr. Han~en: Well that's.perhaps why Your 'Wherea'se~" ;are.different then they,Wou d 'ev~"h~ve. be~n' from the Voorhls ~eC)OCt I ~e seen. ' Mr. Orlowski: Yes, we changed it to.,. Mr. Nansen: This new one Is saYlhg', what;I don't understanq, Because.the thing that I wanted to.ask about ts that toe fleet Vborhls rePort, a~'Y. ve read ' Mr. Odowskh You'll have to stand up to the microphone. ~utl~old frOWn Pbnnlno ))~lrd 8 Nown'~er 2¢. 1 Thor Hanson: My name Is Thor Hanson,. and I'm the President of SCSR, As I rued it, said that tho ~er~ would only. have to submit a go .mprehenslve site plan on all four of the.properties, all four parcels, as an,alternative but not as the prlqclple, or whatever ygu call It, Ge principle submission, And does this new one change that and maXe It monger, because I'm worried If= It doesn't make it stronger that t.hey must do that. I wou!d think We might fall Into the. same trap that it seeme, d to me was set and the Planning Board fell Into bacl~ In ~996, at the 29th of July meeting, of accepting a not complete slte p~an. . You've accepted a very small part of the site plan and said'you would get It worked out In SEQRA, and that hasn't happened. ~t Is.thts new ¥oorhls report stronger?. Mr. Odow~kJ:' Weli.'l tl~lnl~ the resolution In:itself states that there was a complete site plan at one time and now ~t does not seem to exist, .The Voorhls. report, I think will show and make referenda that that's what we're looidng for. Mr, Hanson: I don't know what you're...wnat w.aa ~he complete site pla.n that night ortho 29th? .There were three of themslttlng backhere. ?he one In, the middle was the. one that you had rejected three weeks before, And the one on this side was a concept, it wasn't a alto'plan, and It was quite clear that It wasr~'t. And the other one, that was asia ~GO~C Of.aS IS. And as I rec~l), you accepted the one, i'm quite sur~, the one InUne middle, that was only on the parking Iot,'not o.n the whole operation, Mr, Orlowskh We .~ever acceptS. Mr. Hagsen: Well, you tc~Jk I~ for putting Into'SEQRA. And 'the words were 'SE ~ '. ...... ' QP, A, it will all come out In the SEQRA, don t worry about r~', and the ferry h~s f=ought tb~t ever since. Mr. Orlowskj: It wouJd come out (n the'alternatives. Mr, Hanson': t'es,, now all I'm wondering'is,, is it sill( to. be'an'alternative that he ferry must:submit ofliy aS an'aiternativ~ a'corAplete sltelp an. on ill four lots? ' · ' ' ' .' Mr. Hanson; ..Well/.an'~ltematlve to us could 6a:thfksite plan. it depends on the dedIsl0n that.:W, e make'as.lead agency.' B~t they have to submit this alternative, I thl~k if y6~'go'babk'a~d recall, th6y didn't ~flt tO ~o any ~ that. ' ' Mr, Hanson I've got a letter from the r lawyer, Mr. Whelan, to Mr, YaksboskJ, 9 ' Nove~nber 24,1997 dated october 2, 1997 In which It says in partlc.ular ...this is to Frank Yaka~usld,' Cron Sound obJect~ to any assertion that it submitted comprehensive, integrated site plan on JuJy 29, ~996.' They say they.didn't. They did not. Mr.. Odowski: W~ll, our resolution is pretty specific and we say that. they did. And that was a site plan. Mr, Hanson: Which? Mr, Odowski; That one that was submltte~ on July 29, 199.6, Mr. Hanson: But there were three. Mr, Orlowsk'l; That's right. Mr. Hanson: Which one are we ta[Idng about?. The one In the middle? Mr. Oriow~: The one that encompassed..,I don't know which.side it was on, IL encompassed the whole site. Mr, Hansom (inaudible) and it was very clear that night that It wasn't a complete.site plan, Itwas a concept, And as I recall, the~61anntqg BOard accepted, really, the site plan mat was on two lots add you sent.all three of those out tO all the State agencies and Interested partles:' But; the one that was accepted; and that again is right In this letter, as. I;m sure the Planning Board minutes for that day will reveal, the Planning Board explained to the public that the concept plan was Just that, a c.oncept and:. not an' o¢-flclal site plan since:.lt was missing all of the necessary'elemeh~s for a si~e plan and that tho Plann!flg Board was going to start the lead agone/process bas'ed upon Cross Sound;s submission and not the concept plan. That submission 1 would cr~r, was on parking lot only; the new parking Jet and the'snack bar lOt. ~¢c~v, th?y .have.. ne~er; eyer. and since that.tlme'th~y:veis~ed' the Town In , saying that:you don't have the authority id.make ~h~m ~o ~ ' comprehensive.site, plan. My questioh .to you Is, how When you send this back, are you going to make that clear so they will submit a complete alto. Plan, a Compr~hbnslve on.all'fou~ ~ots, because thee'ye ne~e~ done It yet. Mr, Orlowstd: Well, We!re b~cfore thejudge right noTM reTinal thls OUt, The judge is (evlewIng the'DEISipersonally. He will be reviewing Mr. Voorhls report and thO'alte, rnati~es'ln this D~is could be viable documents later on, Town pL~ nn~ 10 No~ernbar 24, 1997 Mr, Hanson; I don't quite understand how the Judge - it's not my understanding that he Is reviewing the bbS, maybe he Is - but I understood that your action in sending it back meant that It Is nat ready, the DEI$ is not ready ~or public comment. Why would theJudge be reviewing It if it Isn't even accepted yet? ~a~ I don't'understand. You did have a hearing tomorrow, but he's canceled that, Mr. Odowskl: Yes. he has, and I don't know why, but I was tOld It WaS because he wants to review the DEI$ personally, Mr, Hansen: And he has a copy ce this? Mr. OrlowskJ: Yes. Mr. Hanson: Well, that, s Interesting. I knc!W it'~ a public.document, we asked it to be one, But as I'understood It, from the VOOrhls report i've seen,' It said In there that It 'Is not ready for public review..But you're telling me that he's. reviewing that site plan, that foot thiCK document... Mr. Odowsld: He's theJudge, Mr, Hanson: ...which is ~ery incomplete,, as you know. You're going to be sending it back. Mr. OrlowskJ: That's right. And we're going before th6 JL~dge tO say that It is Incomplete, We've adopted this resolution basiCally stating what our . problems are with It, which will go along with Mr. VOo~his new report that · you can pick up tomorrow morning,and hopefv. IIf we ![:get his a~tention to understand these mat~ers a whole Iot'better. But he Is theJudge and if he's reviewing it, and he wants to review It, he can do that. Mr.'Hansen: Well, that's the first I've heard that he.'s reviewlqg It.. Mt, Orlo.wsl~: Yes, I heard It myself this morning. Mt, Hanse~: can you tell me who you heard it from? Mr, Odcwsld: From our attorney. M~.'Hansen:' Well, I' talked to ours this morning"and he knew nothing about that. Maybe he is, Mr, Orlowskt: Well, that's what our attbrney told us'so i'm sure he mu~t have totci yours the same thlng unless theJudge Is telling two different stories. Mr, Hansen: Well, he hadn't [as o.f this afternoon, Welt, this is van/ Interesting. I'm Just very worried - the thing that has really worried our groub and a lot Of us that;up'm now th.e ferry has adsolutely refused, stated right in this letter too, they refuCe to say that they ever submitted a comprehensive site plan. Th'ay deny that theV'dicl. And It certainty w~sn't comprehensive, the one that you accepted that'night as a Planning ,BOard on the 2gth of ;lulv, It was onty on two lots afld that was it. That other was a. concep~ and the fern/is denying t,hat it, was a sit,~.plan. In fact, Mr. Esseks Stood up that night and said, ;we can't submit that as a ' site plan, it Includes Rt, 25, We don't owh that. Mr, orlowsld: Well, I think t.hat this all encomphsslng site plan. we were told would be prepared and submitted - all'encompassing.' Mr, Hansen: When? Mr, O¢lowskl: On July 29, 1996. · Mr, Hansen: 1 don't think so. The one you accep(ed was. not all encompassing, it was on two lOtS. Mr. O~lowsl~,. Watt, I don't know It= You want to tell the JH~ge that, but I think the j~dge is going to have to look at'and believe what we tell him, .We have accepted that as an alternative and We want to see It as an alternative. We've asked for it as an all encompassing, and they're going to hage to produce it. Mr: Ha~se¢: ~Vell,.that'was my real question Why did you a. cceP~,i[ as an alternative and not. demand.to get,the real one? Mr. Orlows~l: Well, to be p.erfectl~ honest, they might have Just said forget about It. · ' - ' Mr. Hansen: Well then What wau d you do, go back.,. Mr, OrloWskl: W~ll:then' .'d . . we .have another action, fthlnkthere's seven or nine legal actions Involved already on t~hls One application, Mr. Hansen: Well, I'm baSlcalt~ cont=used right now about wiper's going on, having not seen ~he new Voorhls re~ort. As I sald beCore, I came In here t2 . hlovnm~r 2~., '~g97 (inaudible), because of mac[lng the first Voorh[s.report that. you we're going tu ~e accepting something that seemed to me not very strong. Has he changed such things as the first one when it says, it doesn't say you m. ust submit a complete site ptart, It says.., M¢. Orlowski: I would suggest that ~ou pl~k It up tomorrow and review, that. Mr. Hansen: Nrlght. Mr. Orlowski: I don't even have I~, here with us right.now. Mr.'Hanson: .The wav this OKI one was wdtten Is 'it should have' ' we recommend'. But It doesn't ever say 'you must' and it has to be resolved. It was very weal(. , . Mr. Odowskh Well, thls process right here Is between the Planning Board'and Mr, Voorhis and' Associates to produce a document that Is a viable' document. Som~tl~l~g that'we would like to see, ~ncludlng the alternatives In thi~ DEB. Being lead agencY; we have every right to ask for It..It was,. as Iii clearly states here, was presented to us and as It.was.presenteQ to us I don't care'if It was an alterna, tive or a composite drawing, or whatever you want'to. eall It, It was put In front cf us. And I think we have'every tight to esl( for that-again, so that's what we're going to ask for. Mr. Hansen= Well,'l'm sure you do. And:You got the. second Voorhis report tibet ~bu asked him to do it and make It stronger, Is that it? Mr; Orlowsid; Yes. Mr: Hans, em OK,.WelI ~he one thing, I was looking.at tMI.s ~ow, I don't think, I ~ow.theY never'submitted a coroprehenslve $iteplan tti~it'nlght. ItJU~. wasn'~ d. one. It~ was.a concept and:it was sitting over tl~ere and. triey denied It was.sUDrql~ed.and some of us stood, up and said Vrmt tsn't corn/piety, sorry, don~t take' It, 'it's the same'one you turned dow~ (Inaddibie):WeekS age, the one'i~l the (ir~aUdlble). And they.wbuldn't ...the ferry subm.¢Ced that (Inaudible). That was not comprehensive. IF that ~ys I~ here,'ln one of these 'Whereas'es', I would submit tO you that that's wrong. Mr. Orlowsld: Well, you wouldn't want us to have a comprehensive site plan? Mr. Hanson: I want I~; very'much. Il Just want to make sure tha~... · Mr. Orlowski: OK, i would probably Suggest that we not t"igh( this issue November 24, '1997 beCause'l think we're .on the same ~rack together: and I believe thai: In doing It Lhis way, in asking for It as.an, alterna.[Ive, we have every' right to do In the SEQ~A process and like I told you In the. very, yew. beginning, the $EQP, A process In a process that we've all been through, and myself many, many. times; and sometimes'to get where you want to go you've got to go tn a different direction than straight ahead. And thlsis probably the best way to do It. And this. resolution - I guess you can have a.copy of this tomorrow.~oo - prett~ well states that. And Chlc's report folloWS It up and before the judge Is t:lnlshe~ readlhg this DEI$ he'll have'both of them In front of him tomorrow morning. Mr, Nansen: Well, I hope you're right beCBUSe my. Coaling Is that ii: this Planning Board does. not dam. and and receive a c. omprel~enslve site plan on all four paFcelsand have an.envlro, nmental'lmpact staiement done on all four parcels, you will be violating SEQEA and, you ~vill be violating the trust the Town. And.so I hope that's what you're aiming for and I hope that you're able to get It,. but so far we've gotten nothing out of Cross 'Sound Ferry. but a very, very )ncorfipleba site plan, or you wouldn't be sending It back. Mr. Orlowski: That's right. And If we can prove that. to theJudge the next tlme we all sit clown together, we might have'a'lot of support with'the Judge sitting there, and that's our InTent. Mr. Nansen: OK, well, thank you very much. OTHER Recommendations on Business Uses Legislation Mr, Orlowsld: Moving on, Recommendations on business uses legislation, Does anybody have a comment here? .Mr. Cremers: We strongly recommer~d after this law Is adopted that re- bons!d~mtlon, be glvbn to revising the format Id which the proposed i:ocal Law is written. ' To wit,. the references to other sections of the Zi3nlng Code either should be eliminated and:subycltut~.~vlth'.the actual text, or s[i6uk~ be m~de more' specific by referring to the applicable sub-sections, e;~.' ,,,as set'forth and restricted by Sec."[O0,~ A, (I) Or Sec, I00:5'~ c. (5) ~ristead oFJust $ec.'~00- 3~ A. The Board prefers the Inclusion of the actual ~ext over a reference In order to make the Zoning Code more ~user-frlendly' ~ the general public. The FI,et .... ~n~e.~t?~ ._,j, Directions I Comments Take the Seaway Ferry travelers can go to Foxwoods Resort Casino or Mohe~3an Sun Resort Casino by using a shuttle bus service available for certain arrivals in New London, See schedule details on this page to determine which departures from Orient Point will be met by buses. Each casino provides a Bonus Value Packaoe to those travelers going to the casino via the fen'y/bus service. Sea Jet Many, but not all, Sea Jet departures from Orient Point, Long Island are met on arrival in New London by buses to either Foxwoods or Moheoan Su~n casinos. The 8:00 am and 10:00 am departures from Odent Point are met by buses to the casinos seven days a week. The return times from New London are at 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm. The 8:00 am departure gets you to Foxwoods in time for bingo. On Saturdays and Sundays, there is also a 12:00 noon departure from Orient Point that is met by buses to the casinos, returning from New London at 9:00 pm. There is 12:00 noon service seven days a week from June 8 through September 9, 2001. Overnight Trips On Fdday and Saturday evenings, the 8:00 pm departure from Odent Point is met by buses to the casinos, retuming from New London at 7:00 am the following morning. The 8:00 pm departure will also have casino bus service on December 31,2001. Buses leave from the casinos approximately 45 minutes to one hour prior to the scheduled ferry departure time. Fern/travelers may change their scheduled return time by making arrangements at the casino Bus Marketing desk upon arrival, subject to availability. Those wishing to return on a different day may do so. In this case, the same day round trip fare does not apply. The fare for adult same day round trip on the Sea Jet is $25.00. One way adult fare is $15.50. Bus transpodation is provided free of charge by the casinos and parking is free at Orient Point. Bonus Packages Each casino provides a bonus value package to patrons traveling via the ferry and bus combination, For Foxwoods the bonus package is a $10 Players Choice Voucher, a $10 Match Play voucher and a $10 Keno voucher. The Players Choice voucher may be used as a food credit or es a second Match Play voucher. The food credit may be used for the full price at the Festival Buffet. http://~vwxv.lon~islandferrv.com/casinoinfo.htm O1.07.200 For Mohegan Sun the bonus package is a $10 food credit and a $10 Wheel of Fortune voucher, The food credit may be used for the full price at the Seasons Buffet. Click here for information about Tha High Speed Ferry Safety Task Force of Long Island Sound Winter Connections January 7, 2002 thru February 28, 2002 Dudng the months that the Sea Jet is not running, certain automobile ferry departures are met on arrival in New London by buses headed to the casinos. On days that there is a 7:45 am departure from Odent Point, it is met by buses to the casinos. This departure arrives in time for Foxwoods Bingo The return time for this tdp from New London is at 5:00 pm (Monday thru Thursday and Saturday) or 6:00 pm (Fdday and Sunday). Please see current schedule to determine on which days these times are available. On days that there is an 8:00 am departure from Odent Point, it is met by buses to the casinos. This departure arrives in time for Foxwoods Bingo. The return time for this trip from New London is at 5:00 pm (Monday thru Thumday and Saturday) or 6:00 pm (Friday and Sunday). Please see current schedule to determine on which days these times are available. The 9:00 am departure from Odent Point is met by buses to the casinos. The return time for this trip from New London is at 7:00 pm. On Friday and Saturday evenings, there is an overnight trip: the 8:45 pm departure from Orient Point is met by buses, returning from New London at 7:00 am the following morning. In addition, the overnight trip will be operating on Sunday January 20 and Sunday February 17, 2002. Buses leave from the casinos approximately 45 minutes to one hour pdor to the scheduled feny departure time. Ferry/bus travelers receive a bonus oackaoe as described above. Ferry travelers may change their scheduled return time by making arrangements at the casino Bus Marketing desk upon arrival, subject to availabliity. Those wishing to return on a different day may do so. In this case the same day round tdp fare does not apply. The fare for a same day round tdp adult passenger on the auto ferry is $16.00. One way adult fare is $10.00. Bus transportation is provided free of charge by the casinos and parking is free at Odent Point. Back to top of paqe [ Reservation~ ] [ Auto Rates/Hiclh Speed Rates ] [ Current Schedule ] [ The Fleet ] [ ConnectionA ] [ What To Do! ] [ Directions ] [ Questions/Comments Form ] Comments. suggestions, or questions? Send E-mail to Webmaster(~lon~islandferrv.com httn://xvwxv c~noi~ ~nrlferry corn/c'~inoinfo btm O1.07.200 H~tk 52d~S I~in Hew 'York 1).971-0959 TOWN OE ~O~O~D F~ (516) T~teph~nc (516) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE:. RE: Benneff Orlowsk[, Chairman Planning 8oard Ed Forrester, 0imcter of Code Enforcement August 14, 2000 Parking, Cross $our,,d Ferry t have received evidence of, and have determined that parking on/he parcel known as'"the snack bar parcel' is a pre-existing usa. Affidavits an($ a~-ial pl~otos refer to park/rig there prior to the enactment of .Zonfng in 1957. Evidence includes aff'~avit dating parking es earty as 1951. cc; Town Attorney SOUthold Town P/ nning Eoard STAT~ OF b~EW YOP. K ) COUNTY O1= SUFFOLK ) I. I ~m ~ ~fag~ ~ l resid~ in Cut~ho~, Town of Sot Count, New Yor~ ~d I have re~id~ there ~1 my life. 2. [ op~t~ a f~ily ~cking busin,~s ~d ha~ ~0 ~ine~ 1~ [950S and eemainly as ~ly ~ 195gaud continuing until ~ regulgl be~een S6u~old ~nd N~ London, CTvi~ the OHent Fe~. 3. Durl~g ~e 1950s, the ~kz ~at w~ opened ~ p~ of ou4k ,t~old. Suffolk iaveled employed the then existing LST tFpe f'erry boats that were in operation.. 4, ~rom tim~ to ~me. we hM occ~ion ~ p~k our vehicl~ ~d ~h~ v~icles of ~wa'y our employes e~t or,he no~south e~ension of the pr~ent S~c a' ~e si~ of the present p~k[n8 ~ now employ~ ~ patron~ of thc Cro~ Sound ~er~. 5. [~ [~ my ~llc~on th~ the p~ng of vehicles ~t this sRe'occ~ed du~ng · e 1950s o~ a reg~L~ ~i~ ~d p~or ta] 957, the t~me ~t [ ~ ~sed zontn ~opted in the To~ of So'old. ~ ot'a~/Public CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v133 Updated through 11-20-2001 PART I~ GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE I, General Provisions § 100-10. Purposes. § 100-10. Parposes. There is hereby established a compr~ensive zon~n§ plan for the Town of Southold, wkich plan is s~ forth in the text and map that constitute this chapter. Said plan is adopted for the purposes set forth in Article 16 of the Town Law, which, in the interest of the protection and promotion of the public health, safety and welfare, shall be deemed to specifically include the following, among others: A. The facilitation of the efficient and adequate provision of public facilities and services. B. The assurance of adequate sites for residence, industry and corem erce. C. The provisions of privacy for families. D. The prevention and reduction of traffic congestion so as to promote efficient and safe circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. E. 1989] F. G. rural envkomnent. [Amended 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989] H. The encouragement of flexibility in the design and development of land in such a way as to pmdace the most appropriate use of lands, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of s~eets and utilities and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open lands. I. The fostering and protection of agriculture and fisheries. J. To make provision for, so far as conditions may permit, the accommodation of solar energy systems and equipment and access to sunlight necessmy therefor. [Added 2-1-1983 by L.L. No. 2-1983] K. The protection of the subsurface water supply and surface waters. [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989] L. The protection and enhancement oY tl.,_c cqastal envkonment. [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1- 1989] The maximum protection of residential and historic areas. [Amended 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1- The gradual elimination of nonconforming uses. The enhancement of the appearance of the Town of Southold as a whole, particularly its open and~" CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v133 Updated through tl-20-2001 PART Il GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE XXIV, Nonconforming Uses and Buildings [Added 1-104909 by L.L. No. 1-1989] § 100-240. Purpose. The purpose of this At~ticle is to reduce or minimize impacts of uses and buildings which do not conform to the use or hulk requirements set forth in this chapter, all uses and buildings that become nonconforming by reason of any subsequent amendment to this chapter and all buildings containing nonconforming uses. § 100-241. Nonconforming uses, Except as provided hereinafter, nonconfornling use of buildings or open land existing on the effective date of this chapter or authorized by a building permit issued prior thereto, regardless of change of title, possession or occupancy or tight thereof, :nay be continued indefinitely, except that such building or use: A. Shall not be enlm'ged, altered, extended, reconstructed or restored or placed on a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use on the effective date of this chapter, no:' shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever. B. Sball not be moved to another location ~vhere such use would be nonconforming. C. Shall not be changed to another nonconforming use without approval by the Bom'd of Appeals and then only to a use which, in the opinion of the said Board, is of the same or of a more-restrictive natm'e. D. Shall not be changed back to a less-restrlctive use if changed to a more-restrictive nonconforming use. E. Shall not be reestablished if such nsc has been changed to or replaced by a conforming use. F. Shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless the use is changed to a conforming use if the o nonconforming use is damaged by f'n'e or other causes to the extent of fifty percent (50¼) of its faf' Value. G, Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued for a period of more thm~ two (2) yeva's or has been changed to a higher classification or to a conforming use, anything in this 3a~ticle to the contrm'y notwithstanding, the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no longer be pcmqitted unless a variance therefor shall have been ~'anted by the Bom'd of Appeals. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v133 Updated through 11~20-2001 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE XXVII, Board of Appeals [Last amended 1-104989 by L,L, No. § 100-271. Powers and duties. In addition to such powers as may be conferred upon it by law, the Board of Appeals shall have the following powers: A. Appeals: to hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Building Inspector. B. Variances: Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of these regulations, the Board of Appeals shall have the power to vary or modify the application of such regulations so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done. C. Special exceptions, special permits and other approvals: Whenever a use or the location thereof is pemfitted only if the Board of Appeals shall approve thereof, the Board of Appeals may, in a specific case and after notice and public hearing, authorize such permitted use and its location within the district in which this chapter specifies the permitted use may be located. D. Interpretations: on appeal from an order, decision or determination of an administrative officer or on request of any town officer, board or agency, to decide any of the following: (1) Determine the meaning of any provision in this chapter or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions of this chapter. (2) Determine the exact location of any district boundary shown on the Zoning Map. NOW, I'itY-,REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Sonthold Town Planning Board hereby grants' ~,! ~p,,~val with comtitio~ to the ~ site ptm ~ revised en November 15, 2001 ~d rec~v~ in this offie~ on Novemh~ 20, 2001) and anthofize~ the Chainuan to eudoume ~id plans with the folk)wing conditions affixed thezeto: 1. Curb stops shall be used to define thc nnrthem and wc~[em parking area withht the "Snack Bar" Parcel ~boendarics. including south of the Snack Bar. 2. A wond~ banicr or ga~,dr~il. ~ll protect !~,~,capin8 and dearie the e~st~-u border of the 3, A mow fence and benn planted with a double row of Rosa Rugosa (as p~ Board o f Trustee Pemfit # 5408, dated November 8, 2001, end revised on December 5, 2001 ) gl. mil c{~fil~ th~ southern border of the pafldag a~ea within the 'Sn~k Bar" Parcel benndmies. 4. Low Intensity Sd~'y Li~,i-i shall t~ ins~lkxt wltl~ tl~ "S~ack Bar" park~_- ar~. Said li~h~ is to be sbinlded to th~ sroand and opera~l by tim~ so as to automU, ir, ally shut-off appm'~mn~,~ly ono-halfho~ at, er th~ axtival oflhe {aat fet~ t~ of each busine~ d~iy. Said ligh~ ~nack Bar" pafldng area. ptepar~l by lohn L Raynnr, P.E. & LS., p.C. 0asr rovised ce Novemlgr 15, 2001 and recdved in this office 0n Novemb4~ 20, 2001). 6. The t~"g,'~in$ ami application of stone and gravel within th~ '`snack ~ Paroel ~hat! incorpomto draim~ meaanr~ that were sped~xl by llg Board of Trustee Pmnlt # 5408, and illash'atod ~ the October 9th t~wised site plan, prepared b,/Ids 1. Raynar, P.E. & L.S., P.C. (subsequently rovir~d on November 15, 2001 md received in this office on November 20, 2000. These drnln,~ m~asur~ w~a: r~winwed and ~,,med by lan~ Richter, Town Engineefinl Inspector, and ~ by the T~ : with standard Moendurea of thc lqew York Stau' Dep~uhu,mi of T~.~'-"i~'"'~,atkm. 8. No paxking .k,,!! be pclmitted within or ne~ thc two (north and {south) ,:uhauoes/exits to Ihe peddng aren within the boundmies ofthe''Snack Bar" Pan~t, denoted on the final ~ site plan as "Emerscncy Accc~ Area". SiSuaSe atatin8 that this is a Tow-Away Zone nhall two locaiions. 9. Thc two (2) Idcafions denotcd on thc fmal revised sito plan es "~.mefgency Aceess A~".a" on thc site plan shall be interconnected with a mirtimtal115 fool aisle within the interior pafldng niv. as, in order to providc em~,~.,~ vehicle acc~.s if n~ _ _,~,_ ~,_~,y_. 10. The existing wooden fencing aI the anuthwesi boundaxy of the "Svack Bar" Parcel is to be rep[aced with a split rail fence and maintained in good eendifiom 11. i Thc applicant shall b~ requirod to provide si least one pa.rkln~ at~dant to assist during all peak parking times (summer and holiday wee&ends) to assist travelers where necessary to get their vehicles out of thc park/rig lot. The attendant would muah at the site for at le~t ene-half honr al(er the ardval of the last fercy for thc evet~g. 12, The irpplicant shall secure approval from the NYS Depamnent of Transporlafion for the improvements shown on the site plan.