HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-121.-4-9 (3) TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Suffolk County, New York 516 - 765-1801 N? 25825 *
Southold N Y. 11971A--,a,,,2 I ig I
RECEIVED OF
/"DOIlars
FFor
U
jud
T OWN CLERK
Suffolk C TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Unly' N" York 516 765-180,
RECYNED OR Southold, N. -37266 ,
y- 1197
For
cases
111
Cash 0 Check 'th T. Terry, Fown Clerk
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Suffolk County, New York 516 765-1801 JN? 31891 .
'd�52 Southold, N,. Y. 11971
RECEIVED OF . =Z
0 in — �Fo
For -S6
th T. Terry, Towit Clerk
Cash [I Check_Rif By_
-Was
TOWN CLERK ...........
TOWN OF SOUTHOIJD
Suffolk County, New York 516 76f-1801
Southold, N. Y. 1197 19
R 7AffZE I VXVE D 0
IF I L
F
7"'T e
S-6)V. c�
Far,_ -2-'3
I ilh T. Terry, Town Clerk
Cash E3 Check Ig//4 (2)
BY
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Suffolk; C-unly, New York 516 - 765-1801 N?
9"ECEIVED OR Southold, N. Y. 11971.�Z&Zejzo 19 9/
—Dollanrs $ 2-1-y�-
Fori
--22�
J ith
(7 Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Cash 0 Check y4, S- '-)
all By W;;�L
'?\I W ""Ices are desired, and Complete Items 3
P 2L3 057 276 reverse side. Fa I liure to do this will Prevent this
��RAMO.gt;he pargorp
-1ECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL the .110 vi-D �ICU ars available. consult
, j'I, [ I r '" (.) nui.-L d
IN"1 r�A' ldr., 2. Ot Restricted Delivery
(Extra cha e t
Article Number
L';r�Vx—
Type of Service:
El Register
13 Certif polL El insured
!Q YN El COD
aw AL(Z&ke'�� pLy tigOIJ Express'Mall
Always obtain signature of addressee
or aoent and 2ALkS9j_1V.LREQ.
8. AddraUU's d rat(ONLYff
requested d e
AN-
APPENOIX A A(Z\
EAF
ENVIRMMENIAL ASSISSMENT
ICTICE: This docummint 4- d*s,med to Assist In d4t4rMIfiiM9 whether the Action Proposed May have a Significant
effect an the envircn~t. Plosse complete the *"tire Data Shoet. Answers to those questions will be considered
IS part of the application for approval And PAY be subJect to further, verification and public review. Pmvid.
any additional i"fOrM4tiOff YOU believe will be need" to comlet* PARTS 2 and 3.
It 'a OXPM44 that COMICtion of the EAF will be dependent on Information cumently Available and Will not
involve A" Studies. research or Invq%ciq4jtjo". If in
so Indicate and specify each instance. fOm4tiOn rV`1UIrIn9 such additional work is mavaildb14,
,UK OF ORWECT: MAK AN AOORESS Of OWNER (If nifferomt)
Joseph Macari
I Memo)
AaMUS AND K" OF APPLICANT: MAR-7-
oseph macari C/o Peter S. Danows i , E s q. (State) (71 P�j
T%m j
616 Roanoke Avneue, PO Box 779 SUMMSS PMNE:
mrsell
Riverhead, New York 11901
(r.u.) Otate) MOT—
MCRIM" OF PWECT! (Briefly describe tYpar of project or action)
Realty Subdivision
(PLEASE CGMPLErE EACH MISTIIIN - Indicate N.A. If not applicable)
A. SITE MCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall Project. both deverlan" and Undeveloped Areas)
I.. Gral character of the land: Unerally Uniform slope Generally uneven and rallima or irr"lar
2. Present land use: ur"n Industrial Commercial _, suburisam -)mst
Agriculture _,-Tt—fto; Rural _.. F
3. Total acrea" of aroject am&: 6 3 a4as.
-r
Acuroxinmits acreage: Presently After Completion
Pms"tly After Camaletlon
Meadow or 8srushland 42.9 Cris 27'qcrss Hater Surface Area 0.2 acres 0 2
_ac-Is
neirima W 0 0 1 L-6 acres 16. Icres UrIvIgNtAted (Mck.
Aaricultural 0 Acres 0 ac"s earth or fill) 1 3 -�Acres
Road$. buildinas
4etland (Freshwater or and other Paved
Tidal 4S nor Articles c- 4
24, or F.C.L.) surfaces 0—a as 4 acres
_Q__I:icres O_L_acres —
4. '4hat 13 �-edlffll,,Amt sail tyoq(s) on Imiect Site? 0 acres 13.5 acres
;- er- POOMCK OUtCM30,10S on mioct sit*? —.4c
is seatm te �edmc'.' N/A
9"L!75 'ett)
A. Approxi rcentage of proposed Oro
Ject Site with Islooes: 0-10' In-M a_%; 15Z. or
7, Is project contiguous to, or contain a buildima
Places? - - -yes -I—No . Or Site listed an the National Register of Historic
8. What is the depth to the water table? 0 fast Min. 40' Max.
9- 00 hunting Or fishing Opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes L—NO
10' Dome Project Site Contain any Species Of Plant Or Aftimll life that I$ Identified as threatened or
endangered - ___2*s X 1a. according to - Identify each species
11. Ara there any unique or unusual land forms on the Project site? 0.e. 41iffs. dunes. other geological
formations - —Yes _J_NO- (003cribe
12. Is the project $I Presently used by the community or neighborhood as an Open space or recreation
area - yes I
— L—No.
13- Claims the PrIpat Site offer or include Scenic views or vistas known to be important to thq community?
—Yes __�Jhki
14. Stream within or contiguous to project arva: None
A. Nam of strew and name of river to which it is tributary
IS. Was. PORdS. Watland arus within or contiguous to project area:
a. man Laurel Lake �; b. Size (in acres) - 29.8
III. what Is the dominant land us* and Zoning Classification within a 1/4 oil 0 radius of the project (e.g.
$18910 fWt ly residential. R-2) and the Scale of development (e.g. 2 story).
"A" Residential / Agriculture 2 story
8. 11MUCT DESCRIPTION
I. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total Contiguous acreage owed by project sponsor 63-'S acres.
b. Project acreage developed: 33-qcres initially; 33*6&Cres ultimately.
C. Project W11490 to remain undeveloped 30
d. Langtio of project. In miles: N/A if appropriate)
0- If Project Is an expansion Of existing. indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot-
sge ; developed acreage _. N/A
f. Number of off-stre*t parking spaces *xistine 0 ; Proposed - 54
9. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour 8 upon completion of Project)
h. If residential: Numaer and type of housing umit3;
�ne Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initial 27
Ultimate 27
i. If: ari artation
�!eighbo mood-City-Regional Estimated Emoloyment
Commercial
Industrial
J. Total height of taliest �ronoseo st,ucure __35 .-feet.
Z' "Ow such natural material (I-*- rock. earth. etc.) will be Moved frols the site 0 on%
0 Cubic yards.
3- ftw R&Ry acres Of weq@tAtiaR (trees. shrubs, ground Covers) will be ra-mv9d frop site . U-Lacrars.
4. Will any mature forelf (Over 100 years old) or other local ly-important vegetation be Moved by tnis
Project? —Yes _�I_No
5. Are there any plans for ria-v"etation, to replace that removed during construction? -L-Yes —Na
0- If single Phase Pr*Jlct: Anticipated Period of construction _L11100"th, (including demolition).
If mUlti-Ph4sild Project: a. Total fussier of phases anticipated
Is. Anticipated date of commencement pass I ----?*nth vear Onclualmg
damol I tion)
C. Approximate completion date final phase �mpnth far.
d. Is Phase 1 financially dependent on suissacuent :mesa? —Yes —,40
S. Will blasting occur during construction? —yes X No
9. 1111111041' Of Jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after piroject is comolate 0
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project _S_-
11. Will project r*4uire relocation of any Projects or facilities? —Yes --L-No. If yes. "Plain:
IZ. a- Is Surface or Subsurfaces liquid waste disposal Involved? X Yes
b. I f'.
Indicate type of waste (sewa,", industrial. etc.) r�Anitary Sewa e
!p. If surface disposal name of strean into which effluent will bc dischairgaid N/A
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds,� stralaxs. bays or other Surface watmmays be increased or
decreased by Proposal? .—Yes -L-140.
14. Is project or any portion of project located In the 100 year flood plain? —Yes _�_40
15. a. Does project Involve disposal of solid "Ste? X Yes
b. If YQS, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be Used? -L-yes 40
C' If Y*S- 91" name: 50111hol d In I Andf i MCISCIO" rijirhnqi1P
d. Will ARY wastes not 90 into A sewage disposal systant or into a sanitary landfill? —Yes X NO
16. Will Project use herbicides or pesticides? X Yes 40 Lawns
17. Will Project routinely Produce odors (more than one hour per day)? _ 'yes No
TO. Will Project Produce operating noise exceeding the local ampience noise levels? - -Tel -X '40
19, Will Project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes —.40. If yes. indicate type�s)
Electric
20. If water supply is from wells indicate dumping capacity 10 gall/minute.
21. local anticipated "ter usage per day fii�_qals/day.
ZZ. Zoning- 4. What is dominant zoning classification of site? "A
b. Current specific zoning classification of site
C. 15 proposed use co.sisten� ii:4 nr*sent zamimq? Yes
d. If no, indicate dell red zan,no N/A
2. 3.
rmsz: Te PnT�UTIAL Call IMPACT It
40DERATE LARGE REOUC-O CY
IMPACT I�PACT OR03JECT CNANGE
Imoacts:
6. UILL PROJECT ALTER 0041MAGE FLOlf, Farm." OR SURFAC.1 IATER -.0 YES
RUNOFF?. ...................................................
Exam,* that 4ould A"Ply to Colw.ft 2 00
Prolect would 1W)Gdo flood "ter now$.
PMJ*ct is likely to Cause substantial erosion.
Project is incorp4tibla with *Sitting drainage patterns.
Other Ismacts:
10 YES
7. WILL PROJECT AFFECT All QMtTY?............
Fxamales that Would Apply to Column 2
Project will induce 1.900 or more vehicle trips In any given
hour.
project will result in the incineration of more than I too
ef refuse W hour.
project emission rate of all contswila4mils will exceed 5
lbs. per how or a heat SCUM oroduaing PIM than 10
aillion ITU's per hour.
Other ImactV
1MA" AN N iW" AM INtP41
.30 YES
4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANMED SPECIES? 0 0
Examolft that Wawld ADDly to Column 2
R64cxion of one or man species listed an the New York
or Feftral list. using the site. over or near� site or
found an tile Site.
Removal of mv portion of a critical or 04nificant wild.
I ift 1%mbitat.
Ao-lication of Pesticide or herbicide over more than
trice a year other aun for 4p"ituatural purpm4s.
linoacts:
9. UILL PROJECT SUBSTUITIALLY AFFECT WHI-THREATETID OR NO YES
E40W.ERED SPECIES? .......................................
ExAftle that Would Apply to Colurn 2 00
Project would substantially into fe a witft*my resident
or migratory fish or ildlift species.
project r*aui"s the removal of M. " than 11! Acres of
mature forest (over Ion years in no) or otner localtv
imoortant vogetation.
1. 1. 3.
VALL tn OCTE11TIAL CAN IPPAC
T
405ERATE LARGE REDUCED ny
I-VACT I*qrACT !RAJECT C�inr:
I�ACT 0% 7IS'.-iL 2ct:!!'RCE
11. VILL T14E 000.IFCT AFrZC- VIC11S. vtSTAS Oft TINE VISPAL W) YE!
C)IMACTER OF THE "FIGHOMR.W100 OR COM"Oftr. ..............
Exatonles. that. Vould Apply to Cation 2 00
An incommonible visual affect caused by this intmouction
of new Materials. colors and/or force in contrast to the
sumundine landscape.
A project easily visible. not easily scramtnamd,04t is
obviously different froca mth4r-2 Around it.
project Will result in the alipination or major
screening of scortic views or vistas kr,own to be
fmortarst to the am&.
Other impacts:
IMPACT On HISTORIC RESCIURCES
11. WILL PROJECT IV.PACT ANY SITE 09 STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC. No YES
PRE-NMAPIC (IR PALONTOCICAL IMPTANCE? ................
E.amles that '-Jould Acolv to Cal" 2 0
Pmjo" accurina witolly or nartially within or contiquous
to any facilit. or sit*, listed an Me National Realstar of
historic Places.
Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site.
11ther 113macts:
IMPACT ON OPSN SPACE RECREATION
12. 'JILL THE PRnJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR GUALITY OF EXISTIM 140 YES
OR FUTURE OFEII SPACES 09 RECREATIONAL OPPOM. [TIES?......
Exsml-" that Would Apply to Cal" 2 00
Tho p*rvmn*nt foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of in coon space lmortant to the community.
Othor l7macts:
JuG4CT nN TRANSMATAT10.4
13. VILL THERE IE All EFFECT M EXISTING TRANSPORTATICIN NO YES
SYSTEMS? ...............................................
Ex�oles -mat -4culd An�Ty to Cal" 2 00
Alteration of present patterns of reverent of meople
and/or goods.
Pm,lact .111 result 'r severe traffic Imolms.
Other 'ff.2dCtS:
.A.
26. Approvals: &. is any Federal permit required? — _yes
b. Dogs project involve State or Fedefal funding or financing?
c. Local and Regional approvals:
A roval Required Submittal Approval
"P
(Yes. Mal (Type) (Date) Wate)
city: Town, village Board 3UUUIVI
City Tow. Village Planning Board on
City. Tmm. Zoning Board —IT—
City, County Health Dep n
-5=lv I Sion
Otivor local alencias
other regio"A agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
C. txFOWATtONAL WAILS
Attacls any additional information as my be needed to clarify your proJect. tf then are or may be any
ad"Ma impacts associated with the proposal. ol $a discuss such Impeocts and the measures wki.ch can be
takes to mitigate or avoid th Young & Young
PRVARP*S SHIMATURE: 7�w�
TITU: Land Survej244___L.
AVIESENTING. Joseph Macarl
DATT: 01/14/88
.A-
1HORT�ENVLtojj�Mn SSESSMENT FO
25MRIMMIMS,
(a) In order to answer the questions in this short W is is assumed that the
?reparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the
ik@17 impacts of he action- It is not expected that additional studies, research
or other investigations will be undertaken.
(b) If any quezzion'has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a
completed Envirannientel, Assessment yorm is necessary.
(4) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this Project is
"at signif icant.
(4) Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical Change
to the project site or physically altar more
than 10 acres of landl . I . . . . . . 0 . 4 Yes No
2. Will there be a major change to any unique or I
unusual land form found an the site? Yes so
3- Will project alter or I-Ave a large effect On Yes V No
an existing body of water? . . . . a . . a a 0
1&. Will project have & potentially large impact an Yes I/ No
groundwater quality? . . . . . . . . . 0 . 4 —
5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow Yes V No
an adjacent site$? . . 6 . . . . . . . . 0 —
6'. Will praj at. affect any threatened or endangered
plant or :nimal species? . . . . . . . Yes No
7- Will project result in a major adverse effect On
% air quality? . . . . . . . . I . . 0 . Tas No
go Will project have a major effect On visual char-
actor of the community or scenic views or vistas
&own to be important to thO cc=mmity? Yes No
I
9. Will project adversely impact ally site or struct.
ure of historic, pro-historic, or Paleontological
importance or any site designated as a critical Yes V No
environmental &me by a local agency? . 6 .
10. Will project have a major effect an existing or Yes No
future recreational apportunitiasl . . .
11. Will project result in major traffic problems or
cause a major effect to existing transportation Yes No
systems? . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. Will project reg-ilarly cause objectionable odors,
noise, glare, vibration, or elec-rical disturb- Yes 40
ance as a result of the projeCtoz operation?
13. Will project have any impact an public health or Yes No
safety? . . . . . . . . . . . .
1_, . Will project iffect the existing community by
directly causizi a Irowth in permanent pczula-
%ion of more than 5 percent over a cn�year
period cr have a rAcr negative affect an the V/
charact—er of the community sr neignbar�=d' *,as NC
1.5. Is inere pub';l Ccn--a,ter--y�c,=csr-.in9 %'.-.a pr-.4*c':? 124 *;'�
-:-T: Land SuryePr�
PREPAPMOIS SIrIAT"IRS: Joseph M I aca, /88
01/28
9/1/75
01VIROMENTAL ASSES-MiT - PART III
IVAUEM OLML.1"RT�L4CE�LF
IMPACYJ
- par' 3 is Prepared If One Or more Impact or affect 13 considered to be potentially &me.
' The Amount Of writing necessary to Answer Part 3 Me by answering the Question.,
completing the instructions b: Y be determined
10, low have I Placed in this record suff In briefly
rust"'4610"QU Of Mv docis ? icient Information to Indicate too
INSTMxTIOnS
COMIOU the following for each impact Or affect identified In Cal Yen 2 alf Part 2:
I- Oriefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might
Jett change. be mitigated or reduced to & less them l4r96 imact by a pro-
3. Used an the Information sv&llgbl Q. decide If it I$ reasonable to conclude that this Imract is
to the minicioality (city. town or village) in won the project is Touted.
TO Answer the questiom of importance. coosider,
- The Prob"bility Of the il"Ct or effect occurring
- The duration Of the Impact or effect
. Its Irreversibi I lity. including permanently lost resources or values
- Whether the, Impact or effect can be Controlled
. rho regional consequence of to* imnact or off.
.ct
- Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
- Whether know objections to the project Apply to this Impact or affect.
DETEWIMATIN OF SIGIlFIcA.,10E
An action is Considered to be Significant ff:
one (Or more) im4ct Is determined to both 14
above. is Important lame and It$ (their) CORSOCUN"Co. based an the review,
. ........................
PART III STATMITS
(Continue an Attachments. as needed)
EAF
EMiIR0NJqWAL ASSESSmW - PART 11
project Impacts and TheiLAM—itudl
(Rp4d Carefully)
,lazing tno form the reviewer should of guided by the question: Have my decisions and determin
- to can environmental analyst.
bow reasonable-' The reviewer Is not MOCtIld to be go 01**' does not moss that it is &ISO R*clssa
- Identifying that V affect will be Potentially 1&rg@p(colwm 2) significance.. By identifying
significant. Any large affect must b@.ev&lu&t@d in ART 3 to determine
-erractlA column 2 siegly asks that It be looked at further'
Similes provided or@ to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wneraver POSSWO th
. The Exi re generally applicable tMrOug
of m-ag-n-IM that would 'trigger & response in column 2. The examples : h maples and/or lower vir
Itatai and for most situations. But. for any specific Project or site t er a,
may be more appropriate for & Potential Large Impact rating.
- Each PrOJOCt- On each 'Its' in each locality. will very. Therefore. the examples have been Wargo
They do not constitute an exhaustivo list of impacts and threshola to answer each nuestion.
- The number of examples W qufttiom do" not Indicate the importance Of each QU*St'Ofl'
INVISCIONS (Road Carefully)
a. Answer each of the IS ques%lo" In PART 2.. Answer 10-9 It there will be M affect'
b. 0Xb4 answers should be considered as 10_3 411VAWS-
,On tram check the apprWiats box (COILM I or 2) to indicate too 00
C. If angwering Yes to A Glues column 2.
N impact threshold 44uAl or exceeds any example provided, check
Size of the impact. :xMlo, check column I.
4" will occur but threshold is lower than
less I
4. if reviewer has doubt about the site of the Impact t4en consider the im4ct As 00tantial ly I arge
proceed to PART 3. in the project to a less trig"
If & ootsni&lly large impact or affect can be reduced by a change
magnitude. pI&Q& & yes in column 3. A 140 response Indicates- that such A reduction is not COSSIb
2..
L L ; POMTIA�rCAN IM
T al
MODERATE LARGE REDUC
EM I
P'l
TIAPACT pqajfC
FtMPACTTI
IMPACT ON LAND No yCS
wILL THERE BE AN EFFEC. AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHARM TO 00
PROJECT ME?
EXAMOISS that would Acidly to Colum 2
Any construction OR &IopqS of 15% or greater.. (IS foot rise nor —
lao fact of I angtnl. or where the general slooes in the PrOilct
area exceed m.
Construction on Land w-erl the deoth to the water Unit is loss —
than 3 feet.
ronstruction of naved oarkino are- for I.-'!A or mare vemiclts- —
Canstruction an lan,1 where bedrock is ex,losed or qonerally —
.jtllift I feet of existing ground surface.
r S:ftctj� tns� will continue for more toan I YW Or involve —
on _n
;;re than Ire '"Se or stage.
Excavation for T,ronq 2 ur-joses that would r�, ve M- re tMan 1-000 —
tons f naturil mi:eriai (i.e. rOCk or soil) per Year.
CQMSt,,JctjOn Of aftv �" Sanitary landfill, —
.5-
"A L 71) CAN IVAC7 3E
R' I 'LIOGE 0EU.CZ 3y
A 4 ICT OQOJECT C,�Aiir;
Construction in A delignaced floodway.
Other Impacts:
----------—--
FOUND ON THE SITE? (I.e. YES
WILL TNERE 3E Ali EFFECT TO ANY unIOUE OR UNUSUAL LAMn FnAM
Z$oos. etc.) C11M. dunes. aol.qlc,l form.
Snecific land fams:
IMPACT ON WATER
WILL PROJECT AFFECT Amy WATEp. IODY OESIGNATO AS hill YES
PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envi;:........0
O"a""t" COASt"ation Law, E.C.L.)
r
Z�142105 that Would Aoply to Coluen 2
Dftdglna mr, than log Cubic yards of Material frais
channel of a protect
COnstruc-cion so str*,A.
in A designated freshwater or tidal initlAnd.
Other JM,,tj:
'AmOles that Would Apply to Caj,eh 2
ILL PROJEC7 AFFECT ANY 11ON-P
COY OF WATER? ......... 40TEC-Ea EXISTIM OR jFW NO YEE
00
101 I"Cmmsg Or dmPlast in the surface area of any body
'f -&ter or mr, than A 10 acirs t"Cr".410 or decrease.
a structio
Mir a body of "t" that Mfeds In ,rt, of
.rfact area.
ther imActs:
YES
L PnOJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GMI-404AT-R MIALITY'
-D—ie$ that Would ADply to Colum 2 0
-l'iec- will "IU31*0 & diSCn4rqi,
"s" of A SOU"t Of water Chat does no' na-,e
a It"d 2MCOSed ;rojtc,.
"quiras -,ter jugly from wails alth irtater
'n qdl!ons zer linute '��Olng caaacity.
S ruc�ion r 2ceriLion '-Jus'.19 any c2ntimration
I 06011C Water sucoly S.11 te�'.
:ect .11; .......ly effect 3munawater.
W'o e"'We"t m �a �Jn�eyel off t". site :C
'htles IQ at
-104city.
acl!'ty .,at ,Ufa
lars er ca.
T' ater
vscnar�"
-a tnl.'
S SMALL Tn P010TIAL CAN IMPACT CE
MALDERATE LARGE REDUCED By
IMPACT IVACT PRqJECT CHANGE
DE
IMPL T'
OTE
ACT
14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CIIMMNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR no YES J[
V(ERAY SUPPLY? .........................................**00
Examples that Would Apply to CDIUM 2
reject causing vester than 5% increase in any form Of
:ftergy U384 in municipality.
project requiring the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve Mrs than So single
or two family residences.
other impacts:
IMPACT ON ROM
15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE O=- NOISE- GLA'E' V'BAATIIM 40 YES
or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....00
Examples that Would Atioly to College 2
lasting within 1.500 feat Of a hospital. School Or Other
I I
sensitive facility.
-Tdors will occur routinely (mort thin one hour W day)-
Project will Product operating noise exceed'" the
local xMient Raise levels for noise outside of Structures-
Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noisa sc as
Ilther impacts: --------------
IPPACT ON HEALT—H-1-H-A21SU 411 YES
16. 4ILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC IIEALTM AND SAFEry? .............00
Examitilei that tiould Apply to COlugh 2
Project will cause a risk of ex-ilosion or rtleast Of hazardous
— substances (I. pesticides. 000lical d ation. a=.)
0. 0", es,"er,there will
in the event of accident Or UQSGt Corid'"O
be A chronic low level disch4rg* or emission.
Project that will result in the burial Of "hazardous wastes.
— (i.t. toxic. Poisonous. highly reactive, r1dIO&CtIv*- irrItat"'g-
Infectious. etc includinq wastes that art solid, semi-60"41
liquid or contain gists.)
Storiae facilities for Ong million or more gallons of liduified
natural gas or other liouids.
either imoacts:
LL J 07,;1. L
L A 91
IMPACT at 4ARAC7,tR OF F I�H Rl"urn rF,PAC PROJECT �V.ANGE
jp
17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTEV MF THE EXrSTINr
CC-�%,.4 1 Ty? 40 YES
El'"Ll that Would Apply to Calnu, 2 00
— The Population of the City, Tow or village in with th.
Prolect is located is likely to 9,,, by mare than 5wo oP
resident him, population.
— The municipal budgets
r t1n9 Service$ -111 Incirfaistaboy'tam' 0"Onditur's Or aper,�
esUlt Of this project. re than S' Par Year A,
— *dill Involve any 2erman"t facility Of A man.agriCultural
use In in agricultural district or
lands from cultivation. nrime agricultural
— The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
r
structures A &YIAS Of historic fmoortjnCe to the communit
— OcvglOortnt will Induce in influx of A particii,&r age
Vain) with special needs.
— Prole"t Will Set in important precedent for future projects.
— Project wi I I "locate 15 or m" �loy"s in anit or Pon
businesses.
Other tmacts:
18. 15 THEAE PUBLIC C0HTRCYERSY CONCERNING THE PRqjEM .40 YES
I . .......00
z-122-01";th4t Would Apply to Cal umn 2
Ellht� 90vernment or citiz ns of adjacerit COMMiti.s
have expressed 1120111tion le, miec4ad tne Project 0, 1.
not been contacted.
Objectlons to the "raject from wft'n,n tne coemnity.
IF ANY ACTION It. p ---------
S A
ART IS ICEIITI-IED �_
PqT 49T 15 IOEIITIFIE AS A
EV�MAL LARrE D-PACT Cn IF Yf6,'U CUMOT OET—c*qIjE
THE ( it -n
1— ... ITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART
OETERMINATrON :AV MUITIONS OF EAF Crjlp'-E--ED FOR NIS PROjEl:
PART I _ PART Ir _ PART 3
Upon review of the information
Ind 3) and cinsiderinq both r2coragni an this EAF (Part$ 1, 2
tltd MiOnitude and famuirtanc, of #&C,
fm4ct' it 11 ""s"Acly determined "at:
PREPARE A 11VITIV! aECLARATION
A. he ord4ect '111 "Ault in no UjOr im. ,,t,
is one 4011c., MAY not cause significant .4 And. Inerefore.
Althcuc" '.1e Ord.,c: cauld live 3ffiAcV tO thi! environment. 0
a S:cR'ffc4Ac effect an the
1""raniftnt. there oill not be a slg�lflclnt Iffect in this Case 'R!,"ARE A '10,177E 1E'*ARA-:Cjj
"Caust "I mitigation mea,ure!i described in 3 have tietn
"cludea 11 2Art Of 0e aro"sed iroiec-,
C. 7he zMjeCj -111 result in One or mire Alor adverie im,c.s 0
tnat Cannot �e reduced and may cause 51 an ifica." PRE"PE CECL.IRAT
'Ie enviranni'mt. damage Z, 0 -TS
—Facul?
t agent,
la-e
-tic
1SuFFOLK COUNTY NVATER AUTHORITY
AdfninislrafivQ Offic' es:4060 Sunrise Highvmy,Oakdale, NY 11769-0901
(516)563-0202
rf dward J, Roaavitch, P.E- Fax No.:(516)589-5277
Chief Engineer
July 9 , 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr.
Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re : Macari at Laurel
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
The Suffolk County Water Authority has reviewed the DEIS for the
proposed Macari at Laurel subdivision and offers the following
comments for your consideration.
In general, the Authority has no objection to residential
subdivisions on two acre (R-80) parcels . However , the cluster
proposal shown on Plate 1 , which would allow for 27 units on
40 , 000 sq. ft. (min) lots and maintain approximately 33 . 1 acres
of open space , appears to be a better opportunity for both the
Authority and the Town. The Town will gain by the permanent
dedication of open space and the Authority would like to be
'ji for the future construction of a
deeded a parcel large enoug
well field. An appropriate parcel for the Authority , based on
land surface elevations and the required sanitary protection
radius , would require the relocation of the drairiage area out
of the open space in the northwest corner of the property (See
enclosed copy of portion of Plate 1) . 1 ;.
The Suffolk County Water Authority has been c onsidering the
aquisition of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989 .
in October and November of that year , the Authority had two
appraisals done of the A. T . holding Co. property referred to
on page 1-4 of the DEIS . It is suggested that municipal aquisition
of property available in this area would be an investment in both
the water supply and the quality of life.
The area in question As almost directly on top Ave regional
groundwater divide and has a current water table elevation of
approximately 6 feet above sea level (DEIS page 111-50) . This
makes the site, and any other sites nearby, a candidate for
aquisition as watershed property and a potential source of supply
for the Mattituck area.
If you have any questions , please advise .,'
Very truly yours ,
E.J , Rosavitch, P .E .
Chief Engineer
EJR:NM
CC : Mr. M. A. LoGrande
Mr. W. C. Hazlitt
Mr . S . R. Dasslerip
J; L 1 2 C-,
fLL
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr, SCOTT 1. HAR141S
Richard G. Ward Supervisor
ij�A
S'Co
Mark S. McDonald Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa,
al
Kenneth L. Edwards P 10. Box 1179
o
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax 151b) �65-1823
June 28, 1991
Peter Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Ave.
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Major Subdivision for
Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski, Jr. :
The Draft Environmental
mentioned subdivision was dee Impact Statement for the above
med complete on June 4, 1991.
The fee for the critical review of the accepted DEIS is
$1, 500.
Your prompt attention to this Matter would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, r.' -oxl�;
Chairman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman . . .I) Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
July 9, 1991
Peter Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Major subdivision for
Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
Enclosed please find a copy of the June 28 , 1991 invoice
from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, the Planning Board' s
consulting firm.
The $275 fee, for additional review of the DEIS, as
specified on the invoice, must be submitted to the Planning
Board.
In addition, the Board awaits your client' s payment of the
$1, 500 review fee for the critical review of the accepted DEIS.
Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. M
Chairman
enc.
Y_
STATEMENT
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
54 N. Country Road
MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764
(516) 331-1455
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
L Southold, N.Y. 11971
#PL9A1�11AI��11�P�ThLll�'T'YILP FRUAIII�CIZ
'A
DATE INVOICE NUMBER DESCRIPTION CHARGES CREDITS BALANCE
6 28 iit)q4 BALA
RE: Macari @ Laurel
Draft EIS
Additional work regarding
draft EIS review above
standard EIS review fee
Review of revised DEIS-
Letters from CVA to
Planning Board dated
4/18/91 & 5/31/91.
Preparation for and
attendance at DEIS
hearing of 6/24/91 $275.00 $275.00
0-F
PAY LAS AMOUNT
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES IN THISTCOLUMN
CRAMER VOO'R" WA'ASOCIATES
ENVIRONM I ENTA,�- 146\44',J NG CONSULTANTS
July 5, 1991
Bennett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Macari at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Review of the Draft EIS
Dear Benny:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above
referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report.
Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward
same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the
Final EIS for this project.
If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft EIS,
please do not hesitate to contact this office.
XVery t y y rs,
I
harles J. Voorhis
enc: Review of Draft EIS JUL 5 1991
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
To: Bennett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
From: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc.
Date: July 5, 1991
Re: Macari at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Review of the Draft EIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Macari at
Laurel,was accepted by the Southold Town Planning Board on June 4, 1991. The document
has been circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providing
comments on the document for use by the decision making,agency in the preparation of a
Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. In ad ition, a Public Hearing was held
on the Draft EIS on June 24, 1991, in order to provide opportuni!y for public comment on
the project. A cor)v of the Draft EIS has also been submitted to Cramer, Voorhis and
As (NA), as consultants to the Planning Board, for review of the SEQR
documentation. This letter constitutes the review of the Draft EIS for Macari at Laurel.
The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the document are provided:
DescriDtion of the Proposed Project Page Ll-I IQ 11-5
The first paragraph addresses required permits. The applicant should determine the
jurisdiction of the Town Trustees with regard to freshwater wetlands on the subject parcel.
Location of wetlands as determined by the Trustees is important for yield determination and
site design planning. The wetlands reflected on Plate 1 were delineated by the Land Use
Company. ne regulatory boundary of both the Town Trustees and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation should be determined.
Page 11-3 indicates that, '7ndigenous trees and shrubs will be planted along the proposed inter-
development roadway, within the cleared portions of each buildin�envelope, and elsewhere
within the site". There should be a distinction made between miti ative planting which is
proposed as part of the subdivision improvements (i.e. inter-deveflopment road and recharge
areas), and mitigative planting which may or may not occur on private lots once the parcel is
developed. Additional information including species density, type and at what stage of
subdivision approval mitigation
will be implemented, is necessary.
Page 11-5 indicates, "..the Applicant wishes to exercise his tight to build in direct response to
demand". We are in agreement that there are a number of ways in which the parcel could be
developed; however, it is extremely unlikely that the entire parcel would be developed at one
time. Therefore, it is requested that a phased development proposal outlining the estimated
stages of development be included in the Final EIS. Given the sensitivity of the parcel and
the importance of roper clearing and drainage control as outlined in the Draft EIS, it is
necessary to consiJer the project implementation schedule as a means of mitigation.
CRAMER, v OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS
T154s( Page I of 5
Macari at Laurel
Draft EIS Review
In terms of the description of the proposed project, this section should outline the yield
determination which supports 27 lots. Review of Plate 2 finds that Lot 9 contains surface
water and wetlands which may cause this lot to fall below the minimum area necessary in the
R-80 zoning district.
Bioloizical Settin2y - Flora Prage 111-24
Page 111-24 indicates Fh—at the freshwater wetlands are regulated by the NYSDEC under
Article 24. The NYSDEC regulatory boundary should be established in order to provide an
accurate means of determining compliance with regulations. In addition, the regulatory
jurisdiction and involvement of the Town Trustees should be determined.
a Faa 11136 IQ 11142
B�Q F Una significant parcel of habitat
T e the proposed action iy not considered a
for the Osprey", should be referenced and supported. The document should indicate how the
Osprey was observed in connection with the site. Ospreys tend to be surface water feeders
occupying habitats in proximity such food sources. The significance of the parcel in this
context s ould be determined.
The statement in the first full paragraph on Page 111-36, 'Thefield investigation failed to reveal
any endangered or threatened species of wildlife", contradicts other information in the Draft
EIS which identified the Osprey, a Threatened species, in association with the site. It should
also be noted that habitat exists for a number of other Endangered species and Species of
Special Concern.
The second full paragraph on Page 111-42 indicates that, 'The wildlife population potential at
the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as well as recent activities on the site
itself."This statement seems to contradict other information in the Draft EIS which indicates
that the parcel is an old field with forested and wetlands areas providing diverse habitat and
"ed effect". In addition, the surroundin,& area is primarily of low intensity usage. Therefore
X
it s odd be indicated how these factors limit the wildlife population potential on the site.
Phvsical Imoacts - TODOizraDhv Page IV-1 Lo IV-5
This section rovides-a generalized discussion of topo raphic impacts. Review of Plate 1 for
the I Ydevelo ment areas of the site finds that Ct 18 is most severely constrained
with slopes ranging Trom 10 to 15 percent in the development area. In addition, this lot is
proximate to the eastern freshwater wetlands area on the site. Mitigation measures
suggested in Section V require implementation, enforcement and monitoring in order to
ensure that no impact occurs. Alternative mitigation such as avoidance of this area is
suggested.
Bi " i I ts - Flora Page IV-6 tQ IY-8
-Q- V-
Je s te co significant prime farmland as outlined on Pages 111-12 and 111-13. The loss
of this farmland is regarded as an irreversible impact, which should be recognized as such.
This is of course balanced with other issues such as potential for lower nitrogen in recharge
associated with cessation of farming.
The regulatory wetlands boundary must be established before conclusions regarding
wetlands impacts may be reached. Lot 18 falls within 75 feet of the sug�ested wetlands
boundary, and contains steep slopes proximate to this wetlands. Potential for impact of
development of this lot upon wetlands is considered high.
CRAMER, v R OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS
AAA Page 2 of 5
Macari at Uurel
Draft EIS Review
Biological I=am - Fauna Prage IV-8 !Q IV-18
The Avian Species impact table beginning on Page IV-11 indicates that the proposed project
will adversely affect grassland species including warblers and s arrows, including loss of
potential habitat for two Species of Special Concern, the ass9opper and Vesper Sparrows.
'ne fact that the proposed project will alter 44 percent ofthe existing Old Field habitat,
impacting those species which rely on this habitat, should be further identified as an impact
of the proposed project.
Lot 18 contains forest, old field and provides an ecotone between these habitats. In
addition, this lot is constrained by slopes. The preservation of habitat on site could be
enhanced if this lot were to be relocated.
Hydrologic I=acts - Groundwater Prage IV-31
The computations for Turf fertilizer appear to be low. The Draft EIS uses 25 lbs./15,000
square feet, or 1.7 lbs./1,000 square feet. Standard references including the 208 study and
the Non-Point Source Management Handbook indicate that normal turf fertilization rates
are in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 lbs./1,000 square feet. Accurate and realistic turf fertilization
rates should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge for the pro osed project,
cumulative impact evaluations and alternatives. It is acknowledged that lower rates may be
achievable if a fertilizer management plan is implemented on the site.
References including, Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of
Southam ton (Hughes and Porter, 1983), and BURBS - A Simulation of the Nitrogen
Impact opResidential Development on Groundwater (Hughes and Pacenka, 1985), indicate
a nitrogen in wastewater value of 10 lbs./person/day. The Draft EIS appears to utilize a
lesser figure in computations contained on Page IV-34, and in alternatives and cumulative
impact evaluations. Accurate and realistic nitrogen in sanitary waste values should be used
in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge.
Mitigations Measures -Topography Page V-5
Page V-5 indicates that, "...in order to limit much of the potential regrading, the housing units
will be located within the most levelportions of the site (oldfield)." As previously indicted,
limiting potential grading on Lot 18 is difficult due to 10 to 15 percent slopes within the
building envelop.
Mitieation Measures - Flora RU4 V-19
The discussion regarding the lack of potential for the rare plant species Cut-leaved Evening-
primrose (Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) contained on Pages
V-18 and V-19, appears to be unsupported due to the documented fact that these species
prefer dry fields and clearings with sandy soils as indicated in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS
should indicate what efforts were made to identify the presence or absence of these species
on the site.
Mitigation Measures:Freshwater Wetlands Page V-19 tQ V-21
Significant discussion is provided regarding the use of soil stabilization techniques to
nunimize potential impact to the freshwater wetlands from adjacent development areas.
These mitigation measures cause effort to be expended in implementation, enforcement and
monitoring in order to approach some success of mitigation. Avoidance of steep slope areas
in proximity to wetlands is recommended as mitigation as previously indicated.
CRAMER, v R OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS
T154s, Page 3 of 5
Macari at Laurel
Draft EIS Review
Mitigation Measures --Eau—na P V-23 IQ V-31
The fifteen (15) recommendations excerpted from Robbins, 1979 are valuab e tools toward
retaining habitat viability. It is suggested that Lot 18 be relocated in order to include the
area in the contiguous open space as a means of better conforming to these
recommendations. This has the benefit of increasin
the buffer from the eastern wetlands
feature, reducing impact to steep slope areas,provi ing additional old field and forest
habitat (with associated ecotones), and providing a wider linkage through the LILCO
easement to open space lands to the south.
Mitigatio Measures-- Potable Water Supply Pape V 50 IQ V-52
Page V-50 indicates that water quality within the area is within "acceptable ranges", however,
Page 111-61 indicates that certain pesticides exceed allowable limits. This should be clarified.
The fact that total nitrogen in groundwater is 10 mg/l and aldicarbs and carbofuran exceed
the limit indicates that water treatment will almost certainly be required. Treatment
techniques are outlined in the Draft EIS; however, the Final EIS should outline the approval
process for water source of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services under Article
4 of the Sanitary Code.
Mitigation Measures - Cultural Resources Page V-59 to V-61
The Archaeological Investigation included in Appendix B indicates that 30 of 211 shovel
probes (14 percent) yielded prehistoric artifacts. The report concludes that there are, 'Two
limited areas ofpotentially intact prehistoric sediments...", and goes on to recommend that
'Turther limited subsurface excavation in order to fully expose specific areas of sediments below
the existingplow zone is needed to define the limits of the site."The Mitigation Measures
section Page V-61 outlines three possible mitigation measures for this documented
sensitivity: 'The site layout can be modified such that those areas Of sensitivity would be
preserved as "open space". On lots where only portions contain archaeological sensitivity, strict
building envelope covenants can be imposed in order to preserve the sensitive areas. Finally,
physical excavation of the sensitive material can remove the archaeological sensitivity from the
site, gainiq the knowledge ofpast occupancy in theprocess". Further mitigation of prehistoric
resources is warranted as indicated in the Draft EIS. The professional archaeologist should
contact the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
to determine the appropriate and acceptable method of mitigation in fulfillment of the State
Historic Preservation Act and minimization of impacts for the purpose of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act. If options exist based upon contact with the State, the
A licant should assist in determining the appropriate mitigation, as the alternatives may
akpct yield, configuration, marketability, project scheduling and expenditures. The Final
EIS should contain documentation of contact with OPRHP and should outline an adequate
means of mitigation of impact upon prehistoric resources.
Mitiation Measures::Mattituck School District Page V-63 IQ V-64
The Draft EIS indicates that revenue generated from the pro ect is no sufficient to directly
offset the cost to educate a child, stating that other sour, �income may be available to
offset this deficit thereby minimizing the impact. Contact should be made with the School
District to determine the ability to accommodate additional school aged children.
CRAMER, v R OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS
Page 4 of 5
Macari at Laurel
Draft EIS Review
Unavoidable Adverse Environmental I=acts Page VI-1 IQ VI-6
This section should make note of the potentia I for irreversible loss of prehistoric resources
not currently identified on the project site.
Alternatives IQ Pronosed Actio Pape VII-1 IQ VII-24
Tle Applicant should consider a modified cluster involving 35,000 to 40,000 square foot lots,
in order to avoid steep slope areas on Lot 18, maximize wetlands setbacks, preserve
additional forest, old field and edges, e and open space linkages, and possibly avoid areas
of documented prehistoric resources. 'Nis alternative
would fulfill the stated intention of the applicant and further minimize potential significant
environmental impacts on this sensitive site.
The density of the Yield Alternative should be adjusted as necessary depending upon the
final feasible yield determination of the Planning Board.
Discussions and computations in the Alternative analysis should be adjusted to reflect
proper turf fertilization rates and sewage nitrogen values.
The Land Acquisition Potential alternative should be updated to reflect the status of
potential County acquisition. The project site does meet many of the criteria generally
applied to sensitive parcels worthy of acquisition as outlined on Pages VII-22 to VII-24 of
the Draft EIS.
RT �Ia acts Page X-1 IQ X-45
u tiv
—of the y�12dlife ]in acts associated with the Macari at Laurel project is the loss of 44
percent of old field hatitat present on the site,with associated stress on species occupying
this habitat potentially including two sparrow Species of Special Concern. The potential of
this impact to be magnified by cumulative development pressures in the vicinity of Laurel
Lake should be explored. If this impact appears to be significant, mitigation measures
and/or performance standards should be established to apply to projects which are proposed
within the study area.
The United States Dept. of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory and the NYS proposed
Freshwater Wetlands Maps identify surface water and wetland features within the study area
exclusive of Laurel Lake and the wetlands associated with the site. The Final EIS should
explore the cumulative impact of isolating these habitats by "islands"of development, with
proposed measures to link and protect these features and the exchange of wildlife and
resources within the general Laurel Lake area.
'ne subject project along with the Peconic Homes, Jacoby and John McFeely projects all
front on Laurel Lake. 'ne impact of the change in land use density, open space value and
configuration, and recreational utilization of the lake should be discussed in more detail as
related specifically to Laurel Lake. Appropriate limitations and restrictions, and design
considerations should be outlined in more detail.
'nank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southold Planning Board with
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Macari at Laurel. Please do
not hesitate to call if there are any questions concerning this review.
CRAMER, v R OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS
Te*s Page 5 of 5
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
July 5, 1991
(5 i�
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Macari at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Review of the Draft EIS
Dear Benny:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above
referenced project, Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report.
Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, lease forward
I - Respon. Comments, ?
same to the applicant to be addressed in the se to for inclusion in the
Final EIS for this project.
If you have an questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft ETS,
please do not �esitate to contact'this office.
Very'5�y Y rs'
harles J. Voorhis
enc: Review of Draft FIS
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
To: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
From: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc,
Data: July 5, 1991
Re: Macari at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Review of the Draft ETS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Macari at
Laurel, was accepted by the Southold Town Planning Board on June 4, 1991, The document
has been circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest. for.the purpose of providing
comments on the document for use by the decision rnaki h reparation of a
n9i'g"'a u e
Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. lna� , '- P",blic � aring was held
on the Draft EIS on June 24, 1991, in order to provide opportuni�', for public comment on
the project,.,A copy of the Draft EIS has also been submitted to lamer, Voorhis and
Assoc a es nc, (CVA), as consultants to the Planning 13oaId, for review of the SEOR
documentation. This letter constitutes the review of the Draft EIS for 'NIacari at Laurel.
The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the documnent are provided:
Description o t e r s-td JtQ�= LII-11 lo 11IS
The first para raph a resses required permits. ne applicant should determine the
Nisdiction o?,the To n stees with regard to freshwater wetlands on the subject parcel,
cation of wetlands as d t r ined b the Trustees is important for vield determination and
site design planning, The wetlands re ected on Plate I were delineated �e the Land Use
b N-
Company. I he regulatory boundary of both the Town Trustees and tr,-' ' ew York State
Department of Environmental Conservation should be determined,
4 n ca e �di�a 0�d r" be '0� Od 0'0�'�the pro osed inter-
n"I P'
p
a u 6 ati'�
i�op mill
Co r" 4 n a 00 d"'e,
as U e r'�s sh 'S w"
"a" "ous' "
c' red Po 0 0 a c"
oadw w'"' Id b a d i�ti nction in a'e be tw m
� sho
Ther
�f of u djv mprovement (i�e;i rite r-d e�
th b sion
5 ntjn8 I wh- 1 m 4yo r a��snot ccur 0. rivate 0
e `for tjo Ich cl I . M n p
udl g sp i s d n$i.
'y and ai
�J! Fri n n n ece e type
P p h a
t
d'v e, and ersewhere
wi*thill planting which is
propos d as ht road and recharge
It
areas)' and m �ativ ots once the parcel is
d velop. d_ Ad Itiona a at what stage of
s bd- Isl on app ov' I ml tjS t10 n
v
will be Imple men t d' is n cessary.
e e ry
Page 11-5 indicates., "--theApplicant wishes to e-yercise his nWit to build in direct respomte to
deinand': We are in agreement thit there are a number o ways inwhich the parcel could be
devel ed; however, it is extremely unlikely that the entire parcel would be developed ?t one
time.Terefore, it is requested that a phased development proposal outlinin� the estimated
stages of development be included in the Final EIS, Given the sensitivity of tile arcel and
the importance of proper clearin& and drainage control as outlined ir. the Draft &S, it is
necessary to consider the project implementation schedule as a means of mitigation.
SOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Ptige I of S
CRAMER, V to A
n W T 1� - S - -I f-I r,
Macarl at Laurel
Draft ETS Review
Unavoidable Adygrat F, TmDacts ylk
-Nq-1 IQ V -
This section should make note of the l5otentlil for irreversible loss of prehistoric resources
not currently identified on the project site.
At=Alavf,,�12 ON,Er-QRQitd A=1 Raa VIT-1 LQ VIT 24
The Applicant should consider a modified cluster involving 35,000 to 40,000 square foot lots,
in order to avoid steep slope areas on Lot 18, maximize wetlands setbacks, preserve
additional forest, old field and edges, ex and open space linkages, and possibly avoid areas
of documented prehistoric resources. T9is alternative
would fulfill the stated intention of the a'pplicant and further minimize potential significant
environmental impacts on this sensitive site.
The density of the Yield Alternative should be a�'usted as necessary depending upon the
final feasible yield determination of the Planning Card.
Discussions and computations in the Alternative ana sis should be adjusted to reflect
propertUTffertilization rates and sewao vu:e S.
0
The Land Acquisition Potential alternative should be updated to reflect the status of
potential County acquisition. The project site does meet many of the criteria generally
�,pplied to sensitive parcels worthy of acquisition as owlined on Pages VII-212 to VII-24 of
the Draft EIS.
Cumulative, Impacts EW X-1 12 X-4
One of the wildlife impacts associated with the Macai, at Laurel project is the loss of 44
percent of old field habitat present on the Site,with aqsociated Stress on species occupying
this habitat potentially including two sparrow Species of Special Concern. The potential of
this impact to be magnified by cumulalive developmert pressures in the vicinity of Laurel
Lake should be explored. If this impact appears to be significant, mitigation measures
and/or performance standards should be establi,,hed to apply to projects which are proposed
within the study area.
The United States Dept. of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory and the NYS proposed
Freshwater Wetlands Maps identify surface water and wetland features within the study area
exclusive of Laurel Lake and the wetlands associated with the site. The Final EIS should
explore the cumulative impact of isolating these habitats by 'islanls"of development, with
proposed measures to link and protect these features and he exchange of wildlife and
resources within the general Laurel Lake area.
The subject project along with the Peconic Homes, Jacoby and Job ri McFeely projects all
front on Laurel Lake. The impact of the change in land use density, open space value and
r2a'tration, and recreational utilization of the lake should be discussed in more detail as
co gdu specifically to Laurel Lake. Appropriate limitations and restrictions, and design
ie
considerations should be outlined in more detail.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southold Planning Board Nvith
comments on the Draft Environmental impact Statement for Macari at Laurel, Please do
not hesitate to call if there are any questions concerning this review.
CRAMER, V'C
T(R�� OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT A A G CONSULTANTS
N Page 5 of 5
T I ... T � — I. — " .nl
Macarl at Laurd
Draft EIS R%Mew
Fav na Ea:.� V-23 19 Y-11
erpted from Robbins, 1979 are valuable tools toward
e Tifteen 5) ecommendations exc,
retainitilhatli5tat viability. It is suggested that Lot 18 be relocated in order to include the
I t
area in e contiguous open space as a means of better conforming to these
recommendations. This has the benefit of increasin
the bu ffe r from the eastern wetlands
feature, reducing impact to steep slope areas, provi inT additional old field and forest
babitat (with associated ecotones), and providing a wi er linkage through the LILCO
easement to open space lands to the south.
Mitigation Measures :Pota-bdi,�Y=Sux4 F=YA LQ Y.-.52
Page V-50 indicates that water qualitywithin the area is within "acceptable ranges", however,
Page 111-61 indicates that certain pesticides exceed allowable limits. This should be clarified,
The fact that total nitrogen in groundwater is 10 ing/l and aldicarbs and carbofumn exceed
the limit indicates that water treatment will a]most certainly be required. Treatment
techniques are outlined in the Draft EIS; however. the final EIS Aould outline the approval
process for water source of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services under Article
4 of the Sanitary Code.
Mitigation MM Lu- Cultural R�sovrm F.�N V-59 to V-61
The Archaeological InvestiDation included in Appendix B indicates that 30 of 211 shovel
Probes (14 percent) yieldeSprehistoric artifacts, The report conclu"Is that there are, 'Two
limited areas ofpolential4-intactprehisioric sediments..', and goes on to recommend that
"Further limited'subsurface excavation in order to full,expose specific areas of sediments below
the existing plow zone isneeded to defln� ��Ilhe si!e."The Mitigation Measures
section Page V-61 outlines three possible mitication measures for this documented
sensitivity; 'The site layout can be tnodificd suA that those a,�eas ol'sonsitivity would be
reserved as "open space" On lots wh ere only portions contain arAac�logical sensitivity, strict
01ding envelope covenants can be imposed in order topreserve the senfitive areas. Finally,
I sens,itivVroln the
tigation o prehistoric
archaeologist should
eservation (OPRHP)
ulfillment of the State
of the State
t with the State, the
pp can 5 ou assi in e erinininf t e appropria I a I s .,e alternatives may
' Id confi ura I
affict yield, confip ra i , ity, project scheduli and expenditures. Tbefinal
EIS should contain d u entation of contact with OPR and should outline an adequate
means of mitigation of impact upon prehistoric resources.
. . ion Measures:M&U�ijck agtgDl Dig PAga V-63 IQ V 64
Kil-I V1,
The raft EIS indicates that revenue generated from the proiect is no sufficient to directly
offset the cost to educate a child, stating that other sources of income may be ava1able to
offset this deficit thereby minimizing tA impact. Contact should be made with the School
District to determine the ability to accommodate additional school aged children.
CRAMER, Vft SOCIATES
T
r
ENVIRONMEN CONSULTANTS
Poge 4 of 5
macuri at Laurel
DraftETSReview
In terms of the description of the proposed project, this section should outline the yield
determination which supports 27 lots, Review of Plate 2 finds that Lot 9 contains surface
water and wetlands whicb may cause this lot to fall below the minimum area necessary in the
R-80 zoning district.
;-Bon PM MA
Biological Setting- ---rC under
Page 111-24 indicates that the freshwater wetlands are rebulatcd by the NTYSD
Article 24, The NYSDEC regulatory boundary should be established in order to provide an
accurate means of determining compliance with regulations. In addition, the regulatory
jurisdiction and involvement of the Town Trustees should be determined.
Biolnical 5ttting: E"n Fla 111:M lo TIT-42
The statement 'The silefor theproposed action is not considered a signi cant parcel of habitat
f9r the Osprey", should be referenced and supported. The document s�,Iould indicate how the
Osprey was observed in connection with the site. Ospreys tend to be surface water feeders
occupying habitats in proximity such food sources. T�e significance of the parcel in this
context s ould be determined.
The statement in the first full paragra h on Page 111-36, 'The ',e!d investigation failed to rveal
any endangered or threatened species o7wildlife", contradicts ofher information in t1he Draft
LIS which identified the Osprey, a Threatened species, in association with the site. It should
also be noted that habitat exists for a number of other Endangered spccies and Species of
Special Concern.
The second full paragraph on Page Iff-42 indicates that, 'The at
the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as vvell as rccent activities on the site
itself."This statement seems to contradict oler information in the Draft LIS which indicate,4
that the parcel is an old field with forested and wetlands areas providing diverse habitat and
"ed effect". In addition, the surrounding area is primarily, of l6w intensity usage. Therefore
2
it sro6fd be indicated how these fattors limit the wildlife population potential on the site.
Tmni�tq Tnnnar�nlw 1Y--1 IQ ELI
This section rovi es a generalized discussion of topo raphic imp-acts. Review of Plate 1 for
thepropose develo ment areas of the site finds that Vt 18,is most severe1v constrained
with slopes ranging Trom 10 to 15 percent in the devel 0 � t area. In addiiion, this lot is
proximate to the eastern freshwater wetlands area on t�ie�scte. Mitigation measures
suggested in Section V require implementation, enforcement and monitorin& in order to
ensure that no impact occurs. Alternative mitigation such as avoidance of this area is
suggested.
. 4iW Imputs -- E!"r Paw&LY--6 IQ IV-8
The site contains significant prime farmland as outlined on Pages 111-12 and IFI-13. The loss
of this farmland is regarded as an irreversible impact,which should be recognized as such.
This is of course balanced with other issues such as potential for lower nitrogen in recharge
associated with cessation of farming.
The re&ulatory wetlands boundary must be established before conclusions re&arding
wetlands impacts may be reached. Lot 18 falls within 75 feet of the sua�estecl wetlands
boundary, and contains steep slopes proximate to this wetlands, Poten`iial for impact of
development of this lot upon wetlands is considered high.
SOCIATES
S(
CRAMER, lv� i AN
ENVIRONMEN G CONSULTANTS
Page 2 of 5
TC
1 -1 C� T �J n LA T Jr,
Mucar,at LAurel
Draft EIS Review
EU& VU to I V_18
ecies impact table beginnin� on Page IV-1 I indicates that the proposed project
The Avia i *.
willadversel affect grassland species includ i rig warbler, and sparrows, including loss of
potential a itat for o ecies of 'c ' ncern, thep,rasshopper and Vesfer Sparrows,
Ile fact that the pro se project ,�%Je�litaerC404 percent of the existin& Old Fie cd habitat,
impacting those spe s ich rely on this habitat, should be further identified as an impact
of the proposed project.
Lot 18 contains forest, old field and provides an ecotone between these habitats. In
addition, this lot is constrained by slopes. The preservation of habitat on site could be
enhanced if this lot were to be relocated.
Hydrologi MnnrJL5 - groundwater
rhe cc mpu tions for Turf fertilizer appear to be low. The Draft ETS uses 25 lbs./15,000
Souare feet, or 1.7 lbs./1,000 square feet. Standard references including the 208 study and
the Ncn-Point Sour" Management Handbook, indicate that rormal atur� "Wilization rates
are in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 lbs./1,000 square feet, Accurate a-nd realisdc. turf fertilization
rates should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge for the pro osed project,
cumulative impact evaluations and alternatives. It is aacknowlcdged that lower rates may be
achievable if a fertilizer management plan is implemented on the site.
References including, Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barren$ of
Soutbam ton (Hughes and Porter, 1983), and BURBS - A Simulation of the Nitrogen
Impact ofResidential Development on Grouni]watcr (Hug1hes and, Pacenka, 1985), indicate
a nitrogen in wastewater value of 10 lbs./person/day. The Draft EIS appears to utilize a
lesser figure in computations contained on Pagc'IV-34, and in alternativ�s and cumulative
impact evaluations. Accurate and realistic nit,ogen in sanitary waste values should be used
in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge.
!on&Megsures -T000pranhv P a Y7.1
Page V-5 indicates that, "..,-in orderto limit much of thepotential rqrading, !T7_eNious1:,ng units
will be located within the most levc1ponions of the site (oldfield)." As previously indicted,
limiting potential grading on Lot IS is difficult due to 10 to 15 percent slopes within the
building envelop.
Ma'19�i _MtaMr_U RM V-19
The discussion regarding the lacic or potential for the rare plant species Cut-leaved Evening-
1 mrose (Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) contained on Pages
18 and V-19, appears to be unsupported due to the doc-umented fact that these species
prefer dry fields and clearings with sandy soils as indicated in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS
should indicate what efforts were made to identify the prc.wnce or abseence of these species
on the site,
Mitigatio Mg=res - Freshwate WetlanQs Ep=Y-19 IQ V-21
Sigr�ificant discussion is provided regarding the use of soil stabilization techniques to
minimize potential impact to the freshwater wetlands from adjacent development areas.
These mitigation measures cause effort to be expended in implementation, enforcement and
monitorin� in order to approach some success of mitigation. Avoidance of steep slope areas
in proximity to wetlands is recommended as mitigation as previously indicated,
SOCIATES
Si
CRAMER, V
ENVIRONMEN G CONSULTANTS
Tt Page 3 of 5
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
(a
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
JUIY5, 1991
Bennett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Subdivision of Joseph Macari at Laurel
SCDHS Ref#88-620, Macari-Laurel Jul- 5 193-1
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mi. Orlowski:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)has reviewed the above-
referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
In general,we find the document adequate with respect to its scope. Based on our review,
however,we believe the document should be amended to provide additional information
regarding alternative development designs, mitigation measures, freshwater wetlands
information, and cumulative impacts on Laurel Lake.
Also, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has
been approved by Suffolk County as part of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection
Program (Resolution#717-1990). We believe the availability of acquisition funds should be an
important consideration in the review of alternatives to this action and should,therefore, be
reflected in the document's discussion of the public acquisition alternative.
We wish to point out that we have no record of positive declaration for the subject proposal
which appears to have been segmented from those actions originally included as part of the
Laurel Lake GEIS declaration of significance.
We recommend that the Board consider a recision, or revision of the original positive
declaration for the Laurel Lake GEIS and the preparation of a positive declaration specifically
addressing the Macari proposal. We believe the positive declaration also should discuss the
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 1 1901-3397
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 2
reasons for segmenting the subject action from the original GEIS declaration. It is our opinion,
that this procedural clarification is important to the compliance requirements of SEQRA.
Details of our comments are provided below.
1. Sanitary Code:
1. Our agency received an application for subdivision approval pursuant to the requirements
of Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) in August of 1988. It appears
that the development can conform to the unit density requirements of Article VI,which
require a minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet per lot in Hydrogeologic Zone IV.
Equivalent lot yield refers to gross land area minus the area of roads,recharge basins, and
other improvements which may be necessary to the development of the site.
2. It is important to point out that our agency provides for "clustered realty subdivisions ...
which consist of one or more relatively undersized parcels,designed in such a manner as to
allow a substantial unimproved portion of the tract to stand open and uninhabited." [SCSC;
Article VI, 760-601(a)]
3. Where clustered subdivisions are served by private water supply systems,lot sizes may be
reduced to a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq ft and conform to the water facilities
requirements of Article VI. JSCSC; Article VI, 760-608(l)(e)]
4. In Hydrogeologic Zone rV, clustered realty subdivisions must conform to a population
density equivalent of a standard residential subdivision wherein all parcels consist of an
area of at least 20,000 square feet.
5. The subject proposal was recently reviewed by our agency's Bureau of Wastewater
Management. As a result of this review,it has been determined that well data provided to
our agency in 1989 has expired, and that 3 wells will have to be resampled.prior to any
final determination by SCDHS pertaining to the suitability of the proposed water supply.
6. In addition to well data, our agency is awaiting the following additional information from
the applicant prior to continuing its review of this proposal.
- Public water cost letter from the local water district
-Test hole/test well locations and details
-Neighboring well locations within 150 ft of property lines
-Wetlands determination letter from NYSDEC
- SEQRA determination from Town
-Applicable well covenants
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 3
7. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the SCSC and all relevant
construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow
specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site plan details are considered
fully during the SCDHS review of the application.
8. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply
systems. The applicant,therefore, should not undertake the construction of either system
without Health Department approval.
U. Mitigation Measures:
1. We recommend that conditions to be placed on dedicated open space within the
subdivision be clearly explained in the document. We encourage the Town to require that
dedicated open space be preserved in its natural state and protected from any future
clearing, constmction, or development.
We are particularly concerned with dedicated open space adjacent to Laurel Lake. We
believe this area has significant potential for increased human use and disturbance after site
development, and feel strongly that the appropriate protection of this area should be fully
defined in the DEIS. Thus,we recommend that the document address any future
development plans including parking, dock facilities,boat houses, or any access clearing.
Although we have no objection to the provision of appropriate access in this area,we
believe strongly, that access must be carefully planned to avoid disturbance of the site's
freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake. We do not believe that this area is an appropriate
location for boat storage or parking facilities and recommend that the Town examine the
potential long-term use of this portion of the site prior to any approval of the proposed
plan.
Conditions of approval should clearly define the allowable use of this area and provide the
appropriate covenants to assure its protection for the future.
2. We support the proposed action's incorporation of recharge areas which are designed to
minimize site excavation and structural modification. We would recommend,however, that
design details including landscaping and erosion measures (thrust blocks,headwall details,
etc.) be provided for review.
3. The document indicates that the proposed action will incorporate the use of indigenous
woody species for replanting within a "strategic replanting schedule". We support the use
of native plantings, and request that additional information describing proposed
landscaping species and their replanting schedule be incorporated in the document.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 4
HI. Freshwater Wetlands and Surface Waters:
1. Based on the Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Regulatory Maps for Suffolk County, it
appears State-regulated freshwater wetlands (MT-2 and MT-22) are located on this site. As
indicated in the document(p. H-1), the subject proposal will be affected by Article 24 of
the New York State Environmental Conservation Law(Freshwater Wetlands).
We recommend that all freshwater wetlands boundary delineations be approved by the
NYSDEC and indicated as such on the project survey. In addition,we support full
protection of all regulated freshwater wetlands and their adjacent areas on this site.
2. We note that the document's summary of potential cumulative impacts on recreation(p. X-
40) does not include discussion of increased demand on natural resources such as Laurel
Lake. Laurel Lake provides a valuable freshwater fishing opportunity accessible to the
public through the NYSDEC access point along the Laurel Lake's south shore. Attention to
this public resource is important in the consideration of the subject and nearby
developments which can place additional pressure on the use and enjoyment of this passive
recreational resource.
IIV. Alternatives:
1. As stated previously, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the
subject parcel has been approved by Suffolk County. We support public acquisition for
preservation as a use which will provide the best long-term protection of this site's natural
resources. It is important to consider this parcel's location within a core watershed area in
the Town, and the nearby location of Laurel Lake.
Full site acquisition will preserve this parcel in its undeveloped state and provide for long-
term groundwater,wildlife and open space resources protection without the requirement of
increased public services (notably; increased education costs which are outlined in the
document).
We believe farther attention to this alternative is warranted by the approval of funding, and
encourage the Town to carefully consider public acquisition as a reasonable alternative.
2. Absent, the acquisition alternative, we believe a more tightly clustered subdivision design
can afford better protection of this site's wildlife habitat, steep slopes, freshwater wetlands,
and visual aesthetics than that which is provided by the applicant's clustered subdivision
design.
The clustered subdivision map included in the document was useful to our review. Based
on our evaluation,we believe that with minimum overall modification, a significantly
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 5
greater degree of contiguous open space, wildlife habitat, and natural groundwater recharge
area can be preserved.
We have prepared a sketch plan incorporating the following design modifications, which is
enclosed for the Town's consideration.
- Overall lot size reductions averaging approximately 30,000 to 35,000 sq ft (no
lots are less than 30,000 sq ft)
- Lots 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19 are relocated within existing development areas
-The separation distance between the closest residential development and Laurel
Lake is increased by approximately 200 feet
-The separation distance between residential development and the site's freshwater
pond will be increased by approximately 200 feet
-Approximately 8 additional acres are provided within the site's southwestern open
space area
- Open space reconfiguration will create an open space preserve of approximately
26 contiguous acres along the properties western boundary acres (as proposed,
southwestern open space is contained within two discontinuous parcels of
approximately 9 acres each )
- Lots 18 and 19 are relocated from within the adjacent area of the site's freshwater
pond
- 6 additional lots will have open space frontage or views
- I flag lot(with access between lots 24 & 25)will be required in the vicinity of the
northern "drainage area"
- All steep slopes and wetlands will be protected
- All views from Sound Avenue will be preserved
-The proposed interconnecting roadway network is retained
- Slight relocation of the northern drainage area will be necessary to accommodate
one residential lot
We believe the sensitivity of this site is well documented by its proposed public
acquisition, its location within a core watershed protection area, and its proximity to Laurel
Lake. We believe, therefore,that all efforts must be employed to assure the full protection
of this site's many natural resources through the review alternative development designs
which minimize the potential negative environmental effects of this action.
V. Summary and Conclusions:
Based on our review of the DEIS, we find that there are outstanding issues which are not
fully addressed in the document. We request,therefore,that an addendum to the DEIS be
prepared in response to the stated concerns of our agency.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 6
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Should your have any questions or
require additional information,please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely,
"�"-PK A, 4—
Robert S. DeLuca
Biologist
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Frank Panek, NYSDEC
Stephen Sanford, NYSDEC
Robert Green, N-YSDEC
enclosure
F'
COUNTY OF SUFFOL-K
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OAVto HARRIS. M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONCR
July 5, 1991
Benriett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Subdivision of Joseph Macari at Laurel
SCDHS Ref#88-620, Macari-Laurel JUL 5 199�
SCTM # 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has reviewed the above-
referenced Draft Environmental linpact Statement (DEIS).
In general,we find the document adequate with respect to its scope. Based on our review,
however, we believe the document should be amended to provide additional information
regarding alternative development designs, mitigation measures, freshwater wetlands
infounation, and cumulative impacts on Laurel Like,
Also, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has
been approved by Suffolk County as part of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection
Program (Resolution#717-1990). We believe the availaWity of acquisition funds should be air
irnportant consideration in the review of alternatives to this action and should, therefore, be
reflected in the document's discussion of the public acquisition altemative.
We wi.-h to point out that we hwv�- no record of positive declaration for the subject proposal
which appears to have been segmented from those actions o6tinally included as part of the
Laurel Lake GEIS declaration of significance.
We recorninend that the Soaxd consider a recision, or revision of the original positive
declaration for the Laurel Lake GEIS and tlil-preparation of a positive declaration specifically
address
, ing the Macari proposal. We believe the positive declaration also should discuss the
COUNTY CCNrEA
A1VCRHCA0, N.Y. 11901-2307
Letter to Bennect Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 2
reasons for segmenting the subjeQt actiorr fwwn file original GEIS declaration, It is our opinion,
that this procedural clarification is irnportal-a to the cornpliance requirements of SEQRA.
Details of our comments are provided below.
1. Sanitary Code:
1. Our agency received an application fer subdivision approval pursuant to the requirements
of Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) in August of 1988, It appears
that die development can conforin to the unit density requirements of Article V1, which
require a minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet per lot in Hydiogeologic Zone IV.
Equivalent lot yield refers. to gross land area minus the area of roads,recharge basins, and
other improvements which ma.-Y be necessary to the development of the site.
2. It is important to point out that our agency provides for "clustered realty subdivisions ...
which consist of one or more relatively undersized pixcels, designed in such a manner as to
allo�w a substantial unimproved portion of the tract to stand open and uninhabited." (SCSC;
Article VI, 760-601(a)3
I Whtre clustered subdivisions are served by private water supply systems, lot sizes may be
reduced to a miril-nurn lot size of 20,000 sq ft and conform to the water facilities
requirements of Article V1. [SCSC; Article VI, 760-6080)(01
4. In Hydrogeologic Zone I IV, clustered realty subdivisions must conform to a population
density equivalent of a stvijald residential subdivision wherein all parcels consist of an
area of at least 20,000 square feet,
5. The subject proposal was recently reviewed by our agency's Bureau of Wastewater
Management. As a result of this review, it has been tIctermined that well data provided to
out agency in 1989 has expired, and that 3 wells will have to be resampled prior to any
filial determination by SCDHS ptcrtaining to the suitability of the proposed water supply.
6. In addition to well data, our agency is awaiting the following additional biformation from
the applicant prior to continuing its review of this proposal.
- Public water cost letter from the loc.all .vater district
- Test holeltest well locations and details
- Neighborbig well locations within 150 ft of property lines
- Wetlands dctermination le!te- from 1N-YSDEC
- SEQRA determination fi om Town
-Applicable well covenants
TJ
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 3
7. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the SCSC and all relevant
construction standards for viater supply and sewage disposal systems. Designarid flow
specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site plan detalis are considered
fully during the SCDH3 review of the application.
8. SCDFIS inaintains jurisdiction over die Enal location of sewage disposal and water supply
systems. The applicant, *therefore, should not undertake the construction of either system
without Health Dtpartnient approval.
U. Mitigation Measures:
1. We reconrimend that conditions to be placed on de licated open space within the
subdivision be clearly explained in the document. We encourage the Town to require that
dedicated open space be preserved In its natural state and protected from any future
clearing, construction, or development.
We ue particularly concerned with dedicated open space adjacent to Laurel Lake. We
believe this area has significant potential for increased humari use and disturbance after site
development, and feet strongly that the appropriate protection of this area should be fully
defined in the DEIS. Thus, we recorranend that the document address any future
development plans including parking, d-ock facilities, boat houses, or any access clearing.
Although we have no objection to the provision of appropriate access in this area, we
believe strongly, that access must be carefully planned !o avoid disturbance of the site's
freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake. We do not believe that this area is an appropriate
location for boat storage or park�g facilities and recommend that the Town examine the
potential long-terux use of this portion of the site prior to any approval of the proposed
plan.
Conditions of approval should cleazly define the allowable use of this area and provide the
appropriate covenants to assure its protection for the future.
2. We support the proposed action's incorporation of recharge areas which are designed to
minimize site excavation and structural modification, We Nvould recommend, however, that
design details including landscapirig and erosion measures (thrust blocks, headwaU details,
etc.) be provided for review.
3. The document indicates that the proposed action will incorporate the use of inJigenous
woody species for rtplantir-ig within a "sltxategic replanting schedule". We support the use
of native plantings, and request that additional infonnation describing proposed
landscaping species And their replantirig schedule be incorporated in the document.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 4
111. Freshwater Wetlands and Surface Waters:
1. Based oil he 'entative Freshwater Wetlaznds Regulatory.Maps for Suffolk County, it
appears St.atc-vtgulated freshwater wt�tlaiids (IAT-21 and NITT-221 are located on this site, As
indicatt.d in the document (p. 11-1), the subject proposal will be affected by Article 24 of
the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (Freshwater Wetlands).
We ieco.minind that all fieshv;ater weilands boundary delineations be- approved by the
NYSDEC and irldicated as such on the project survey, In addition, we support full
protection of all regulated fir"thwater wetlamis and their adjacent areas on this site,
2. We note that the document's 5ummary of poteritiaJ cumulative impacts oil recreation(p. X-
40) does not include discussion of increased dernand on natural resources such as Laurel
Lake. Laurel Lake provides a valuable freshwater fishing opportunity accessible to die
public through the NYSDEC access p�.iint along the Laurel Lake's south shore. Attention to
this public resource is important iii the, consideration of the subject and nearby
developments which can pl-ace addition�d plessureon the use and enjoyment of this passive
recreation.-d resource,
IV. Alternatives:
1. As stated previously, it Ls our understanding that funJing for public acquisition of the
subject parcel has been approved by Suffolk County. We support public acquisition for
pieservatiQn n a use which will provide the best long-ten-n protection of this site's natural
resources. It is important to consider this parcel's location within a core watershed area 41
the Town, and the nearby location of Laurel Lake.
Full site acquisition will preservc! this, parcel in its undeveloped state anti provide for long-
term groundwater, wildlife and open Sp--ce resources protection without the requirement of
increased public service. (notably; iucre�sed education costs which are outlined in the
document).
We believe further attention to this alternative is warranted by the approval of funding, and
encourage the Town to carefully consider public acquisition as a reasonable alternative.
2. Absent, the acquisition alternative, we believe a more tightly clustered subdivision design
cxi afford better protection of this site's wildlife habitat, steep slopes, freshwater wetlands,
and visud aesthetics than thar which is provided by the applicant's clustered subdivision
design.
The clustered subdivision map includ-d in the document was useful to our review. Based
on our evaluation, we believe that with ininirrium overall modification, a significantly
J U L- Y,
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Pige 5
greater degree of c1xitiguous open space, wilelife habitat, and natural groundwater recharge
alca can be preserved.
We have prepared a sketch plar, incorporating the following design modifications, which is
enclosed for the Town's consideration.
- Ovemll lot size reductions averLging approximately 30,000 to 35,000 sq ft (no
lots are less than 30,000 sq ft)
- Lots 13;14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19 are relocattd within existing development areas
- The separation di.mnce between the closest residential development and Laurel
Lake is increased by approxitnately 200 feet
- The separation distance between residential development and the site's freshwater
pond will be increas'-d by approximately 200 feet
- Approximately 8 additionall acres are provided within the site's southwestern Opel]
space area
- Open space reconfiguration will create all open space preserve of approximately
26 contiguous acres along the properties western boundary acres (as proposed,
southw�zstcm open space is contained within two discontinuous parcels of
approximately 9 acres each )
- Lots 18 and 19 axe relocated frorn within the adjacent area of the site's freshwater
pond
- 6 adJitlonal lots will have open space frontage or views
- I flag lot (with acce�s between lots 24 & 25) will be required in the vicinity of the
northern "drainage area"
- All steep slopes and wetlands will be protected
- AR views from Sound Avenue will be preserved
-The proposed interconnecting roadway network is retained
- Slight relocation of the northern drainage area will berlecessary to accommodate
one residential lot
We believe the sensitivity of this site is well documented by its proposed public
acquisft;on, its location within a core watershed protection area, and its pro"nity to Laurel
Lake. We believe, therefore, that all efforts must be employed to assure the full protection
of this site'q many natural resources through the review alternative development designs
which ininhnize the potential mgative envirownental effects of this action.
V. Surninary and ConclusiQns:
Based on our review of the DEIS, ,,ve firid that thez-1 are outstandirig issues which are not
fully addiessed in the docurnent. We request, therefore, that an addendum to the DEIS be
prepared in response to the stated concerns of our agency.
Letter to Berulett Orlowski
July 5, 1991
Page 6
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Should your have any questions or
require additional intWiriation, ple-A.Se ftel fre- to contict the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely,
Robert S. DeLuca
Biologist
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Mimi, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Frank Panek, NYSDEC
Stephen Sanford, INYSDEC
Robe a Green,NYSDEC
enclosure
STATE OF NEw YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY. N�Y� 12231-0001
GAIL S�SHAFFER
SECRETARY OF STATE
July 5, 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Attn: Mellisga Spiro
Re: S-91-012
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Macari at Laurel Subdivision
Town of Southold
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the Draft
Environmental Tmpact Statement (DEIS) for , the proposed major
subdivision of Macari at Laurel, Town of Southold, New York.
According to 6 NYCRR 617.9 (e) of the regulations which
implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ,
the actions of involved state agencies occurring in or affecting
the State's Coastal area must be consistent with New YQrk
State's Coastal Policies.
Based on our review of the DEIS, the Division of Coastal
Resources and Waterfront Revitalization of the Department of
State submits the following comments.
The DEIS should contain a section which identifies the
State's coastal policies which are affected by the proposed
action. It should address each policy so as to indicate how
the proposed action is consistent or can be made to be
consistent with the state's coastal policies.
Policy #5 - This coastal policy states that new
development should be encouraged to locate in
areas where there are adaquat4,� public services
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
July 5, 1991
Page 2
and facilities essential to such development.
In this regard, it will be Prudent for the
applicant to further explore the options of
re-locating the development in areas that are
more conducive to such actions. The concept
of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ,
even though, the applicant or one of his
colleagues does not singly own other property
in the school district or in the Town of
Southold should be further investigated. The
legal ramifications in attempting to apply
TDR to jointly held properties may be
enormous, but the preservation of this
sensitive tract of prime water-shed lands,
designated as Potential "open space" should be
given the greatest consideration. This parcel
Of land is invaluable in its potential
contribution for the protection, preservation
and enhancement of the ground and surface
water quality in the area.
In order to preserve the environmental values of the subject
parcel, the acquisition option that is available through the
Suffolk county Department of Real Estate should be further
explored. This may involve an offer by the applicant to Suffolk
County to sell the property at a free market price. Depending
upon the response of Suffolk County, other measures may be
perused to preserve the benefits that accrue in keeping this
parcel in its present state.
Policy 114 states that activities and development shall be
undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in
erosion at the site of such activities Or development, or at
other locations. The DEIS indicates that re-grading will cause
slopes to be disturbed and vegetation to be stripped from the
area thus increasing the Potential for erosion and
sedimentation within and without the parcel. The DEIS does
explore in enough depth, alternatives to the grading, cutting
and filling and the minimum amount of grading that would be
necessary in-order to achieve the project ends. What is the
least amount of grading that would be required to accomplish
the project goals?
Similarly, the amount of impervious surfaces that will be
created from roof-tops, driveways, and the roadway which will
increase surface runoff and hence erosion and sedimentation
should be analyzed in greater detail to determine if and where
impervious surfaces can be reduced or eliminated. Is it
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
July 5, 1991
Page 3
absolutely necessary that driveways be constructed of impervious
materials or can pervious or semi-pervious ones can be
substituted? An analysis of this component can reduce the
&,mount of impervious surfaces and hence the potential for
increased erosion and sedimentation.
We would like to commend the preparers of the DEIS in the
manner in which they addressed the many and varied issues and
hope that our comments will be helpful in the preparation of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
Mohabir Persaud
Coastal Resources
Technical specialist
MP/jtb
TOTAL P.04
Karen E. Gross
460 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
July 3 , 1991
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Southold Town Planning Board ;oc!!
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Macari at Laurel
Dear Mr. Orlowski and Planning Board Members:
I am writing on behalf of the Laurel Lake Property owners
Association (the "Association") , an organization of the owners of
property on Laurel Lake and Mark D. Gross, a member of the
Association and a homeowner on Laurel Lake, in opposition to the
proposed Macari at Laurel project (the "Project") . The homes of
Mr. Gross and many of the Association's members are located
adjacent to or near the site of the proposed Project (the "Site")
and Laurel Lake, and would be directly affected by the Project.
These comments address the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
("DEIS") submitted on behalf of the applicant for the proposed
Project.
The Project as proposed would irretrievably alter the
character of the scenic Laurel Lake area by converting the present
tranquil rural landscape, which is designated as open space in the
Town's Master Plan, into a suburban subdivision with a concomitant
increase in noise, air pollution and traffic. The proposal also
threatens to cause the degradation of the water quality of the
groundwater, Laurel Lake, a pristine freshwater lake, and its
associated wetlands.
The DEIS fails to completely identify these and other
adverse effects of the Project, address mitigative measures and
discuss alternatives. The Project requires further study to
accurately determine the nature and level of impacts presented by
the proposed development, the cumulative impact of it and the other
proposals for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area, and
alternatives to the Project as proposed. The major areas of
concern are addressed below.
A. Water Ouality
The Long Island Regional Planning Board ("LIRPB") has
designated the Site as a Special Groundwater Protection Area
pursuant to Article 55 of the Environmental Conservation Law. That
statute is designed to protect sole source aquifers on Long Island
from further groundwater contamination. I understand that the
LIRPB has studied the Laurel Lake area and has recommended that the
Site remain open space. As reflected in the attached article from
Newsday, the Laurel Lake area has been given top priority for
acquisition by Suffolk County under the groundwater protection
program established by Article 55. A bond resolution to borrow
funds for the acquisition of critical aquifer recharge areas, such
as the Laurel Lake area, was approved by the County Legislature on
June 12, 1991. It is critical that the DEIS address in depth the
LIRPB' s land use recommendations with respect to the Site, the
consistency of the proposed Project with those recommendations and
the alternative of acquisition by the County under the groundwater
protection program.
Although the DEIS refers to groundwater quality in the
area generally, it fails to specifically analyze groundwater
quality on the Site. The DEIS also does not appear to analyze the
cumulative effect of nitrogen levels caused by the Project and
projected ambient nitrogen levels in the groundwater in the build
year for the Project. The DEIS also fails to adequately address
mitigation of the impacts of nitrogen from lawn fertilizers and
chloride from road salt on the groundwater, private residential
wells, wetlands and Laurel Lake. Eutrophication of the Lake as a
result of nutrient loading also should be analyzed. Measures to
mitigate the adverse impact of fertilizers, such as restrictions
on the amount of lawn areas and the prohibition of the use of
fertilizers should be discussed. The DEIS also should address
mitigative measures and alternatives to road salt, such as
limitations on the use of salt, and/or the use of sand or gravel.
B. Potential Use of Laurel Lake as a Potable Water Supply
The DEIS acknowledges that Laurel Lake is a potential
source of drinking water (DEIS at 111-57) but does not assess the
critical issue of the impact of the Project on the future use of
Laurel Lake as a source of drinking water. The DEIS should analyze
the present water quality of the Lake, the expected impact of the
Project alone, and the cumulative impact of it and other projects
proposed for the area on the water quality of the Lake.
2
C. Pesticides
As the Site was used for farming from 1920 until the
early 19801s, both the groundwater and the soil should be tested
for residual pesticides. Soil testing is critical for a proposed
residential development because children may ingest contaminated
soil while playing out-of-doors.
D. Wetlands
The DEIS does not describe the wetlands on the Site in
sufficient detail. Notably, Parts III B. and C. of the DEIS, which
address the present biological and hydrological setting, do not
contain a section on wetlands. The DEIS should include a map
showing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(IINYSDECII) designated wetlands and adjacent areas. It should
indicate the activities for which a NYSDEC freshwater wetlands
permit may be required and discuss how the proposed Project would
satisfy NYSDEC's regulatory requirements for permit issuance. The
DEIS should also indicate whether the wetlands are subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps")
pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, whether a
Corps permit would be required, and if so, how the Project would
meet the federal regulatory requirements. The size of a
appropriate buffer to protect wetland areas also should be
addressed. (The DEIS states that no roadways or houses would be
built within 50 feet of wetlands but contains no further analysis. )
(DEIS at V-56. )
E. Flora and Fauna
The DEIS should include more stringent measures to
minimize the impact of the Project on existing vegetation and
wildlife, as by restricting clearing on the lots, further
minimizing lawn areas, and preserving avian habitats and wildlife
corridors.
The DEIS does not, but should, include the results of a
recent on-site field survey and specify the date of that survey.
In this regard, the DEIS fails to adequately address the impact of
the Project on the wildlife which occupy the wetlands surrounding
Laurel Lake. These wetlands are directly connected to the on-site
pond adjacent to Laurel Lake. For example, the great blue heron
has been observed in the Laurel Lake wetlands, but does not appear
to be mentioned in the DEIS.
F. Traffic
There are numerous deficiencies in the Traffic Study
(Appendix D) . The Study does not address variations in traffic
volume during the year and the marked increase in traffic during
the summer months. In particular, the Study does not state the
3
dates that traf f ic volume data was collected. Traf f ic volume data
should have been collected during the summer months, when traffic
volume is highest.
In addition, the projected traffic volume calculations do
not include projected traffic from the Miller and Jacoby
development proposals, which the Planning Board required to be
included in a generic environmental impact statement ("GEIS") for
the proposed developments in the Laurel Lake area. The use of a
mid-1992 build year is not appropriate in view of the applicant's
proposed five-year construction schedule. Further traffic analysis
is required to reflect summer traf f ic conditions, the impact of the
Miller and Jacoby proposals, and a 1996 or later build year.
The Traffic Study indicates that the level of service on
Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road would be reduced from B to C if all
proposals addressed in the Study are built. The DEIS should
address alternatives which would reduce that adverse impact on
traffic, including a development with lower density.
There are also two errors in the Traffic Study which
should be corrected. The location map does not depict the Macari
proposal. In addition, Figure 3 presumably shows existing ambient
traffic projected to 1992, and not 1990 as stated on page 13 .
G. Erosion and Sediment Control
Due to the unavoidable effect of siltation from the
proposed regrading activities, the DEIS should include a specific
soil erosion and sediment control plan which contains a detailed
discussion of mitigative measures which would prevent erosion and
protect Laurel Lake and the wetlands from siltation during the
proposed 5-year period of construction.
H. Scenic Resources
The DEIS does not adequately address the visibility of
the proposed Project at different times of year from Sound Avenue
or the rights-of-way that present residents use for access to their
homes. The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the
proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way.
Alternatives providing for larger buffers along Sound Avenue, the
rights-of-way and the proposed road system to screen the project
and reduce noise, should be addressed.
I. Alternatives
A crucial feature of a DEIS is a discussion of
alternatives which may reduce the adverse impacts of the project.
The DEIS fails miserably in this regard. The only construction
alternatives discussed are a 27 lot subdivision and 27 unit cluster
development. In addition to the alternative of acquisition by the
4
County (See Item A) , the DEIS should discuss design alternatives
which would further mitigate the adverse effects of the Project on
flora, fauna, Laurel Lake, wetlands and water quality by increasing
buffer areas and maximizing protection of natural areas. The
discussion of alternatives should also include a project of smaller
magnitude, which would reduce the adverse impacts of the Project on
water quality, Laurel Lake, wetlands, flora, fauna, wildlife
habitat and traffic conditions.
J. Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts section of the DEIS does not
satisfy the Planning Board's requirement that a GEIS addressing the
cumulative impact of all proposed projects for the environmentally
sensitive Laurel Lake area be prepared. Ideally, the DEIS should
describe the biological setting of all proposed projects, and not
simply address cumulative impacts in one abbreviated section. In
addition to the lack of detail required for a GEIS, the cumulative
impacts section suffers from the following glaring deficiencies.
The DEIS fails to include an adequate description or
composite map of the other proposed actions. It simply ignores the
Miller proposal for the property sandwiched between the wetlands on
Laurel Lake and the Macari site. (See DEIS at X-5. ) The
cumulative impacts of the Macari and Miller projects on Laurel Lake
and the wetlands would be considerable, and should be thoroughly
analyzed. In addition, I understand that the McFeely project is
proposed for the former Camp Malloy property. The DEIS refers to
Camp Malloy in connection with the New York State conservation area
as open space which could serve as a wildlife and avian habitat.
(DEIS at X-14, X-16. ) If Camp Malloy is indeed slated for
development, the cumulative analysis in the DEIS is based on
inaccurate information. These omissions and errors in the
cumulative impact section must be corrected, and a new analysis
performed based on accurate information.
The DEIS also fails to analyze the cumulative effect of
the Project and the other proposed developments on Laurel Lake or
its wetlands. The increased nitrogen concentrations may result in
a degradation of water qu
ality and the eutrophication of the lake. The DEIS should also
discuss the impact that the increase in local population would have
on the lake in terms of increased recreational use (i.e. , swimming,
boating and fishing) of the Lake. The DEIS also fails to address
the cumulative growth inducing aspects of the proposed projects.
The influx of 325 residents to the area may increase demand for
business services and induce new commercial and retail
developments. This secondary impact of the proposed developments
should be addressed.
5
K. Conclusion
In sum, the Project as proposed should not be approved.
Further study and analysis of the impact of the Project, including
alternative designs and lower densities, and the cumulative effect
of the Project and the numerous other developments proposed for the
environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area is required. Careful
and thorough analysis is especially critical with respect to
impacts on groundwater quality and the fragile ecosystem of Laurel
Lake and the wetlands.
sincerely,
JC� 6v-\-�- C6Vvj--�
Karen E. Gross
KEG/HC
6
PAGE 2
4TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1991 Newsday, Inc. ;
Newsday
June 12 , 1991, Wednesday, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 812 words
HEADLINE: Suffolk to Borrow $ 50M for Pine Barrens
BYLINE: By Rick Brand. STAFF WRITER
KEYWORD: SUFFOLK COUNTY; LANDMARK; PROGRAM; LEGISLATURE; BUDGET; DEFICIT; PINE
BARRENS; REAL ESTATE; LAND; ENVIRONMENT; CONSERVATION; NATURE; NATURE
CONSERVANCY
BODY:
To the cheers and whoops of dozens of environmentalists, the Suffolk
legislature yesterday approved the borrowing of the last $ 50 million needed to
buy pine barrens under the county's landmark program to acquire sensitive
watershed lands.
Despite concerns about the county's $ 127 million budget gap for 1991-1992 ,
lawmakers voted 17-0, with one abstention, to approve the bond resolution after
County Executive Patrick Halpin modified the original measure so that no
borrowing would take place until Sept. 1. officials say they expect to develop a
plan to resolve the county's fiscal problems by then.
"The groundwater protection program is one of the great success stories of
Suffolk County, " said Legis. Fred Thiele (R-Sag Harbor) , "and I think we're
ready to move ahead because we've covered all the bases to protect the financial
integrity of the county. "
The vote on the pine barrens money was one of three environmental initiatives
legislators acted on.
Lawmakers also put aside until Aug. 27 a move to eliminate funding to
purchase Robins Island, a 420-acre spit in Peconic Bay. The move came after the
Nature Conservancy, a national environmental group, agreed yesterday to pay for
an appeal of a federal bankruptcy court decision throwing out the county's $
9 . 2-million contract for purchase. A growing number of legislators indicated
that they were ready to balk at legal bills, which have totaled $ 500, 000 so
far.
Andrew Walker, director of the Long Island chapter of the Nature Conservancy,
said the offer by the organization is "very unusual, but we're willing to take
the extraordinary step because we believe there are excellent legal grounds and
we believe it is important to preserve Robins Island in its entirety. "
The legislature also approved borrowing $ 3 million for the acquisition of
six parcels for the county's $ 69-million open space program - including
5 . 4-acres on Ketcham Woods Creek in Babylon, 37 acres on Beaver Dam Creek in
Brookhaven and 41 acres in Montauk.
PAGE 3
(c) 1991 Newsday, June 12, 1991
,,it's a great day for the environment and the protection of our precious
drinking water, " said Halpin. "On one hand, the economy has posed certain
problems for the county government, but it also gives a tremendous opportunity
to acquire pristine land at affordable prices. "
But it was the funding for the pine barrens that brought cheers from more
than 40 environmentalists, many carrying signs reading: "Keep it green, Keep it
clean, 11 and "Now is the time to buy. 11 The legislature approved the pine barrens
money after more than a dozen speakers, emphasizing that more than 80 percent of
the public voted twice (in 1987 and in 1988) for the pine barrens program and
that the economy is making land available at bargain prices.
- "I think the people of the county want you to put aside the partisan politics
and the fiscal mess, " said Randall Parsons of East Hampton. "This is a sacred
cow to the people of this county . . . They want you to nurture it. They want
you to fund the program. "
Through the program, funded by one-quarter cent on each� dollar of the sales
tax to the year 2000, the county has already spent $ 92 million of its original
$ loo million bond authorization, acquiring 6,500 acres of critical water
recharge areas throughout the county, mainly in Brookhaven and the East End. The
$ 50 million approved yesterday is the last money the county expects to borrow
for pine barrens acquisition.
The new funding will allow the county to pursue purchases from a list of more
than 7 , 200 acres, worth about $ 120 million. Among the top priorities are 250
acres of Warbler Woods in Yaphank, where the county has already bought 300
acres, 120 acres around Laurel Lake in Southold and 300-acre Stony Hill Woods
in East Hampton.
Legis. Joseph Rizzo (R-Islip Terrace) abstained, saying he wants a new
referendum on the program because public sentiment may have changed in light of
the downturn in the economy. "We're on the verge of bankruptcy, and shutting
down Fridays, " he said. "I think it's time we listen to the public again. ,,
Halpin aides downplayed the fiscal impact, saying the bonds, backed by
dedicated sales tax revenues, are viewed in a different light than other
obligations. However, they said they agreed to change the proposal because they
do not expect to enter the market place to borrow money before September.
In other action the legislature:
Appointed Babylon Republican Richard Krumholz, 46, to the three-member board
of Suffolk Off-Track Betting Corp. Krumholz, who ran against Legis. Sondra
Bachety (D-Babylon) two years ago, replaces Gilbert Stern.
Approved an emergency resolution ordering the health department to come up
with a plan within 90 days to provide developers with alternatives to
denitrification septic tank systems that the state Department of Environmental
Conservation says it will no longer approve.
GRAPHIC: Newsday Photo by George Argeroplos- Sherry Johnson of the North Fork
Environmental Council addresses the legislature
4 WORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
R ute
o? 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880
July 5, 1991
Mr . Bennett Orlowski, Jr . , Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re : Macari at Laurel
comments on the DEIS
Dear Mr. Orlowski,
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the
comments that I made during the public hearing held on the DEIS
on June 24, 1991. The two concerns that I requested be
thoroughly covered in the FEIS were the site' s location within a
"special groundwater protection area" (SGPA) and the possibility
of acquisition.
The discussion of these two issues in the DEIS was
inadequate. The DEIS identify' s the site as being within the
Town' s Watershed Protection Area (VII-21) , but fails to mention
the state "SGPAn designation or the recommendation of the Long
Island Regional Planning Board that this site (and others around
Laurel Lake) be open space acquisitions. I have enclosed a copy
of the proposed SGPA map for the Laurel Lake watershed area. The
FEIS should recognize this recommendation.
The FEIS should also go into further discussion concerning
Suffolk County' s Clean Drinking Water Protection Program. It
should discuss the program' s mandate that each town make
watershed purchases with their allocation from the 1/4 cent sales
tax revenue, the recent action of the Legislature which approved
purchases surrounding Laurel Lake and it should be determined if
the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Board of Trustees have
already recommended that the Macari parcel be acquired.
a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea. air and quality of life
printed on 100% recycled paper
FRESHWATER WETLANDS
The DEIS also stated on page 111-24 that Land Use Company
staff delineated the freshwater wetlands boundary. I would like
to request that the DEC be asked to flag the 2Ld?Ky according
to their criteri—aan7d—th—at Vh-ich ever del'ineat2i on s greater be
usej—for -Ehe—purposes of mapping this subdivision.
FLORA
The DEIS states that 7 rare plants have historically been
documented as occurring in the vicinity of this subdivision.
Discussion as to whether or not they might still be found here is
inconclusive. Additional field work, by a Natural Heritage
Botanist should be done to determine if any are present on this
site.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative of a tighter cluster, 30,000 square foot
lots, and their placement closer to Sound Avenue should be
discussed in the FEIS.
The Macari site, and Laurel Lake in general, is an extremely
sensitive area. There are endangered species present which
according to the DEIS will be permanently displaced (page X-11)
and rare plant occurrences that may be destroyed by this
subdivision. Further, the site is within a watershed protection
area and has been targeted for public acquisition. The tax
revenues generated by this subdivision will not cover the
anticipated costs in education or for other services. Traffic
will be increased in an already hazardous area. For these
reasons, the North Fork Environmental Council opposes this
subdivision.
Thank you for considering our comments on the DEIS. I look
forward to reviewing the FETS when it is completed.
Sincerely,
V-�
Sherry Johnson
Program Coordinator
Enclosures
cc Frank Panek , DEC
Kevin Law, Div. of Real Estate
P,wrsrd Opr� Sp.�o Acqlilll.n
Re,d,,id - CIL,ler De,e.pru,.t PLAN
ru,'Jard - Clusie,
Re-.,idrni,d - H,qh Roplul md Cluster
ro�,rc,oi CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North)
Inninond
bdusiric! OTTER
Proser,ed F.,rrmd F/ Reloccle
TOR (Trmster of Developmenl)
Opm Spoce Purchase Dm/Fom De, Right
Viduslrid Clusler
Utilities Reclaim Durrp
Fa md Recewlop
PLID Mixed Js�
CM Urderv,cirr Lands Hst.ric Disimt
1> 1�
'Is
>
<
I v
IZ
LOCATION MAP
Page 3
C. f, each year of this program, no_ less than eight percent
(8%) of the total sales and compensating use tax collected for that year
shall be used to reduce the County's general property taxes for the
subsequent fiscal year by being credited to revenues in direct Proportion
to taxes assessed and collected by the County of Suffolk from parcels
within the County. The funds for this purpose shall be guaranteed on an
annual basis. (The funds for this subsection shall come, in descending
order, from the following sources:
(1) The total sales and compensating use tax collected in any
given year which shall exceed a seven percent (7%) increase over the
previous year's actual sales and compensating use tax receipts, using the
1988 receipts as the initial base year;
(2) Forfeited or disapproved funds, pursuant to SC12-6(C) , which
had originally been set aside for payments to the Towns in accordance with
SC12-6; and/or
(3) An equal percentage reduction of payments to the Towns under
SC12-5(D) , but in no event to exceed twenty percent (20%) of such payments;
(3) . ) (4) Any further surplus funds which exist pursuant to SC12-5(E)
D. M (a) A "Suffolk County Environmental Trust Fund" ('trust
fund") is hereby created. A portion of the funds acquired under this
program shall be allocated annually to this trust fund. The monies in
this trust fund shall be made available to the Towns for the purposes of
capping and closing municipal solid waste landfills, identifying,
characterizing and remediating toxic and hazardous waste landfills, and
for other purposes as provided in SC12-5(4) . These funds shall be
allocated annually, pursuant to the provisions contained in SC12-5D, and
based upon the following formula: Ten dollars ($10) per capita for the
Towns of 100,000 or more in population; Fifteen dollars ($15) per capita
for Towns less than 100,000 in population. Provided, however, that in no
event shall the annual allocation to the trust fund exceed forty percent
(40%) of the total sales and compensating use tax collected for that year
pursuant to this Article. Payments to the Towns from this trust fund
shall be consistent with the above formula as applied to the respective
Towns. In the event that this forty percent (40%) limitation comes into
effect, then the payments to each Town shall be reduced in proportion to
the percentage share each Town would have received if the forty percent
(40%) limitation had not been in effect. The formula for annual payments
for any given year, to any given Town, may be exceeded for that year if
funds are advanced as described in SC12-5D(5) , but the total of any
advanced funds, together with any other payments made to the Towns
pursuant to SC12-5D and any related administrative, legal or borrowing
costs, may not exceed the estimated share to any given Town over the life
of this program, based upon the formulas provided herein.
(b) For Towns where lands are still extant which fit the
definitions of "Suffolk County Pine Barrens Preserve" or 'Suffolk County
Water Protection Preserve,' as defined in sections C12-2A and C12-2B of
this Article, no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of their respective
allocations shall be used for acquisitions of such lands . Land
acquisitions made pursuant to this requirement shall be made by the
County, on the recommendation of the relevant Town, in accordance with the
provisions contained within SC12-5A. The County shall retain such amounts
from the allocations to the respective Towns which are calculated pursuant
to SC12-5D(l) (a) above.
(2) An 'Environmental Trust Fund Review Board* shall be createc
and shall be comprised of the County Executive, each of the ten (10) Towr
Supervisors, the Commissioner of the County's Department of Xealt�
Services and the Director of the County's Planning Department, or thei:
respective designated representatives. This Review Board shall bo
responsible for reviewing requests and making recommendations for th,
allocation of monies to the Towns, from the trust fund, for the cappin,
and closing of municipal solid Waste landfills and/or for the identifying
characterizing and remediating of toxic and hazardous waste landfills.
(3) The Environmental Trust Fund Review Board shall convene a
the earliest possible time to prepare an estimate of the monies that shal
be available to the trust fund over the life of the program. -1
Approx. Sub
.'Oj ect jTHAMPTON cont. Cwner Acreage watersh=d
SOI
vnnv UnPaTNE WOODLANDS-GREAT SWAMP AREA 16 . 6 15
0900-039-ul-vio Rich;ird G. Hendrickson
0goo-039-01-019 . 1 David B. Schellinger 4 . 3
ogoo-039-01_020 Catherine Kelly & Bridget 27
Kelly and 23 . 3
ogoo-039-01-031 . 5 Aubrey V. Vannostr
0900-039-01-028 . 1 Mary Louise Masin & 2 . 9
james Fahy
ogoo-039-01-028 . 2 David B . schellinger
0900-039-01-043 . 1 David B
ogoo-039-01-044 NUMgER
()-voo-039-01-042
0
U ESTWO
w
74V 4 'b RAI'
�7?
'A�-_ -- _�I -
7-11
e. Zoo coo
apt
119'
w,AM ZIPRK,
A,)
-100�
LIE , VC MEW
LR ZJPRW� HOLO p,,K_qpp`I,
zip
to
t�Iec)F k
M Fot 24 CaO el 1�
SEW RMFOGE[WWO NO
jr1TEflNAL.'1_ EMP
YOUR 3
OT"It
YM IAL HANOLING
00 S eqgpd)
z
VP te 0"
OANO WD FOR KIK WODAY
tLIVER Ott, ckw%�
-to*
Leos
FAX 62
,4 6
12 ,wX 53'Ofww� ow
A3 TUOE
VIIE FFRE�,
i4 Y
* 20
VYWEQF,
p)�LJI-7
V At
GHT" ROL V 5 , 406 . 653
SO 12 If
xhibit B Total
Requires Board of Trustee Approval
(K) In the contractual process, proceeds to come out of' S100 million bond in
Phase I
NOTE : COSTS ARE FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES ONLY. APPRAISALS KUST STILL BE ORDER:
COMPLETED AND REVIEWED ON MOST PARCELS
EXHIBIT B-7
APprox. Sub
7 Afteage Watershed
C�
OF FOUTHOLD
.urel Lake , Laurel 12
j0QU-j/:)-U.L-V1V Nofo .'Associates --
�*1000-121-04-009 - 1 Joseph T . Macari 64 . 6
tl000-121-04-010 . 1 George 0. GUidi 8 . 2
*I000-121-03-007 . 1 Peconic Homes CcrP - 46 . 9
Budget
Acres Estimate
Sub Total 151 . 7
Budget
Acres Estimate
TOTAL TOWN RECOMMENDED rARCELS
Approved by Park Trustees
Requires Approval from Environmental Trust Fund
Note: COSTS ARE FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES ONLY. APPRAISALS MiJST STILL BE ORDEREZ ,
COMPLETED AND REVIEWED ON *MOST PARCELS
EXHIBIT A-5
PLAN
CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North)
\x Y < 1 1 1 t 1,
I Y6,
<
L i nrATinm wAp
OCATION MAP DATE. 1-91
June 24, 1991 Planning Board Minutes at Public Hearing on
Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Mark Gross: My name is Mark Gross I live on Laurel Lake, I 'm a
member of the Laurel Lake property owners association. Our
attorney has looked over the environmental statement and is
going to be sending a letter to the Planning Board, because they
feel there are deficiencies in the statement.
There are a few points I wanted to mention that concerns me and
I 'm sure concerns other members of the Laurel Lake property
owners association. One of these is the run off that we are
going to be experiencing into Laurel Lake and into the wetlands
as a result of this development. There will be fertilizers,
conceivably pesticides, salt from the roads and I 'm worried
about the quality of the water in the lake and what will happen
to the wildlife in the lake, the migratory birds that we get and
the wildlife that we have there all year round.
I 'm also concerned about the character of the neighborhood and
if it will change from a rural neighborhood to a suburban
neighborhood. And the loss of open space, and this includes the
considerable amount of traffic which we have right now, and will
certainly increase when this development goes in.
Bennett Orlowski: o.k. I 'd just like to note the public comment
period will run until July 5th.
Mark Gross: Yes, we' re aware of that.
Bennett Orlowski: o.k. Any other comments?
Ray Herfurth: My name is Ray Herfurth, my parents own a piece of
property on Laurel Lake. I 've been coming out to the lake since
I was about 4 years old, better than 20 years. I think its a
darn crying shame the last real bastion of beautiful land that
we have out in this area that attracts a lot people and is not
necessarily destroyed, but possibly could be. We recognize
everyone here has some background and has looked into the
environmental impact but just from a personal standpoint, I 've
been coming our here for the beauty and the ability to get away
from the big hustle and bustle of the city. I mean if somebody
wants to put a development in, let him put it in but not near
our lake. That' s really the comment that I 'd like to make and
the feeling I think everyone in the property owner 's association
got and I guess I 'm really asking you as the board members what
I could do personally to prevent this from happening. ?
Bennett Orlowski: That's a good question.
You can make comments until July 5th, if you have any comments
on the environmental impact.
Ray Herfurth: It' s not necessarily environmental impact I 'm
concerned about, just aesthetically.
Bennett Orlowski: Well, that' s all part of it. Have you
reviewed the environmental impact?
Ray Herfurth: That I have not, I was just made aware of it about
3 days ago to tell you the truth.
Bennett Orlowski: well you can call the office, the libraries so
you can take a look at it, get you comments in writing.
Judy Greco: I 'm Judy Greco and I live on Laurel Lake and this
directly affects me and directly affect my drinking water
because these houses will be adjacent to the back of all my
property. What I can't believe is that the Town goes to all the
trouble of printing up this, (holds up pamphlet) for the
libraries, for the post office for the watershed and the
environment, and the impact it will have, and tells us about our
garbage and what we can do and then can approve something like
this. I think, I don't know how you justify printing what we
should do and approving this at the same time.
Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments?
Robert Weintrab(sp) : My name is Robert Weintrab, my mother-in-
law, Emaline Lee, lives on Laurel Lake. We had some questions
regarding the open space and what your plans were for the open
space if this was to be approved. We' re not very clear. Is
this to be used by everyone? Will it be public?
Bennett Orlowski: Well, the open space right now is a question
that the Town Board and this Board is discussing, but right now
it stays with the owners of the subdivision.
Robert Weintrab(sp) : These 27, if this was approved, these 27
houses would have access to the lake and people would go down to
the lake on this right of way and use it. Would there be
facilities, bathrooms, parking lot, police, garbage? We would
like to address all of these issues it would seem before you
just turned lose. . .
Bennett Orlowski: Have you reviewed the impact statement?
Robert Weintrab: I have.
Bennett Orlsowki: o.k.
Robert Weintrab(sp) : So we're very concerned what this is going
to do to the lake, to the land around the lake, pollution,
garbage who is going to look after facilities? It seems as
though there is a small piece of wetlands on the lake and a
narrow band on sort of a sloping hill. Are they going to remove
that hill to make a parking lot, are they going to. . . it seems
as though its not very clear.
Bennett Orlowski: Right now the hearing is addressing the impact
statement. Mr. Voorhis is here. He Is our environmental
consultant reviewing this. Chic maybe you could just hold it up
and show everybody the size of this impact statement that you
have a copy of there.
Chic Voorhis: There is some information here that may cover
that. What Benny indicated is that there really no plan for it
at this time. What I could mention just to give a little more
information is that any activity adjacent to the lake or the
wetlands would still require wetland comments from the Town
Trustees as well as the state DEC. This is a wetlands
designated under Article 24 of the environmental conservation
law. Any activity within 100 feet would require additional
permits. There' s no mention of it. At this time we are not
aware of any plans for putting in docks, parking lots or any
facilities down in that area. Based on the EIS and based on the
known permits that are on file, applications that are on file,
so that may help you some. Its something that hasn't come up;
we're not aware of any plans for it. They would need further
permits.
Robert Weintraub: Would this be a selling point for the
subdivision?
Bennett Orlowski: They can't do that now. They can only do
what they show us on the subdivision map; and the impact
statement, as Chic says, is addressing that, and that' s what
we're taking about tonight; not the subdivision. Its the draft
environmental impact statement. From here we go on to a final
before we address the subdivision.
Chic Voorhis: Comments will be responded to in writing as far
as part of the record.
Robert Weintrab: They will be.
Audience member: Yes
Robert Weintrab: We also wondered who would be looking after
this area if these 27 families had access to it. Who would look
after it to make sure it remained in the natural state it is in,
garbage, litter.
Judy Greco: In the spring I take my paper bag and my plastic
bags and my truck and I walk up and down picking up the beer
cans, the soda cans, the bottles, the old cigarette cartons and
I don't mind doing it because I feel we 're doing it to keep the
area the beautiful spot that it is. But if you have 27 more
families I mean I 'm one person, how many more families in there
are going to be picking up with us? My main concern is the
watershed, is really the water. I want to be able to drink the
water I have well water. I want to be able to drink the water.
I can't have my grandchildren drink it because of the nitrates
now. I have to buy bottled water. What' s it going to do with
27 more families in there; that is really an issue as far as I 'm
concerned. Thank you.
Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments?
Ray Herfurth: I just have a quick question for you. You said
that any comments in writing to the Board will be addressed and
we have until July 5th to do that? And they have to be
addressed just to the board?
Bennett Orlowski: Yes. And these comments tonight will be
addressed also.
Sherry Johnson: On behalf of North Fork Environmental Council we
will be providing detailed comments later on this week. But
just to get into the record tonight, I like to be sure the draft
environmental impact statement and FEIS discussed the issue of
County acquisition, which is particularly important, as the
legislature recently approved a list that contained this parcel.
Also the issue that the recommendations of the special ground
water protection areas study be discussed in the FEIS if they
weren't in the draft. That's the extent of my comments tonight.
Thank you.
Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments?
am
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
Planning Board Comments on DEIS For Macari Subdivision
July 5, 1991
SUMMARY
S-2 It is believed that Kirkup Lane has a base, and is
not just a dirt road.
S-3 The acronym 11MBS" should be defined.
S-4 The last sentence in the first paragraph states that
topsoil will be stockpiled for "future use" . The
proposed location and time of the use of the topsoil
should mentioned.
II . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
11-2 There is an inconsistency in the second paragraph.
The projected increase in population is based on each
home being occupied by 2. 3 people. Yet, the proposal
involves the construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes.
Unless documentation can be provided to support the
2 . 5 persons per house figure, the projected adult and
child population should be revised upward to reflect
likely occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom homes.
11-4 The projected population noted in the second
paragraph should be revised to reflect the proposed
construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes.
III . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
111-56 The last paragraph needs to be updated to reflect
recent findings that septic systems and residential
use of fertilizers may be an equally significant
source of nitrates.
111-58 The third paragraph notes that well #S 53333 goes
down 275 feet from the surface. Table 1 on page
111-60 states that the well goes down 74 feet from the
surface. Which number is correct?
Figure 9 The map does not show clearly the location of the
observation well relative to the proposed project.
111-65 The second paragraph does not mention that
Southold' s zoning code mandates clustering in the R-80
district where the subdivision exceeds 10 acres in
area.
111-84 Reference is made to the marginal water
quality in the general vicinity. Yet, there is no
information given as to the quality of the water on
the site.
111-88 The year, and date of the traffic volume data is
neither noted nor referenced.
111-96 The second sentence contradicts information presented
on page 111-97 that inland camps were occupied during
cold weather months.
The first sentence of the second paragraph is
contradicted by statements made on pages 111-93 and 94
that artifacts were found on the site.
Also, the site sensitivity map referred to in
the third paragraph is missing from Appendix B.
IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IV-28 If the anticipated population is changed to be
consistent with that which would be expected in 3 and
4 bedroom houses, then the figures for septic effluent
should be adjusted accordingly.
IV-30 What is the background level of nitrogen in the
groundwater on the site now?
IV-54 Provide documentation to support the statement that
the projected population multiplier is consistent with
housing units containing 3 and 4 bedrooms.
IV-55 Provide documentation to support the multipliers used
in second paragraph.
IV-56 Given the slump in the real estate market, are
stated market values of $275,000 to $300,000
reasonable?
IV-58 The second paragraph refers to an analysis of
revenue versus expenses which is not included in the
report.
V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
V-29 The responses to Recommendations 8, 9, 10, and 11 do
not address the recommendations.
V-30 The responses to Recommendations 13 and 14 do not
address the recommendations.
V-47 Documentation to support the first two sentences on
this page is not provided.
V-56 The last sentence on this page does not take into
account fact that Town Code requires permits for
construction within 751 of a freshwater wetland.
V-62 Documentation in support of paragraph 3 is not
provided.
V-64 The last sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3 contradict
one another.
V-65 The second paragraph in the section titled "Taxes and
Fiscal Setting" contradicts the statements made on the
previous page.
VII . ALTERNATIVES
VII-3 The No-Action alternative does not include a
thorough and in-depth discussion of development of
site for public water supply purposes. The value of
this site for watershed protection and public water
supply cannot be ignored in this environmental review,
particularly given the inclusion of this property in
the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection
Area.
There is no discussion of an alternative other than
the proposed layout and the standard yield layout.
VII-19 The last sentence in the second paragraph refers to
the Town of Brookhaven instead of Southold.
VII-21 The third paragraph on this page states that the
Suffolk County Department of Real Estate has indicated
an interest in acquiring the property, but that the
owner of the property must initiate the process. Has
the owner pursued this option? If so, what has been
done. If not, why?
The first and second statements made in the fourth
paragraph should be documented.
VII-22 The paragraph on the transfer of development rights is
misleading. The Town has considered implementing such
a program, but does not actually have one at this time.
VII-23 The Town' s property records show that the applicant
owns other property in the nearby vicinity to which
development rights could be transferred, should the
Town implement such a program.
1 0
IX. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
IX-1 The third sentence contradicts earlier statements that
the tax revenues that would be collected by this
subdivision would not cover the School District' s
costs.
X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
X-36 The cumulative traffic impact analysis mistakenly
assumes that some proposed subdivisions will have
access to both Sound Avenue and State Route 25.
The Planning Board' s overriding concern is with the lack of
discussion of the alternatives; one of which is to reserve the
land for watershed protection and public water supply; another
of which is to propose a tighter cluster design or a reduced
density. Realistic assessment of the proposal is hampered by the
lack of sufficient information about the existing water quality
on the site. Further, there is no discussion as to whether the
groundwater on the site would meet with the Suffolk County
Department of Health' s new standard for nitrate.
I*
R.th J.hier
P. 0. Box 542
Mattituch, New York 11952
Julv 1,
17lenning 3oard , aSouthold
vie are very much aRginst any further levelooment
around Lsurel iake . Houses on the Macuri tract
will be the beginning - bow can vou then Pefuse
the ?jrtons and former IqalIoV cRmp properties .
I have read that the first house on the shore of
a laece is the beginning of the demise of that
lake. how there are 16 houses ar,-)und Laurel L.
and they were built before we ki:new much abc)ut or
worried abjut environmental problems. vie who
live here try to maintain end care for the lake
an-I surroundinE,,s . But another 2b ho�ises nearby
wjuid be a disaster. 11�;turallv the land will be
soid with lace riphts . More families, guests,
boats - t�,e lake can't taxe it. Hun-off froo.
roals, fertiiizer an lawns anz] gardens draining
into the laKe . vi�)9t will ha �)pen to our wells
and irinking water .
vie have liv-,,, here for 11 vears and see great
chanc-es alread7- Phe s�ore of the lake is full
of weed�s, including the s�,allow water. P�)ere
is much less wildlife - few dUCKS, swan cl,�-,,,nets
are. hatched but die before maturitv, os�)rey no
len.ger fly over for fish. Bullfrogs are seldom
seen or hear-i.
fhe tlani,Lng 30ard faces a unioue challenge in
that you have it within vour power to be instru-
mental in preserving an asset for posterity
that once gone can never be replaced .
W �llh '�li 7iot
di
dat},
114,5
July 3, 1991
TO: Benett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Southold Planning Board
FROM: Cynthia Sturner, Member
Conservation Advisory Council
RE: DEIS for Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
We have reviewed the DEIS for Macari at Laurel Lake and have a couple of
concerns on the information presented therein. We have narrowed our concerns
to groundwater protection and wetland protection.
The project falls within an core watershed area designed by the County as a
Special Groundwater Protection Area, and the town has also given this area a
Watershed Protection Zone designation. Information about what the
recommendations of the County and the town are as to how to best manage this
area are not included in the DEIS and therefore an accurate determination of the
impacts from the proposed development of this core watershed area is vague
and inconclusive. We believe more information on this is needed before making
a determination.
We believe that the plan alternatives of this proposed development could be
expanded to include a tighter cluster of this development in order to achieve the
following purposes: eliminate more impervious surfaces and therefore minimize
road runoff, consolidate the open space proposed into a bigger block, leaving as
open space the areas that are the most environmentally sensitive in terms of
groundwater recharge and wetlands protection.
While we commend the applicant for leaving a 1 OO' buffer between development
and wetlands we would like to know if the drainage pattern of the wetlands at the
site will be disturbed with the proposed development. We have not found this
answer in the DEIS. Since the wetlands contain endangered plant species, we
would like to see if there is any possibility of further protecting the ponds by
shifting development as far away as possible from them. We believe a tighter
cluster away from these areas would achieve this. We also would like to take
the applicant up on his offer to construct leaching pools for each catch basin in
order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater
wetlands.
Discharge from septic systems in a core watershed area is also a concern. The
section on the DEIS describing the impacts associated with effluent discharge
seems to indicate their will be impacts that could not be mitigated appropriately.
Therefore we would suggest that a groundwater monitoring program to provide
early indication of water quality problems should be incorporated into the plan.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
L/
Karen E. C�Qss
1
460 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
July 3 , 1�91
VI FEDEML EXPRESS
Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr.
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
5outhold, New York 11971
Re: Macari at LaureJ
Dear Mr. Orlowski and Planning Board� Membars:
I am writing on behalf of the Laurel Lake Property owners
Association (the "Association") , an Organ zation of the owners of
property on Laurel Lake and Mark � D. �Jross, a member of the
Aggoeiatian and a haTR66WW! 6h Laure I i La e, in opposition to the
proposed Macari at Laurel project (the Itoject") . The ho-mes of
Mr . Gross and nany of the Association ' s members are located
adjacent to or near the site of the PropoBed Project 'the #@Sitefl�
and Laurel Lake, and would be direc�ly affec�"ed by the Project'
These comments address the Draft Enviro ental Impact Statement
("DEIS") submitted on behalf of th� appLicant for the proposed
Project. I
The Prc)ect as proposed w�uld irretrievably alter the
character of the scenic Laurel Lake area converting the present
tranquil rural landscape, which is designated as open space in the
Town ' s Master Plan, into a suburban subdivision with a concomitant
increase in noise, air pollution and' traffic. The proposal also
threatens to cause the degradation 'of t e water quality of the
groundwater, Laurel Lake, a pristine fle-shwater lake, and its
associated wetlands. i
The DEIS fails to completely i 'entify these and other
adverse effects of the Project, address ,m,tigative measures and
discuss alti�rnatives. 1"he Project, req�ires further study to
accurately determine the nature and level of impacts presented by
the proposed development, the cumulative impact of it and the other
proposals for the environmentally se I nsitive Laurel Lake area, and
JUL 2
alternatives to the Project as propose The major areas of
concern are addressed below.
A. wAter 09�litv
The Long Island Regional 'Planning Board ("LIRPBIO) has
designated the Site as a Special Grou dwater Protection Area
pursuant to Article 55 of the Environi:nenta Conservation Law. That
statute is designed to protect sole sourc aquifers on Long Island
from further groundwater contaminat�ion. I understand that the
LIRP5 has studied the Laurel Lake area and1nas recommended that the
site remain open space. As reflected in �he attached article from
Newsday, the Laurel Lake area has 'been I given top priority for
acquisition by Suffolk County under the groundwater protection
program established by Article 55. A b6nd resolution to borrow
funds for the acquisit-' on ol critical aquilfer recharge areas, such
as the Laurel Lake area, was approved by �he County Legislature an
Junv 12 , 1991. It is critical that the D ,IS address in depth the
LIRPB' s land use recommendations with . spect to the Site, the
consistency of the proposed Project with hose recommendations and
the alternative of acquisition by the Cou�ty under the groundwater
protection program.
Although the DEIS refers tr, grLndwater quality in the
area generally, it fails to specifica ly analyze groundwater
quality on the Site. The DEIS also does ot appear to ana!yze the
cumulative effact of nitrogen levels c sed by the Project and
projected ambient nitrogen levels ini the roundwater in the build
year for the Project. The DEIS a SB to adequately address
mitigation of the impacts of nitrogen frDm lawn fertilizers and
chloride from road salt on the groundwater, private residential
wells, wetlands and Laurel Lake. Eutroph ,.cation of the Lake as a
result of nutrient loading also Sho Id b�. analyzed. Measures to
MitiOate the adverse impact of ferti Izers, such as restrictions
on t�e amount of lawn areas and t1h pr4hibition of the use of
fertilizers should be discussed. he DEIS also should address
mitigative measures and alternatives �c road salt, such as
limitations on the use of salt, and/(,)r th� use of sand or gravel.
R. L>ptential Use of Laurel Lakg asla Potable Vater SupplV
The DEIS acknowledmes that Laurel Lake is a potential
source of drinXinq water (DEIS at IIt-57) but does not assess the
critical issue of the impact of the P-J future use
Laurel Lake ar a source of drinking water. The DEIS should analyze
the present water quality of the Lak , th� expected impact of the
Project alone, and the c�mulative im act f it and other projects
proposed for the area on the water q alitt of the Lake.
2
C, kestigides
As the Site was used for farming from 1920 until the
early 1980 ' S, both the groundwater and t a soil should be tested
for residual pesticides. Soil testing is1critical for a proposed
residential development because children may ingest contaminated
soil while playing out-of-doors.
D. Wetlands
The DEIS does not describe the wetlands on the Site in
Sufficient detail. Notably, Parts III B. ind C. of the DEIS, which
address the present biological and hydrological getting, do not
contain a section on wetlands. The DE S should include a map
showing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") designated wetlands and iadja ent areas. It should
indicate the activities for which a NYStEC freshwater wetlands
permit may be required and discuss how th proposed Project would
Satisfy NYSDEC's regulatory requirements for permit issuance. The
DEIS should also indicate whether the wetlands are Subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States Army Cor s of Engineers ("Corps")
pursuant to Section 404 of the federa I C, an Water Act, whether a
Corps permit would be required, and if , how the Project would
meet the federal regulatory requirements. The size of a
appropriate buffer to protect wetland areas also should be
addressed. (The DEIS states that no� roadwaya or houses would be
built within 50 feet of wetlands but c8ntains no further analysis. )
(DEIS at V-56. )
E. Floro and Fauna
The DEIS should include more stringent measures to
minimize the impact of the Project :)n xisting veg tation and
wildlife, as by restricting clearing on the lots, further
minimizing lawn areas, and preserving avian habitats and wildlife
corridors ,
The DEIS does not, but shou I Id, include the results of a
recent on-site field survey and Spec I fy the date of that survey.
In this regard, the DEIS fails to ade uate y address the impact of
the Project on the wildlife which occ py t e wetlands surrounding
Laurel Lake. These wetlands are directly onnected to the on-site
pond adjacent to Laurel Lake. For exampl , the great blue heron
has been observed in the Laurel Lake Uetla ds , but does not appear
to be mentioned in the DEIS.
F. Tx a Uja
There are numerous deficie cies in the Traffic Study
(Appendix D) . The Study does not address variations in traffic
Volume during the year and the marked inc ease in traffic during
the summer months. in particular, the Stidy does not state the
3
dates that traffic volume data was collecied. Traffic volume data
should have been collected during the su er months , when traffic
volpme is highest.
in addition, the projected traf JIL volume calculations do
not include projected traffic from the Miller and Jacoby
development proposals, which the PlanhiAg Board required to be
included in a generic environmental impac� statement ("GEIS',) for
the proposed developments in the Laurel Lake area. The use of a
mid-1992 build year is not appropriate in' view of the applicant , s
proposed five-year construction schedule. Further traffic analysis
is required to reflect summer traffic :conditions, the impact of the
Miller and Jacoby proposals, and a 1596 ok later build year.
The Traffic Study indicates tha� the level of service on
Sound Avenue and COX Neck Road would be r from E to C if all
proposals addressed in the Study are b The DEIS should
alternatives which would reduce ithat adverse impact on
address I
traffic, including a development with low r density.
i . t
There are also two errors i in the Traffic Study which
should be corrected. The location map dois not depict the Macari
proposal. In addition, Figure 3 presumabl� shows existing ambient
traffic projected to 1992 , and not 1990 As stated on page la .
G. Emosion and Sediment Control
Due to the unavoidable e�fect of siltation from the
proposed regrading activities, the DEIS sAould include a specific
soil erosion and sediment control plan which contains a detailed
discussion of mitigative measures which Ild prevent erosion and
protect Laurel Lake and the wetlands fr6n siltation during the
proposed 5-year period of constructio
H. Scenic Resources
The DEIS does not adequate y ad1ress the visibility of
the proposed Project at different times of� year from sound Avenue
or the rights-olf-way that present resident use for access to their
homes. The DEIS also does not discuss he relationship of the
proposed road system to the existing !unpaved rights-of-way.
Alternatives providing for larger buffers along Sound Avenue, the
rights-cf-way and the proposed road 4yste�. to screen the project
and reduce noise, should be addressed.
1 . alternatives
A crucial feature of a DiUSI is a discussion of
alternatives which may reduce the adv I erse �impacts of the project.
The DEIS fails miserably in this regard. I The only construction
alternatives discussed are a 27 lot subdivi�ion and 2-7 unit cluster
development. In addition to the alter I nati4e of acquisition by the
4
County (See Item A) , the DEIS should dis uss des 'P n alternatives
which would further mitigate the adverse �ffects o the Project on
flora, fauna, Laurel Lake, Wetlands and wa er quality by increasing
buffer areas and maximizing protection of natural areas . The
discussion of alternatives should also inq�lude a project of smaller
magnitude, which would reduce the adverse �mpacts of the Project on
water quality, Laurel Lake , wetlands', flora, fauna, wildlife
habitat and traffic conditions.
J. Cumuldtive -Impacts
The cumulative impacts sectiol Of the DEIS does not
satisfy the Planning Board 's requirement t�at a GE18 addressing the
cumulative impact of all proposed project for the environmentally
sensitive Laurel take area be prepared. Ideally, the DEIS should
describe the biological setting of ail proposed projects, and not
simply address cumulative impacts in one abbreviated section. In
addition to the lack of detail required f r a GETS, the cumulative
impacts section suffers from the fol lowing glaring deficiencies.
The DEIS fails to include an, adequate description or
composite map of the other proposed actions. It simply ignores the
Miller proposal for the property sand�icheo between the wetlands on
Laurel Lake and the Macari site. I (S44e DEIS at X-5 . ) The
c"mulative impacts of the Macari and Millei projects on Laurel Lake
and the wetlands would be considerable, And should be thoroughly
analyzed. in addition, I understand tha� the McFeely project is
proposed for the former Camp Malloy propeity. The DEIS refers to
Camp Malloy in connection with the New York. State conservation area
as open space which could serve as a wil life and avian habitat.
(DEIS at X-14 , X-16. ) if Camp M 1 110 is indeed slated for
development, the cumulative analysi:s in the DEIS is based on
inaccurate infornation. These ord� ssio s and errors in the
cumulative impact section must be corrected, and a new analysis
performed based on accurate information.
The DEIS also fails to ana�yze he cumulative effect of
the Project and the other p� p lo�ments on Laurel Lake or
its wetlands. The increased nitrogen conc�ntrati=S may result in
a degradation of water V
ality and tne eutrophication of the ilake The DEIS should also
discuss the impact that the increase in 1?c�i population would have
on the lake in terms of increased recreational use (1,�, swimming,
boatinc and fishing) of the Lake. The DEIS also fails tc address
the cu;nu2ative growth inducing aspects ofi the proposed projects.
The influx of 325 residents to the area lay increase demand for
business services and induce now mnercial and retail
developments . This secondary impact of t�e proposed developments
should be addressed.
In sum, the Project as proposed ighould not be approved.
Further study and analysis ol the! impict ot the Project, including
alternative designs and lower densities, Ind the cufaulative effect
of �'he Project and the numerCws otherldeve opments proposed for the
environmentally sensitive Laurel La�e ar6a is require6 . Careful
and thorough analysis is especially c itical with respect to
impacts on groundwater quality and the tr gile ecosystem of Laurel
Lake and the wetlands.
Sincerely,
Karen E. Gross
KEG/HC
PAGE 2
4TH STORY of Level I printid in FULL format.
Copyright (C) 1991 Newsday , Inc. ;
Newsday �
June 12 , 1991, Wednesday, NASSAU ANb SUFFOLK EDITION
SECTION; NEWS; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 812 words
HEADLINE: Suffolk to Borrow $ 50M for Pine Barren
BYLINE: By Rick Brand. STAFF WRITER
KEYWORD: SUFFOLK COUNTY; LANDMARX; PROGRAM; tEGIS �ATURE; BUDGET; DEFICIT; PINE
BARRENS; REAL ESTATE; LAND; EINVIRONMENT; CONS�ERVAMN; NATURE; NATURE
CONSERVANCY
BODY :
To the cheers and whoops of dozens of enviromm ntalists, the Suffolk
legislature yesterday approved the borrowing � of t e last $ 50 million needed to
buy pine barrens under the county's landmark prog�am to acquire sensitive
Wate)7shed lands. I
Despite concerns about the county's $ 127 � Mill on budget gap for 1991-1992 ,
lawmakers voted 17-0, with one abstention, to appiove the bond resolution after
County Executive Patrick Halpin modified the orig nal measure so that no
borrowing Would take place until sept. i. ofticia s say they expect to develop
plan to resolve the county's fiscal problems , by t en.
"The groundwater protection program is one of he great success stories of
Suffolk County, " said Legis . Fred Thiele (R-Sag H rbor) , "and I think we're
ready to move ahead because we've covered all the, bases to protect the financia
integrity of the county. "
The vote on the pine barrens money was one of three environmental initiative:
legislators auted on.
Lawmakers also put aside until Aug. 27 a love �o eliminate funding to
purchase Robins Island, a 420-acre spit in 4conil-. Bay. The move came after the
Nature Conservancy, a national environmental grouVr:gre d yesterday to pay for
an appeal of a federal bankruptcy court decision win; out the county's $
9 . 2-million contract for purchase. A growing nui r of legislators indicated
that they were ready to balk at legal bills, wh have totaled $ 500, 000 so
far.
Andrew Walker, director of the Long Islan cha ter of the Nature Conservancy
said the offer by the organization is "very i�inusuhl, but we're willing to take
the extraordinary step because we believe there a�e excellent legal grounds and
we believe it is important to progerVe Robins isi nd in its entirety. "
The legislature also approved borrowing $ � 3 m lion for the acquisition or
six parcels for the county's $ 69-million open sp�ce program - including
5 . 4-acres on Ketcham Woods creek in Babylon, 37 alres on Beaver 0am Creek In
Brookhaven and 41 acres in montauk.
PAGE 3
(C) 1991 Newsday, June 12 19
,lws a great day for the environment and �the Irotection of our i precious
drinking water, " said Halpin. "On one hand, the economy has posed certain
problems for the county government, but it 450 gives a tremendous opportunity
to acquire pristine land at affordable prices. " 1:
But it was the funding for -thn pine barre�s th�lt brought cheers from more
than 40 environmentalists, many carrying signs reading: "Keep it green, Keep it
clean, " and "Now is the time to buy. " The legislaiure approved the pine barrens
money after more than a dozen speakers, emphAsizi�g that more than 80 percent of
the public voted twice (in 1987 and in 1988) :for the pine barrens program and
that the economy is making land available at �bargiin prices.
"I think the people of the county want you to �ut aside the partisan politics
and the fiscal mess, " said Randall Parsons of, Eas Hampton. "This is a sacred
cow to �he people of this county . . . They want �ou to nurture it. They want
you to fund the program. "
Through the program, funded by one-quarter cent on each dollar of the sales
tax to the year 2000, the county has already !speni S 92 million of its original
$ 100 million bond authorization, acquiring �, Soo �acres of critical water
recharge areas throughout the county mainly ,in Brookhaven and the East End. The
$ 50 million approved yesterday is Ue last money �the county expects to borrow
for pine barrens acquisition.
The new funding will allow the county to pursue' purchases from a list of more
than 7 , 200 acres, worth about $ 120 million. Among the top priorities are 250
acres of Warbler Woods in Yaphank, where the county has already bought 300
acres, 120 acres around Laurel Lake in Southoldiand 300-acre Stony Hill Woods
in East Hampton.
begis. Joseph Rizzo (R-Islip Terrace) abstained, saying he wants a new
referendum on the program because public sentiment may have changed in light of
the downturn in the economy. "We're on the verge of bankruptcy, and shutting
lown Fridays, " he said. "I think it's time we, listen to the public again. $'
I I
Halpin aides downplayed the fiscal impact, I say*In th bonds, backed by
dedicated sales tax revenues, are viewed in a! diffegrentel ight than other
Dbligations. However, they said they agreed to chalge the proposal because they
do not expect to enter the market place to bo rrow �oney before September.
In other action the legislature:
Appointed Babylon Republican Richard Krunh plz, 46, to the three-member board
)f Suffolk Off-Track Betting Corp. Krumholzj who r�n against Legis. Sondra
3achety (D-Babylon) two years ago, replaces G lber� Stern.
Approved an emergency resolution ordering the hoalth department to come up
with a plan within go days to provide developers w1ith alternatives to
lenitrification septic tank systems that the state� Departmeht of Environmental
'onservation says it will no longer approve.
;RAPHIC: Newsday Photo by George Argeroplos- Sherrk Johnson of the North Fork
rnvironmental Council addresses the legislature
DATE 7 4 7 Dim
APLA,,�Fltfiurrri L
_-ALL 470
yo.,lanora,Nuallaer pari,loomr,orat TO(RmlPlant's Namel
DaPadrrrarl!/Fl�I Cli (i
LL' 01 I/F la,I
E)WF Stirilat Addirrialif I at ft*W AW AHMAIN E�
ftawarpaZIDDialiall,
Sww ZIP Rialfaaaf For city
Sater
REF I I
�ENCI INFORMATION IFIRS)l 24 CHARACTERS WILL APPEAR
ON INVOICE.) NOLD FOR PICK-UPAT THIS FEDERAL EXPRE
BIN�nj' all Sbri Addrasta(Sm Saninal,Guide or CaWl &I N. F%ml Epni Um
Fai Fradlli,t III W, 8201 )
coih off, all Ca'I'dit c4ad
fty
L
CHECK
Co I Box ILL
pt! PICKASES Hall 41# .... ZIP-ZIP
'lay-,1-111 1 El gl!�
Ar Njtr,-�L I v Ii ��11 I Will Uttarge
vsmusmf 2 0 DELIFER WEEI L
—2k oriff,-Ii YOUR DECLARED VALUE
,"I 1 3 DELIFIEftGATORDAy,garriarall
"121111 40 AINGEROUSGOODS 13 SAINARE OR LOW
We aro itabil for n,,
physi r
. ,ro
77t. pioi on 11 1 in hFIF U
To's :ARI o a c I c r
5[1"�"'�",S�UR�VIILLANCf$E.RVXE(CSSI TiaIl ea o ,too on
sh Gul
J,�A*DARO Alit 6 El ORIFICE or
I ,of IF,
n
or Fla.
70 OTHER SPECIAL SERVICE DELA V
"A .1
6 1 N GO 8 ri T,'o
Wo
'rh or-1,v,.,n
"no"
go urummirm'Ift PF dx
- i!SL__ k of aori ,,i
or -111 Ef, ion
crii FIl'a"of 1,, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
10 E3
-Z�,7
Fioaro, 100 10
o F t; :h cda too oc I EC I-,1,10,0
"I"on 'i �ap or
Mes WS of
cri
"Foo Won T�!Fh as all W 1()N DArE
no,'i foa "" lint
"o in i
li
DONOrsmai
SCOTT L. HARRIS
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Richard G. Ward P.O. Box 1179
Mark S. McDonald Southold, New York 11971
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
June 28, 1991
Peter Danowski , Jr.
616 Roanoke Ave.
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Major subdivision for
macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski, Jr. :
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above
mentioned subdivision was deemed complete on June 4, 1991.
The fee for the critical review of the accepted DEIS is
$1 , 500 .
Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
1<2
2�;� �7
A
Bennett 0�r�LowS 11'(1L
Chairman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reviewing Agency
FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
DATE: June 27, 1991
RE: Proposed Major Subdivision
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Enclosed please find six (6) pages of text which are to be
included with the above referenced DEIS. These pages were
inadvertently omitted from the Planning Board' s June 17, 1991
mailing.
encl.
i�F i Li---
MS
21/9 9:23:
.........._....i�iliii06
..... . ....................
D NEW:::Ii-'�Pb��IfIVF�- DECLARATION:::;:::7t-�:; 7::
72T.....- S7U-THoLD, -SUFFbLK County
-001 .... .
.......Town of
...�P1473800
T
I E NUMBER:
................ ...... ... ........... .............................
..........:::
................................................
AGE own of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK Y
. .. ........
. . ........... . ........1............
or BOARD-,:::�Planning Board ....... ............. .... ........
.... .... 19 t e d::iil'i
..................... ASS--:::J::nUn1 * .... ....i.... EN EIS'::::N::::::::
................... ....... .... ..
.......I..................... .... .... :::::::::::::::::::,:�:::::ENCON INVOLVED: :�::N::::::::
iTLE: aurel Subdi:v.:::,, ...
............. ........... .............. ......
.................... ............ ....................
....................
........I.... family detac 100 on 63. 6 ac on
....E..S I i��i 0. 27 single hed housIng units
the S/S Of Sound Ave.
.............................. ....
.................
.............
EVELOPMENT CE I VEF7777M::;:;iili�iii
........................ :::........
:::::::::::Residential subdivisiOn�i ::ii��i�:iiPOsitive
06/21/911"'*''
......EIS N
F otice Comp let iont*:':i;-!;:-::**:::':':':
:::::::Commercial Industrial:::� ......
6/2 1/9 1::::-:::;:'::
i::::::::::Private Other Governm' t:.:: r a f t E I S: .......
..... ........ 06/24/9l::::::::::
Scheduled:i:�i:ii
:iiiiiiiiiiChanged To Neg Dec!--...... ........
.... .........
TATUS
:::::::OK Wit�drawr) inal E
.......... ..... .....................
............;
................... d: .......
........ ............... indings file
................. .......
........................ ......
..............
-- nt Record 7777E;
......... Curre .... ......... .............
..............
.....................................
..........
. ........... ........... ....... ---
.................
> >
E> 3- 4 7 3 8 0 0 0 0 3- 0 2
Use the above number in all
correspondence about this action !
To the Lead Agency :
The above information confirms that filings On the described
positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the
SEOR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED
above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in
that box . The date and time in the second line show when this
document was Printed. please check the information above carefullY�
For corrections or <iuestions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224,
or write to :
SEOR Repository
NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs
50 Wolf Road, Room 514
Albany, NY 12233
6
Town of SOUTHOLD
Planning Board
53o95 Main Road-P. O. BOX 1179
Southold, NY 11971
-Aeucal,-L. OZ
/Pu-'a
/c/l yz
6za�&
Ct (ta 64� A.-,O
yt lie.
X�10 7-
-2- 31
e& cz- cr-a"l
_6U ('0-7a
4s r:-,
JUL I
JLM
IL
1 -
4- k
r �
�Y �
CL V"-O
CL ztv�
e
PL�
jag
ce� 01
f r6lo�
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
June 25, 1991
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P. 0. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following took place at the meeting of the Southold
Town Planning Board on Monday, June 24, 1991.
The public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement was closed.
It was noted that the public comment period will run until
July 5, 1991 .
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
ow/0;
Bennett Or :Cs i, Jr.'
Chairman
cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
TO: Reviewing Agency
FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
DATE: June 17, 1991
RE: Proposed Major Subdivision
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Macari at Laurel, Southold Town
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March
22, 1991, together with the six pages of revised text, received by the
Planning Board on May 13, 1991, for the proposed Macari at Laurel
subdivision.
The Planning Board accepted the DEIS as complete for the purpose of public
and inter-agency review on June 4, 1991.
Please take note of the following dates:
The public comment period began on June 4, 1991;
The public comment period will end on July 5, 1991;
The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the DEIS on June
24, 1991, at 7 : 30 P.M. in the meeting room at the Town Hall.
If you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro at
this office.
cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III , President, Board of Town Trustees
*John Holzapfel, Conservation Advisory council
*Town Board Members
Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Health Department
Mohabir Perseud, Department of State
David Morrell, N.Y.S.D.E.C. SUNY, Stony Brook
Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. Albany
Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Robert DeLuca, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Louise Harrison, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
Frank Dowling, Suffolk county Planning Commission.
Walter C. Hazlitt, Suffolk County Water Authority
DEIS was not enclosed with original submission
FIGURE 19
MAP OF SITE SHOWING LOCATION OF TEST HOLES
-V
b ctw 1.
C'.
23
j77
v
IT
"'s
0
22
2,
2'1
8
-7
16
15
14
In
13
EXPLANATION
test hole—s
io r
positi,,e test holes
9
-7� ztx—— areas of prehistoric
archaeological sensJtJvity
7
5
4 -------/
3
2
0
C, S
KL
G
72
possible within this zone, depending on location.
As noted in Figure 4, the Upper Glacial Aquifer directly
underlies the site area (Jensen, et al. , 1974) . This aquifer is
the uppermost aquifer of Long Island and contains the water
table. This shallow aquifer generally includes saturated coarse
sands and gravels in the upper Pleistocene deposits. The upper
limit of the aquifer is the regional water table and the lower
limit of the aquifer is marked by the Magothy Aquifer.
This geohydrologic cross-section (Figure 4) is drawn roughly
north-south from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean,
through the North and South Forks, respectively. The
cross-section area is located approximately 1 mile west of the
site and indicates that the Upper Glacial Aquifer is
approximately 600 feet thick. This illustration also
demonstrates the presence of the Magothy Aquifer beneath the
Upper Glacial Aquifer under the site (Jensen, et al. , 1974) .
The Town of Southold has established a Water Resources
Management Program in order to protect the existing and future
groundwater supply of the Town through a combination of
environmentally sensitive land use policies and practices. In
addition, the site is within the Central Suffolk Special
Groundwater Protection Area, Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed
(Suffolk County Executive, 1990) .
Seven (7) monitoring wells (Figure 6) were completed at the
site in order to determine the present elevation of the
111-49
groundwater table and to establish the general groundwater flow
direction at the site. The groundwater table is approximately 6
feet above sea level at the site (Appendix C; Figure 7) . Depth
of the water table below the surface ranged from approximately 0
to about 45 feet (Appendix C) . Although the water table is
considerably lower than the ground surface throughout most of
the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the
north-central portion of the site intersect the water table,
creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively.
Seasonal fluctuations in the regional groundwater level can
be estimated from data obtained from a nearby U.S. Geological
Survey/Suffolk County Department of Health Services well (U.S.
Geol. Survey, 1986) :
S16756. High elevation (1/9/85) ; 8. 53 feet MSL.
Low elevation (7/11/85) ; 6.77 feet MSL.
Municipal Well (Town of Riverhead) , located
approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site.
An approximate 2 foot seasonal variation in groundwater
level at the site is projected from the data obtained from this
well.
111-50
facilitate an increase in adsorption of viruses, thus lessening
the potential impact on the groundwater' in the vicinity of the
site. With increasing distance from the site, the probability
of viral contamination lessens considerably.
The project will have private wells associated with each
housing unit.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1988,
page 2 , first paragraph) in its "Standards and Procedures for
Private Water Systems" describes the requirements for
"Single-Family Residences on Lots in Single and Separate
Ownership" (such as the proposed action) as follows:
"A minimum horizontal separation of 150 feet must be
provided between the well and the leaching pools.
Where such separations are physically impossible to
obtain, hookup to public water mains beyond the
required distance must be considered. "
Consequently, the proposed action will be compatible with the
regulations governing septic system design and distance from a
potable water supply source.
The allowable sewage flow (Suffolk County Department of
Health Services) is 300 gallons per day per acre, or
approximately 19, 080 gallons per day (300 gpd X 63 . 6 acres) .
Since the projected sewage discharge value for the proposed
action is only 8, 100 gallons per day, acceptable levels of
discharge are anticipated.
Finally, there is concern as to potential contamination
V-45
from the proposed action to nearby private wells and to Laurel
Lake. As stated above, the groundwater movement direction is
probably southeast or south-southeast at the site.
Consequently, with the distribution of the housing units
proposed for the site, the septic effluent discharge will have a
minimal effect on Laurel Lake because of the great distances
from the lake and the direction of groundwater flow.
In addition, the septic systems on lots closest to the
private residences south of the site (i.e. , Lots #14 , #15, #16,
and #17) are a distance of at least 200 feet away. This is in
excess of the minimal 150 foot separation distance between
septic systems and drinking supply wells, as required by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. In addition, the
groundwater flow will probably direct the septic effluent in a
southeasterly or south-southeasterly direction, north of the
private wells. The only lots that will produce effluent that
might intersect with private residences are Lots #21, #22 , #23,
#24 , and #25, located in the northwestern portion of the site
(Plate 1) . The distances from these lots to the closest private
residence is approximately 1,000 feet. The septic effluent will
be able to mix and dilute for approximately 10 times the
distance required by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services for separation between septic systems and drinking
supply wells. Thus, the septic effluent from these lots should
not adversely effect the drinking water quality at private
V-46
Seaburn, G.E. , 1970, Preliminary Results of Hydrologic Studies
at Two Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-C; Washington, D.C.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982 , Report on
the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in
Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County: prepared by
Bureau of Water Resources, Baier and Robbins; 71 p. ,
Appendices A-H.
1987, Sanitary Code, Article 6, Groundwater
Management Zones (Map) ; Hauppauge, New York.
, 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan: Division of Environmental Health
(SCDHS) , Dvirka and Bartilucci, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ;
Hauppauge, New York.
1988, Standards and Procedures for Private Water
systems: Division of Environmental Quality; Hauppauge,
New York; 14p.
Division of Environmental Quality, 1988, Standards
for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewarge Disposal
Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences, Hauppauge,
New York.
Suffolk County Executive, 1990, The Suffolk County Drinking
Water Protection Program; Comprehensive Acquisition Plan;
Hauppauge, New York; 78p.
Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1985, Eastern forests: Audubon
Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New
York; 638p.
Swihart, M. M. and Petrich, C. H. , 1988, Assessing the Aesthetic
Impacts of Small Hydropower Development: National
Association of Environmental Professionals, The
Environmental Professional, Vol. 10, No. 3 ;
Alexandria, Virginia; pp. 198-210.
Tchobanoglous, G. and Schroeder, E.D. , 1985, Water Quality,
Characteristics, Modeling, Modification: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company; Reading Massachusetts.
Todd, David K. , 1959, Ground Water Hydrology: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. ; New York, New York; 336p.
R-6
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
271 Main Street
Northport, NY 11768
(516) 754-3415
June 10, 1991
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Per you request, enclosed are ten copies of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Macari at Laurel.
Cordially yours, _
The Clover C oration
0
by:
RAJ:mcb rd A. Jackson, Ph.D.
esident
Enclosures
cc: P. Danowski
J. Macari
H. Young
1 7 r-
A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
foil
owing
7310 &. Pu �earing on COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
the Draft Envirole mal Impact STA I'F OF NEW YORK
Statement dated March 1991,
together with the six pages of re-
vised text,received by the Plan-
ning Board on May 13,1991,for Patricia Wood,- being duly sworn, says that she is the
Macari at Laurel.This proposed
subdivision is located in Laurel, Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
Town of Southold, County of a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
Suffolk and the State of New
York. Suffolk County TbLx Map and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
Number 1000-121-4-9.Copies of has been published if) Said Long Island Traveler-Watchrrian
the Draft Environmental Impact once each week for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ weeks
Statement will be available in the . . . . . . . .
Southold,Cutchogue and Mat- / a
�L1CCCS_SiVCly, commencing on the . . . . . .
tituck Public Libraries and the
Planning Board Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The property is bordered on
the north by land now or clay of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
formerly of Edward J.Woessner,
by Sound Avenue,by land now
or formerly of Benjamin Jazam- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bek and by land now or former-
ly of Charles B. and Genevieve
Jazombek; on the cast by land
now or formerly of Walter
Sabat,by land now or formerly Sworn to hefole file this . . . . . . . . . . . .65 clay of
of"Barbara B. Sayre, by land
now or formerly of Joseph &
Patricia Steifer, by land now or . . . . 19
formerly of Barbara Ann Ku-
jawski, by land now or former-
ly of Walter&Marilyn Gatz and
by land now or formerly of A.T.
Holding Corp.;on the south by
land now or formerly of Nofo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14t4!��4�44,0`._.`4-�... . . . .
Associates, by Laurel Lake, by Notary Public
land now or formerly of Adeline
L. Lee,by land now or former- BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER
ly of Marion E. Smith,by land NOTARY PUBLIC, St,te of New York
now or formerly of Thomas I. No. 4806846
&Mary Gorman. by land now Qualified in Suffolk C nty
or formerly of Henry&Lillian Commission Expires F .31
Hefurth, by land now or
formerly of Colin L. &Penne-
lope Westerbeck,by land now or
formerly of Bradley J. Betz, by
land now or formerly of Marion
E. Smith, by land now or
formerly of Donald Rosen, by
land now or formerly of Carole
Rich&Donald Rosen,by land
now or formerly of Walter &
Marilyn Gatz, by land now or
formerly of Grace Marie &
Grace M. Schalk, by land now
or formerly of Joseph V.&Pat-
ricia 0. Madia, by land now or
formerly of Mark D.Grose, by
land now or formerly of Steven
Brautlgam and by land now or
formerly of George 0.Guildi&
Douglas Miller; on the west by
land now or formerly of Peconic
LEGALS N(MCE Homes Inc.and proposed road.
Notice of Pali Hearing Any person desiring to be
NOTICE IS HEREBY heard on the above matter
GIVEN that pursuant to Section should appear at the time and
276 of the Tbwn Law, a public place specified.
.hearing will be held by the Dated: June 4, 1991
Southold lb%m Planning Board, BY ORDSR.017 THE
at the 7b*n Hall, Main Road, SOUTHOLD TOWN
Southold, New York in said PLANNING BOARD
Town on the 24th day of June Bennett Orlowski,Jr.
1991 on the question of the Chairman
IX, 6/6/91 (6)
BOARD MEMBERS
G' SCOTT L. HARRIS
PLANNIN
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward �N: Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
June 6, 1991
Signe Youngberg
Southold Free Library
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Macari at Laurel
Subdivision .
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Dear Ms . Youngberg:
The Southold Town Planning Board would like to make the
enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel subdivision available to the general public.
A copy of the legal notice is attached to the document.
The public comment period will remain open until July 5, 1991.
However, please keep the document available for public
review until further written notice from this office.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
P�4
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Encls.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
June 6, 1991
Thomas Fleetwood
Mattituck Free Library
Main Road
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: Macari at Laurel
Subdivision
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Fleetwood:
The Southold Town Planning Board would like to make the
enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel subdivision available to the general public.
A copy of the legal notice is attached to the document.
The public comment period will remain open until July 5, 1991 .
However, please keep the document available for public
review until further written notice from this office.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
19XU7?4V14"11 d
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Encls.
U11.
G BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
PLANNIN
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Supervisor
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
June 6, 1991
Jane Minerva, Director
Cutchogue Free Library
Main Road
Cutchogue, New York 11935
RE: Macari at Laurel
Subdivision
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Dear Ms. Minerva:
The Southold Town Planning Board would like to make the
enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel subdivision available to the general public.
A copy of the legal notice is attached to the document.
The public comment period will remain open until July 5, 1991 .
However, please keep the document available for public
review until further written notice from this office.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
�&144��'Ull
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Encls.
CANNING BOARD MEMBERS A =
SCO17 L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
LEGALS NOTICE
Notice of Public Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 276 of the Town
Law' a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning
Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said
Town on the 24th day of June 1991 on the question of the
following:
7 : 30 P.M. Public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement dated March 1991, together with the six pages of
revised text, received by the Planning Board on May 13 , 1991,
for Macari at Laurel. This proposed subdivision is located in
Laurel, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and the State of New
York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number. 1000-121-4-9. Copies of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be available in
the Southold, Cutchogue and Mattituck Public Libraries and the
Planning Board Office.
The property is bordered on the north by land now or
formerly of Edward J. Woessner, by Sound Avenue, by land now or
formerly of Benjamin Jazambek and by land now or formerly of
Charles B. and Genevieve Jazombek; on the east by land now or
formerly of Walter Sabat, by land now or formerly of Barbara B.
Sayre, by land now or formerly of Joseph & Patricia Stiefer, by
land now or formerly of Barbara Ann Kujawski, by land now or
formerly of Walter & Marilyn Gatz and by land now or formerly of
A.T. Holding Corp. ; on the south by land now or formerly of Nofo
Associates, by Laurel Lake, by land now or formerly of Adeline
L. Lee, by land now or formerly of Marion E. Smith, by land now
or formerly of Thomas J. & Mary Gorman, by land now or formerly
of Henry & Lillian Hefurth, by land now or formerly of Colin L.
& Pennelope Westerbeck, by land now or formerly of Bradley J.
Betz, by land now or formerly of Marion E. Smith, by land now or
formerly of Donald Rosen, by land now or formerly of Carole Rich
& Donald Rosen, by land now or formerly of Walter & Marilyn
Gatz, by land now or formerly of Grace Marie & Grace M. Schalk,
by land now or formerly of Joseph V. & Patricia G. Madia, by
land now or formerly of Mark D. Grose, by land now or formerly
of Steven Brautlgam and by land now or formerly of George 0.
Guildi & Douglas Miller; on the west by land now or formerly of
Peconic Homes Inc. and proposed road.
page 2 *anning Board Oune - 4 , 1991
Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should
appear at the time and place specified.
Dated: June 4, 1991
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Please print once on Thursday, June 6 , 1991 and forward ( 1)
affidavit to this office, thank you.
Copies sent to:
Suffolk Times
LI Traveler Watchman
ru
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
June 6, 1991
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on Tuesday, June 4, 1991.
Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1991,
together with the six pages of revised text, received by the
Planning Board on May 13 , 1991 as complete for the purpose of
public and inter-agency review.
Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board initiate a public
comment period of tl.irty ( 30) calendar days from the date of
this resolution. The public comment period will run until July
5, 1991.
Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board set Monday June 24,
1991, at 7: 30 P.M. for a public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
ZZ,
Bennett Orlowski, ir. ,f
Chairman
cc: Charles J. Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
FIGURE 19
MAP OF SITE SHOWING LOCATION OF TEST HOLES
C
23 A�—
AL
7
'k, AL
21
22� t
is
K,
15 Z,
14
13 '61
, I A
EXPLANATION
0 test hore—s
0
A positi�e test holes
io X
X
8
areas of prehistoric
7 archaeological sens4t��Jtv
6
4
2
S T
Q
KL
G
C
r
A D
72
possible within this zone, depending on location.
As noted in Figure 4, the Upper Glacial Aquifer directly
underlies the site area (Jensen, et al. , 1974) . This aquifer is
the uppermost aquifer of Long Island and contains the water
table. This shallow aquifer generally includes saturated coarse
sands and gravels in the upper Pleistocene deposits. The upper
limit of the aquifer is the regional water table and the lower
limit of the aquifer is marked by the Magothy Aquifer.
This geohydrologic cross-section (Figure 4) is drawn roughly
north-south from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean,
through the North and South Forks, respectively. The
cross-section area is located approximately 1 mile west of the
site and indicates that the Upper Glacial Aquifer is
approximately 600 feet thick. This illustration also
demonstrates the presence of the Magothy Aquifer beneath the
Upper Glacial Aquifer under the site (Jensen, et al. , 1974) .
The Town of Southold has established a Water Resources
Management Program in order to protect the existing and future
groundwater supply of the Town through a combination of
environmentally sensitive land use policies and practices. In
addition, the site is within the Central Suffolk Special
Groundwater Protection Area, Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed
(Suffolk County Executive, 1990) .
Seven (7) monitoring wells (Figure 6) were completed at the
site in order to determine the present elevation of the
111-49
groundwater table and to establish the general groundwater flow
direction at the site. The groundwater table is approximately 6
feet above sea level at the site (Appendix C; Figure 7) . Depth
of the water table below the surface ranged from approximately 0
to about 45 feet (Appendix C) . Although the water table is
considerably lower than the ground surface throughout most of
the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the
north-central portion of the site intersect the water table,
creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively.
Seasonal fluctuations in the regional groundwater level can
be estimated from data obtained from a nearby U.S. Geological
Survey/Suffolk County Department of Health Services well (U.S.
Geol. Survey, 1986) :
S16756. High elevation (1/9/85) ; 8.53 feet MSL.
Low elevation (7/11/85) ; 6.77 feet MSL.
Municipal Well (Town of Riverhead) , located
approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site.
An approximate 2 foot seasonal variation in groundwater
level .at the site is projected from the data obtained from this
well.
111-50
facilitate an increase in adsorption of viruses, thus lessening
the potential impact on the groundwater in the vicinity of the
site. With increasing distance from the site, the probability
of viral contamination lessens considerably.
The project will have private wells associated with each
housing unit.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1988,
page 2, first paragraph) in its "Standards and Procedures for
Private Water Systems" describes the requirements for
"Single-Family Residences on Lots in Single and Separate
Ownership" (such as the proposed action) as follows:
"A minimum horizontal separation of 150 feet must be
provided between the well and the leaching pools.
Where such separations are physically impossible to
obtain, hookup to public water mains beyond the
required distance must be considered. "
Consequently, the proposed action will be compatible with the
regulations governing septic system design and distance from a
potable water supply source.
The allowable sewage flow (Suffolk County Department of
Health Services) is 300 gallons per day per acre, or
approximately 19, 080 gallons per day (300 gpd X 63 . 6 acres) .
Since the projected sewage discharge value for the proposed
action is only 8, 100 gallons per day, acceptable levels of
discharge are anticipated.
Finally, there is concern as to potential contamination
V-45
from the proposed action to nearby private wells and to Laurel
Lake. As stated above, the groundwater movement direction is
probably southeast or south-southeast at the site.
consequently, with the distribution of the housing units
proposed for the site, the septic effluent discharge will have a
minimal effect on Laurel Lake because of the great distances
from the lake and the direction of groundwater flow.
In addition, the septic systems on lots closest to the
private residences south of the site (i.e. , Lots #14, #15, #16,
and #17) are a distance of at least 200 feet away. This is in
excess of the minimal 150 foot separation distance between
septic systems and drinking supply wells, as required by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. In addition, the
groundwater flow will probably direct the septic effluent in a
southeasterly or south-southeasterly direction, north of the
private wells. The only lots that will produce effluent that
might intersect with private residences are Lots #21, #22, #23,
#24, and #25, located in the northwestern portion of the site
(Plate 1) . The distances from these lots to the closest private
residence is approximately 1, 000 feet. The septic effluent will
be able to mix and dilute for approximately 10 times the
distance required by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services for separation between septic systems and drinking
supply wells. Thus, the septic effluent from these lots should
not adversely effect the drinking water quality at private
V-46
Seaburn, G.E. , 1970, Preliminary Results of Hydrologic Studies
at Two Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York: u.s.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-C; Washington, D.C.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982, Report on
the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in
Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County: prepared by
Bureau of Water Resources, Baier and Robbins; 71 p. ,
Appendices A-H.
, 1987, Sanitary Code, Article 6, Groundwater
Management Zones (Map) ; Hauppauge, New York.
_' 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan: Division of Environmental Health
(SCDHS) , Dvirka and Bartilucci, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1988, Standards and Procedures for Private Water
systems: Division Of Environmental Quality; Hauppauge,
New York; 14p.
, Division of Environmental Quality, 1988, Standards
for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewarge Disposal
Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences, Hauppauge,
New York.
Suffolk County Executive, 1990, The Suffolk County Drinking
Water Protection Program; Comprehensive Acquisition Plan;
Hauppauge, New York; 78p.
Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1985, Eastern forests: Audubon
Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New
York; 638p.
Swihart, M. M. and Petrich, C. H. , 1988, Assessing the Aesthetic
Impacts Of Small Hydropower Development: National
Association of Environmental Professionals, The
Environmental Professional, Vol. 10, No. 3 ;
Alexandria, Virginia; pp. 198-210.
Tchobanoglous, G. and Schroeder, E.D. , 1985, Water Quality,
Characteristics, Modeling, Modification: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company; Reading Massachusetts.
Todd, David K. , 1959, Ground Water Hydrology: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. ; New York, New York; 336p.
R-6
CRAMER, V JAH ' OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT"' G CONSULTANTS
May 31, 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Draft EIS
Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Benny:
As per the your request of May 14, 1991,we have reviewed the revised pages for the above
referenced Draft EIS.
Please be advised that the revision addresses our comment documented in our prior
correspondance.
Should be Board find the other revisions to be complete, in our opinion, the Draft EIS
should be accepted.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very tr y - s,
Y"
4:a�rles J. Voorhis
Jim - 4
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
RA,
N
ER, VO, SOCIATES
4,A CONSULTANTS
CRAM
ENVIRONMENTA AN /V5
14&
May 31, 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Plannin? Board
Town Hall, 5309 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Draft EIS
Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Benny:
As per the your re jest of May 14, 1991, we have reviewed the revised pages for the above
referenced Draft iNS.
Please be advised that the revision addresses our comment documented in our prior
correspondance.
Should be Board find the other revisions to be complete, in our opinion, the Draft EIS
should be accepted.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very t yo s,
arles J. Voorhis
I ry t Yo
arles J. V
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
May 14, 1991
Thomas Cramer
Charles Voorhis
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
RE: Draft EIS
Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Messrs Cramer and Voorhis:
The revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the above-referenced subdivision were received by this
office on May 13 , 1991. The submission included six ( 6) pages of
revised text.
Please review these revisions for scope, content and
adequacy.
The next scheduled Planning Board meeting is June 3, 1991.
The Board will be making a determination of completeness (or
incompleteness) at this meeting. It would be appreciated if you
indicate whether you can meet this deadline.
Please contact this office if you need any additional
information.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Ji .
Chairman
MS/ms
enc.
LAW OFFICES
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P.O.BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516)727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)727-7451 MICHAEL T.CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ
May 10, 1991
The Planning Board office
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P .O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Att: Melissa Spiro
Re Macari at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Melissa :
Pursuant to the Planning Board' s resolution dated April 23, 1991,
and consistent with your direction, please find enclosed five
copies of the revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Very truly Ours,
/V��Ir
PETER S. DANOWSKI , JR.
P SI�pl
Enc sures
cc: Mr . Macari
Mr . Young
Mr . Jackson
FIGURE 19
MAP OF SITE SHOWING LOCATION OF TEST HOLES
-7
23
22
L
e AX
z
%
2
16
5
14
13
EXpLANATION
test h 0 re
io
Positive test holes
9
areas of prehistoric
archaeological sens4tJ-,-ty
6
4
3 -- --- - -
2
i—is�Tv
Vl KL
77
possible within this zone, depending on location.
As noted in Figure 4, the Upper Glacial Aquifer directly
underlies the site area (Jensen, et al. , 1974) . This aquifer is
the uppermost aquifer of Long Island and contains the water
table. This shallow aquifer generally includes saturated coarse
sands and gravels in the upper Pleistocene deposits. The upper
limit of the aquifer is the regional water table and the lower
limit of the aquifer is marked by the Magothy Aquifer.
This geohydrologic cross-section (Figure 4) is drawn roughly
north-south from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean,
through the North and South Forks, respectively. The
cross-section area is located approximately 1 mile west of the
site and indicates that the Upper Glacial Aquifer is
approximately 600 feet thick. This illustration also
demonstrates the presence of the Magothy Aquifer beneath the
Upper Glacial Aquifer under the site (Jensen, et al. , 1974) .
The Town of Southold has established a Water Resources
Management Program in order to protect the existing and future
groundwater supply of the Town through a combination of
environmentally sensitive land use policies and practices. In
addition, the site is within the Central Suffolk Special
Groundwater Protection Area, Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed
(Suffolk County Executive, 1990) .
Seven (7) monitoring wells (Figure 6) were completed at the
site in order to determine the present elevation of the
111-49
groundwater table and to establish the general groundwater flow
direction at the site. The groundwater table is approximately 6
feet above sea level at the site (Appendix C; Figure 7) . Depth
of the water table below the surface ranged from approximately 0
to about 45 feet (Appendix C) . Although the water table is
considerably lower than the ground surface throughout most of
the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the
north-central portion of the site intersect the water table,
creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively.
Seasonal fluctuations in the regional groundwater level can
be estimated from data obtained from a nearby U.S. Geological
Survey/Suffolk County Department of Health Services well (U.S.
Geol. Survey, 1986) :
S16756. High elevation (1/9/85) ; 8. 53 feet MSL.
Low elevation (7/11/85) ; 6. 77 feet MSL.
Municipal Well (Town of Riverhead) , located
approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site.
An approximate 2 foot seasonal variation in groundwater
level at the site is projected from the data obtained from this
well.
111-50
facilitate an increase in adsorption of viruses, thus lessening
the potential impact on the groundwater in the vicinity of the
site. with increasing distance from the site, the probability
of viral contamination lessens considerably.
The project will have private wells associated with each
housing unit.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1988,
page 2, first paragraph) in its "Standards and Procedures for
Private Water Systems" describes the requirements for
"Single-Family Residences on Lots in single and Separate
ownership" (such as the proposed action) as follows:
"A minimum horizontal separation of 150 feet must be
provided between the well and the leaching pools.
Where such separations are physically impossible to
obtain, hookup to public water mains beyond the
required distance must be considered. "
Consequently, the proposed action will be compatible with the
regulations governing septic system design and distance from a
potable water supply source.
The allowable sewage flow (Suffolk County Department of
Health Services) is 300 gallons per day per acre, or
approximately 19, 080 gallons per day (300 gpd X 63.6 acres) .
Since the projected sewage discharge value for the proposed
action is only 8, 100 gallons per day, acceptable levels of
discharge are anticipated.
Finally, there is concern as to potential contamination
V-45
from the proposed action to nearby private wells .and to Laurel
Lake. As stated above, the groundwater movement direction is
probably southeast or south-southeast at the site.
Consequently, with the distribution of the housing units
proposed for the site, the septic effluent discharge will have a
minimal effect on Laurel Lake because of the great distances
from the lake and the direction of groundwater flow.
In addition, the septic systems on lots closest to the
private residences south of the site (i.e. , Lots #14, #15, #16,
and #17) are a distance of at least 200 feet away. This is in
excess of the minimal 150 foot separation distance between
septic systems and drinking supply wells, as required by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. In addition, the
groundwater flow will probably direct the septic effluent in a
southeasterly or south-southeasterly direction, north of the
private wells. The only lots that will produce effluent that
might intersect with private residences are Lots #21, #22, #23 ,
#24, and #25, located in the northwestern portion of the site
(Plate 1) . The distances from these lots to the closest private
residence is approximately 1, 000 feet. The septic effluent will
be able to mix and dilute for approximately 10 times the
distance required by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services for separation between septic systems and drinking
supply wells. Thus, the septic effluent from these lots should
not adversely effect the drinking water quality at private
V-46
Seaburn, G.E. , 1970, Preliminary Results of Hydrologic Studies
at Two Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-C; Washington, D.C.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982, Report on
the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in
Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County: prepared by
Bureau of Water Resources, Baier and Robbins; 71 p. ,
Appendices A-H.
, 1987, Sanitary Code, Article 6, Groundwater
Management Zones (Map) ; Hauppauge, New York.
, 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan: Division of Environmental Health
(SCDHS) , Dvirka and Bartilucci, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1988, Standards and Procedures for Private Water
Systems: Division of Environmental Quality; Hauppauge,
New York; 14p.
. Division of Environmental Quality, 1988, Standards
for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewarge Disposal
Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences, Hauppauge,
New York.
Suffolk County Executive, 1990, The Suffolk County Drinking
Water Protection Program; Comprehensive Acquisition Plan;
Hauppauge, New York; 78p.
Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1985, Eastern forests: Audubon
Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New
York; 638p.
Swihart, M. M. and Petrich, C. H. , 1988, Assessing the Aesthetic
Impacts of Small Hydropower Development: National
Association of Environmental Professionals, The
Environmental Professional, Vol . 10, No. 3 ;
Alexandria, Virginia; pp. 198-210.
Tchobanoglous, G. and Schroeder, E.D. , 1985, Water Quality,
Characteristics, Modeling, Modification: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company; Reading Massachusetts.
Todd, David K. , 1959, Ground Water Hydrology: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. ; New York, New York; 336p.
R-6
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman SCOTT L. HARRIS
77 Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
April 23 , 1991
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, April 22, 1991:
The revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement of March
1991 has been reviewed for completeness. The revised draft
includes all of the revisions that were requested by this Board
on November 16, 1990. However there are two errors in the
revisions which should be corrected before the document is
deemed complete for public review. Therefore,
Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board has determined that
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Macari be
determined incomplete for the following reasons:
1. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services '
standards for horizontal separation between the well and all
leaching pools are incorrectly stated. Further, the impact
evaluation of this required setback on site layout must be
included within the document. (Please refer to The April 18,
1991 report of Charles J. Voorhis for further explanation . )
2. The document incorrectly refers to the subject site as
lying partially within the Town' s Core Watershed Protection
district. There is no such Town designated district. However,
the entire site does lie within the Central Suffolk Special
Groundwater Protection Area, the boundaries of which have been
recognized by the State of New York' s Department of
Environmental Conservation. ( A copy of the staff review of the
DEIS goes into greater detail and is included for your use. )
t
Page 2
Macari at Laurel
3 . Figure 19, which is referenced on page 111-95, is
missing from the document.
For purposes of determining completeness, this Board will
accept just the revised pages for review. If these revisions are
acceptable and the document is deemed complete, then fifteen
complete ( 15) copies of the impact statement should be submitted
for public review and comment.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have
any questions regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.
CRAMER, V OCIATES
ENVIRONMENTA,'� G CONSULTANTS
April 18, 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Revised Draft EIS Review
Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Benny:
As per your request of March 25, 1991, and in accordance with the State Environmental
Quality Review Act,we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced
ect within the 30 day period required under the regulations [6 NYCRR 617.8(b)(4)].
is review compares the revised document to our letter of November 8, 1990,which
identified deficiencies in the first submission.
Overall, the revision addresses the comments contained in our previous letter. There is one
point however,which was revised but is in error. This should be corrected prior to
acceptance of the Draft EIS.
The comment pertained to page V-37 of the original Draft EIS,which indicated that the
separation between well and sanitary system was 100 feet (the SCDHS standard is 150 feet
for new subdivision). The comment further requested an impact evaluation of the proper
setback on site layout. The revised document states as per SCDHS "Standards and
Procedures for Private Water Systems" for "Single-Family Residences on Lots in Si
jngk and
Separate Ownership" [hi&hlight added], that the minimum horizontal separation between
well and sanitary system is 100 feet. This would only apply to the sub ect action if one house
were to be constructed, as only the overall parcel is held 1 �separate ownership.
Tl-,e following paragraph in the Standards (page 2, paragraph 22), refers to Other Private
Water Systems and states the following:
"The horizontal separation between the well and all leaching pools must be at least
150 feet, and the top of the well screen must be at least 40 feet below water table, for
all other private water system wells, including those designed to serve: lots within
residential subdivision and developments ap�roved by the Departilen! after March L
1988 [highlight added], multiple residences; or, small commercial and industrial
establishments."
This error in the document should be corrected prior to circulation. In addition, it is
recommended that an impact evaluation of the proper setback on site layout be conducted.
These corrections should be relatively minor, therefore it is recommended that only the
revised pages be re-submitted for review and acceptance. This will greatly reduce the time
and cost of resubmission.
9 �1_4qll
Page 1
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
Macari at Laurel
Draft EIS Review 4/18/91
'nank you for the opportunity to provide you with our review of the revised Draft
EIS for Macari at Laurel. Once the above revision is made, based upon our review the
document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy
and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review.
Very truly yours,
�harles J. Voorhis
N
CRAMER, v R OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 2
TeAS4
L
M
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
April 2, 1991
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 1, 1991.
Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board take a
one ( 1) day extension to determine if the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement is complete. This extension will run until
April 22, 1991.
The one ( 1) day extension was taken because thirty ( 30)
days from the date of submission is April 21, 1991, one day shy
of the next scheduled Planning Board meeting.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
March 25, 1991
Thomas Cramer
Charles Voorhis
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
RE: Draft EIS
Macari at Laurel
SCTM4 1000-121-4-9
Dear Messrs Cramer and Voorhis:
The revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
above-referenced subdivision was received by this office on
March 22, 1991. The submission included Book 1, Book 2 and a
list of the revisions that were made to the original text.
Please review this revised document for scope, content and
adequacy.
The next scheduled Planning Board meeting is April 22,
1990. The Board will be making a determination of completeness
(or incompleteness) at this meeting. It would be appreciated if
you indicate whether you can meet this deadline.
Please contact this office if you need any additional
information.
Verx truly yours,
Benne t Orlowsi:, Jr./
Chairman
MS/ms
enc.
6a6rk-
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
271 Main Street
Northport, NY 11768
(516) 754-3415
March 21, 1991
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Enclosed are six copies of the revised Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Macari at Laurel for your examination.
Also enclosed is a list of the revisions that were made to the
original text.
If we can be of any further assistance please contact our
office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover 'on
,>Cor
by: C,,�orati
RAJ:mcb 4i ec , Ph. D.
President
Enclosures
cc: P. Danowski
J. Macari
MAR2
A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
4 ,
MACARI AT LAUREL
REVISIONS
Chapter Start End
Page Line Page Line
SUMMARY 1 22 2 15
SUMMARY 7 3 7 3
1 1 5 1 7
1 4 2 5 9
1 5 26 6 2
1 5 1 7
2 20 2 20
4 3 4 3
4 19 5 16
24 16 30 2
31 13 36 2
36 16 36 16
39 25 42 13
50 6 50 12
52 21 55 9
IV 2 7 2 11
IV 8 14 8 14
IV 10 1 15 14
IV 15 20 is 8
IV 27 21 27 21
V 1 13 4 1
V 17 2 19 6
V 26 13 31 1
V 41 19 41 19
V 45 7 45 16
x 1 2 6 4
x 8 17 36 1
x 43 2 45 12
MAR 2 2
NY DOT 7615 ICj_NJ 121454
JACCT
NO. I I BONDED&INSURED PRO,NO. M128453
4 THIRD STREET GARDEN CITY PARK, N.Y. 11040
(516)746-4348 (718)291-2220 DATE
S
S
H H
p' T
1
p p 0
p 0 E
E D
D
/vv ZIP
FCOD BILL I AUTHORIZE
BIL� AUTHORIZED By
RECEIVED SUBJECT TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND TARIFFS IN EFFEU I LIN 1111.11 IF THE SSUft OF THIS BILL OF LADING.
I )VERNIGHT MULTIPLE
PRIORITY IMMEDIATE SCHI EXPRESS
I WEIGHT
PACKAGE ENVELOPE jj�-� CAR-
N.Y.D.O.T.
UNLESS A DIP HERENT VALUE IS DECLARED THE SI IIFPER HEREBY REHEASE-� VALUE
rHE PROPERTY TO A VALUE NOT EXCEEDING O�E HUNDRED COLLARD UE
�140 00)PEF SPIPMEN'CHARGES FOR ADDITIONAL VALUE DIECLARED SITPTL
AT A RATE OF FIFTY CENTS(50�)PER ONE I iUNDRED DO[LAR�, S 10000,
DELIVERING DRIVER SIGNED TIME OF DELIVERY
PICKOP DRIVEN
"C
THIS IS YOUR FREIGHT BILL
T THIS 211ILL MUST BE PAID WITHIN 7 DAYS ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FILL M
AMID[UTERSTATE COMMERCE C MISWN REGULATIONS.
v
A E T TIM
-f A E TVAT If
h1A S RECEIVED IN I ODD&R 'V
MACARI/LAUREL
Submitted March 3, 1988;
Awaiting completion under SEQR;
L
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
November 19, 1990
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a special meeting held on Friday, November 16,
1990.
Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deem
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) dated September
1990, and received by the Planning Board on September 27, 1990,
incomplete in regard to scope, content and adequacy as per the
November 8, 1990, report from Cramer, Voorhis and Associates.
The DEIS is to be amended to address or include the items
noted in the report.
The thirty ( 30) day public comment period to consider the
accuracy and validity of the document will not be started until
the Planning Board has deemed the DEIS complete.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
encl.
cc: Charles J. Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
November 8, 1990
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Macari at Laurel
Dear Benny:
We are in receipt of the Draft EIS for Macari at Laurel. As per vour request, we
have performed a preliminary review of the document for scope, content and adequacy, in
accordance with SEQR NYCRR Parts 617.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures.
In general, the document provides a complete and detailed analysis of the
environmental impacts relating to the Macari project specifically. There are several items
referenced which are not included, that will be identified below, along with several
additional points which should be addressed prior to acceptance. One major omission has to
do with cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with other projects in the area.
This section of the report (Section X), does not provide any assessment of cumulative
impacts to wildlife, or coordination of land use in sensitive environmental areas of the
project vicinity.
As stated in the procedures, "If the draft EIS is determined to be inadequate the lead
agency must identify in writing the deficiencies and provide this information to the applicant."
The letter and documentation contained herein addresses the inadequacies of the Draft EIS
with respect to scope, content and adequacy. It is our recommendation that the Draft EIS be
amended to address the issues included in this review, prior to its acceptance for circulation
to the general public. It is our further recommendation that the text of the document be
amended as opposed to submission of some type of addendum. This will provide a cohesive
document which will provide a basis for public review upon resubmission. ne following
comments pertain directly to the Draft EIS:
Summar La=—Si
The SEQR Scoping Checklist (NYCRR Part 617.21), which was used a basis for scope indicates that a
summary should include "Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy inust be
specified)". Accordingly, the summary should indicate that there is controversy,concern,and amplified
impacts with regard to this project, in view of a number of other land use proposals in the area of the
project site. Cumulative impacts and issues should be stated early in the document in order to focus on
these major issues of concern.
Introduction Pi= 1-4
In reference to the first sentence on Page 1-4,a review of Appendix A-2 included with the Draft EIS does
not correspond to the impacts identified in the text on Page 1-4. This should be clarified or the reference
deleted.
Page I
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
A�t� t;
46;1
Nlacari at 1,aurel Lake
Draft EIS Review
Description of Proposed Project Pave LI-2
The second complete sentence indicates that"The land has right-of-way access from Laurel Lake Drive
and Kiskup Lane (Plate 1). Review of Plate 1 rinds no reference to Laurel Lake Drive and Kirkup Lane.
This is confusing and should be clarified. Reference to access and area roads should be consistent and
accurate. There are several places in Section I where this occurs.
Description of Propose Project Page L14
The second complete sentence indicates that"Sewage disposal methods for the site will include septic
systems as illustrated on Plate 1. Review of Plate 1 finds no illustration of sewage disposal methods.
The seeping outline for this project requires a discussion of Construction and Operation as regards the
project. The document indicates that construction will commence immediately upon receipt of approvals
and last for five years. A more definitive construction schedule should be provided, and the applicants
intent with regard to building homes or selling lots should be indicated. The maintenance concept for
open space areas should also be presented.
Biolop:ical Setting- Flor Pages IILL4 Lo 111-26
In many cases the"Common Beech" tree is referred to as a"Beach" tree. The entire document should be
reviewed for this fault in terminology,and corrected.
The letter from the New York Natural Heritage Program (April 25, 1990;Appendix A-4), identifies
seven (7) rare plants in the Southold area. The location of these species should be determined, and the
significance in terms of the subject site should be assessed.
Biological Settiny- Fauna patze iiL22
The Peregrine Falcon, and the Osprey are noted as possible species in association with the site. It should
be noted that the Peregrine Falcon is an endangered species in New York State and the Osprey is a
threatened species.
Groundwater Paves 111-45 and 111-48
The elevation of water in the test holes is not included in Appendix C, as inferred in the text on Pages
111-45 and 111-48. Depth to water beneath the site should be provided, as well as monitoring well
information and location of wells and/or test holes.
Traffic Page 11L�8
Page 111-88 was missing from the copy reviewed by the consultant. This should be included in
subsequent revisions.
Flora - Impact Page I V-15
The species list in the Environmental Setting section is not consistent with the species list in the impact
section. The species expected on the site based upon habitat,and the impacts to these species should be
indicated. The Chipping Sparrow,Grasshopper Sparrow,Vesper Sparrow, Mute Swan, Black Duck, and
Mallard are added to the list in Section IV,and the Peregrine Falcon is omitted. It is submitted that the
list contained in Section IV is more representative of site wildlife.
A more detailed discussion of the impact upon endangered, threatened and species of special concern is
warranted, due to the unique statewide status of these species. The impact resulting from habitat loss
and the stresses placed on feeding and reproductive habitats should be included. Similar to Section III,
the statewide designation of the Peregrine Falcon and the Osprey should be noted.
CRAMER, VOOH'I'S SOCIATES
ENVIRONME G CONSULTANTS Page 2
I,A I 'V
Macari at Laurel Lake
Draft EIS Review
Sanita Waste-Tmpacts Page IV-25
The last sentence on this page refers to a yield density value of I unit/acre;however,Page IV-26 refers
to a housing density of 0.4 houses per acre. These statements should be accurate and consistent.
Miti2ative Measures Pages V-1 to V-58
The section overall provides discussion which primarily assesses the impact of the project and does not
offer concise,meaningful measures to minimize impacts to the project.
Mitigation measures should be summarized in order for the lead agency and involved agencies to
determine effectiveness and appropriateness,and provide a basis for the preparation of Findings.
Mitigation measures must be feasible to implement and enforce through subdivision approval,bonding,
periodic inspection,or some other effective means. Mitigation which is not feasible to implement and
enforce should be excluded.
Sanitar Waste- Mitigation Page V-17
The Standards and Procedures for Private Water Systems (SCDHS, 1988), indicate that the distance
between sanitary leaching pools and a well should be 150 feet,not the 100 foot separation referenced in
the text. The impact of the proper setback on site layout should be determined.
Cumulative Impacts Page 2L-_1 to X-28
The cumulative impact of a series of project in the vicinity of Laurel Lake has not been discussed as was
required in the seeping documentation and seeping session. The area habitats,and ecological
communities should be considered in the context of areawide development, and the impacts of said
development should be evaluated. Sensitive areas which warrant preservation or special planning
consideration should be outlined.
The cumulative impact section does not address land use issues,on an areawide basis. Existing publicly
owned land, land use potential based upon zoning,and ultimate development potential and configuration
should be considered in order to develop planning concepts and mitigation measures, to which projects
in the vicinity of Laurel Lake should adhere to. The overlapping of land use plans and development
controls which will determine the ultimate land use in the area should be reviewed as appropriate in
relation to a series of projects in the area. Principals and standards for land use inter-coordination,
which will assist in minimizing potential environmental impacts should be developed.
Tle above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the Subject
document for public review. The document should be consistent and Statements within
should be accurate in order to avoid confusion. Further, additional information is needed
prior to acceptance in order to allow for a complete review of the project by involved
agencies and parties of interest. Hence,we have outlined what we believe to be the
deficiencies in the Draft EIS for Macari at I-aurel I-ake. As indicated it is recommended
that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the
above noted items.
'Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Planning Board with
our rc,,qew of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Provided the above noted items
are satisfactorily addressed in the revision, the document can be accepted and circulated for
CRAMER, V00RHk Al SOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL'\,,AND P
��tVG CONSULTANTS Page 3
V/.
A
V, i�
�-4
Macari at ta urel Lake
Draft EIS Review
a thirty (30) day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the
document. We will be pleased to conduct further review upon acceptance of the Draft EIS
by the Southold Town Planning Board. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any
questions regarding this review.
Very truly yours,
1-3
a—r I e's J--. Voorhis
cc: Valerie Scopaz
CRAMER, V 0 H SOCIATES
ENVIRONMEN ',,AN G CONSULTANTS Page 4
CRAMER, V(*`RHI� OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT4', G CONSULTANTS
November 8, 1990
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 3
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Macari at Laurel
Dear Benny:
We arein receipt of the Draft EIS for Macari at Laurel. As per your request,we
have performed a Preliminary review of the document for scope, content and adequacy, in
accordance with SIPQR NYCRR Parts 617.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures.
In general, the document provides a complete and detailed analysis of the
environmental impacts relating to the Macari project specifically. There are several items
referenced which are not included, that will be identified below, along with several
additional points which should be addressed prior to acceptance. One major omission has to
do with cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with other projects in the area.
This section of the report (Section X), does not provide any assessment of cumulative
impacts to wildlife, or coordination of land use in sensitive environmental areas of the
project vicinity.
As stated in the procedures, 'Tf the draft EIS is determined to be inadequate the lead
agency must identify in writing the deficiencies and provide this information to the applicant."
The letter and documentation contained herein addresses the inadequacies of the Draft EIS
with respect to scope, content and adequacy. It is our recommendation that the Draft EIS be
amended to address the issues included in this review, prior to its acceptance for circulation
to the general public. It is our further recommendation that the text of the document be
amended as opposed to submission of some t
document which will provide a basis for publ.ype of addendum. This will provide a cohesive
comments pertain directly to the Draft EIS: ic review upon resubmission. The following
Summar Page a:!
The SEQR Scoping Checklist(NYCRR Part 617.21),which was used a basis for scope indicates that a
summary should include "Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be
specifled)'� Accordingly,the summary should indicate that there is controversy,concern,and amplified
impacts hrith regard to this project,in view of a number of other land use proposals in the area of the
project site. Cumulative impacts and issues should be stated early in the document in order to focus on
these major issues of concern.
Introduction PAW&1-4
In reference to the first sentence on Page 1-4,a review of Appendix A-2 included with the Draft EIS does
not correspond to the impacts identified in the text on Page 1-4. This should be clarified or the reference
deleted.
Page 1
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
Macari at Laurel Lake
Draft EIS Review
DescriDtion of ProDose Proie P=11-2
The second complete sentence indicates that"The land has right-of-way access from Laurel Lake Drive
and Kirkup Lane(Plate 1). Review of Plate 1 finds no reference to Laurel Lake Drive and Kirkup Lane.
This is confusing and should be clarified. Reference to access and area roads should be consistent and
accurate. There are several places in Section I where this occurs.
Descriptio pf PrMose, Proie Page 11-4
The second complete sentence indicates that"Sewage disposal methods for the site will include septic
systems as illustrated on Plate 1. Review of Plate 1 finds no illustration of sewage disposal methods.
The seeping outline for this project requires a discussion of Construction and Operation as regards the
project. The document indicates that construction will commence immediately upon receipt of approvals
and last for five years. A more definitive construction schedule should be provided,and the applicants
intent with regard to building homes or selling lots should be indicated. The maintenance concept for
open space areas should also be presented.
Biologi Setting-Flor Pages 11114 Lo 11126
In many cases the"Common Beech"tree is referred to as a"Beach"tree. The entire document should be
reviewed for this fault in terminology,and corrected.
The letter from the New York Natural Heritage Program (April 25, 1990;Appendix A-4),identifies
seven(7)rare plants in the Southold area. The location of these species should he determined,and the
significance in terms of the subject site should be assessed.
Biolopic Setting-Faun PW ffi:D
The Peregrine Falcon,and the Osprey are noted as possible species in association with the site. It should
be noted that the Peregrine Falcon is an endangered species in New York State and the Osprey is a
threatened species.
Groundwater Pages 11145 and 11148
The elevation of water in the test holes is not included in Appendix C,as inferred in the text on Pages
111-45 and 111-48. Depth to water beneath the site should be provided, as well as monitoring well
information and location of wells and/or test holes.
Traffi Page 111-88
Page 111-88 was missing from the copy reviewed by the consultant. This should be included in
subsequent revisions.
Flora-Impact Page IV-15
The species list in the Environmental Setting section is not consistent with the species list in the Impact
section. The species expected on the site based upon habitat,and the impacts to these species should be
indicated. The Chipping Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow,Vesper Sparrow,Mute Swan,Black Duck, and
Mallard are added to the list in Section IV,and the Peregrine Falcon is omitted. It is submitted that the
list contained in Section IV is more representative of site wildlife.
A more detailed discussion of the impact upon endangered,threatened and species of special concern is
warranted,due to the unique statewide status of these species. The impact resulting from habitat loss
and the stresses placed on feeding and reproductive habitats should be included. Similar to Section 111,
the statewide designation of the Peregrine Falcon and the Osprey should be noted.
CRAMERV OCIATES
S(
CJ S
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 2
Macarl at Laurel Lake
Draft EIS Review
Sanit Waste-Impact EM IV-25
The last sentence on this page refers to a yield density value of 1 unit/acre;however,Page IV-26 refers
to a housing density of 0.4 houses per acre. These statements should be accurate and consistent.
Mitigative Measures Wo�Lll 12 V-58
The section overall provides discussion which primarily assesses the impact of the project and does not
offer concise,meaningful measures to minimize impacts to the project.
Mitigation measures should be summarized in order for the lead agency and involved agencies to
determine effectiveness and appropriateness, and provide a basis for the preparation of Findings.
Mitigation measures must be feasible to implement and enforce through subdivision approval,bonding,
periodic inspection,or some other effective means. Mitigation which is not feasible to implement and
enforce should be excluded.
Sanita Waste-Mithzation I=V-37
The Standards and Procedures for Private Water Systems(SCDHS, 1988),indicate that the distance
between sanitary leaching pools and a well should be 150 feet,not the 100 foot separation referenced in
the text. The impact of the proper setback on site layout should be determined.
Cumulativ Impact EM 2LI-IQ X-28
The cumulative impact of a series of project in the vicinity of Laurel Lake has not been discussed as was
required in the scoping documentation and scoping session. The area habitats,and ecological
communities should be considered in the context of areawide development,and the impacts of said
development should be evaluated. Sensitive areas which warrant preservation or special planning
consideration should be outlined.
The cumulative impact section does not address land use issues,on an areawide basis. Existing publicly
owned land,land use potential based upon zoning, and ultimate development potential and configuration
should be considered in order to develop planning concepts and mitigation measures,to which projects
in the vicinity of Laurel Lake should adhere to. The overlapping of land use plans and development
controls which will determine the ultimate land use in the area should be reviewed as appropriate in
relation to a series of projects in the area. Principals and standards for land use inter-coordination,
which will assist in minimizing potential environmental impacts should be developed.
The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject
document for public review. T'he document should be consistent and statements within
should be accurate in order to avoid confusion. Further, additional information is needed
prior to acceptance in order to allow for a complete review of the project by involved
agencies and parties of interest. Hence,we have outlined what we believe to be the
deficiencies in the Draft EIS for Macari at Laurel Lake. As indicated it is recommended
that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the
above noted items.
Tbank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Planning Board with
our review of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Provided the above noted items
are satisfactorily addressed in the revision, the document can be accepted and circulated for
CRAMERV OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 3
T45ASt
Macari at Laurel Lake
Draft EIS Review
a thirty (30) day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the
document. We will bepleased to conduct further review upon acceptance of the Draft EIS
by the Southold Town Planning Board. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any
questions regarding this review.
Y e ly u�s'--
1 ��
harles J.;o-orhis
cc: Valerie Scopaz
CRAMER, v R OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 4
TgeAs,
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards P.O. Box 1179
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
October 23, 1990
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, NY ligol
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 22, 1990.
RESOLVED that the Planning Board take a thirty (30) day
extension to determine if the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement is Complete. This extension will run until November
26, 1990.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Assoc. Inc.
LAW OFFICES Lo
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P.0. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD,NY 11901
(516)727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)727-7451
MICHAEL T.CLIFFORD
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ OF COUNSEL
October 16, 1990
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
6
Att: Melissa
Re Joseph Macari at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Melissa:
In behalf of my client, I am enclosing my check in the amount of
$750. 00 which represents payment toward a total environmental
consultant review fee of $2250. 00, with regard to the above
captioned matter.
V�e 1 yours,
.�ttru y
VR"DAN KI, JR.
PSD/pb
Enclosure
BY HAND
CC: Mr. Macari
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Kenneth L. Edwards P.O. Box 1179
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
October 15, 1990
Peter Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Ave.
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New �York 11901
RE: Major subdivision for
Macari @ Laurel
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Draft EIS Review
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The Planning Board has received a cost estimate from their
Environmental Consultants for review of the draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the above mentioned subdivision.
The total estimated cost of this review is $2 ,250. 00. Prior
to the Planning Board authorizing the review, Your client must
submit full payment.
Melissa Spiro notified Your Office today that the above
mentioned payment is required. If payment of $750. 00 is
received by early tomorrow morning, it may be Possible for the
Planning Board to make a determination of completeness at their
October 22nd public meeting. The remainder of the fee may be
paid after the document is deemed complete.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
Chairman
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
CRAMER, V , , RH "tIOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT
G CONSULTANTS
October 12, 1990
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Draft EIS Review for
Major Subdivision of
Marcri @ Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Benny:
We have received the above referenced DEIS. Our estimated cost of services
to review this document for scope and adequacy and a critical review of the accepted
DEIS is $2,250.00. This fee is broken down as follows:
Review of DEIS for Scope
and Adequacy $ 750.00
Critical Review of Accepted
DEIS $1,500.00
Please let CVA know as soon as possible if the above is acceptable. If we
receive an immediate response to proceed we shall make every effort to have a
recommendation for the determination of completeness to you pr1or to your October
22nd Planning Board meeting.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
e V t 0 S,
ery
0
0 as W. Cramer, ASIA
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
01,�- '
RH ,
CRAMERV 4,A SOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT' ,ANO, Q�G CONSULTANTS
October 12, 1990
Mr, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RE., Diraft EIS Review for
Major Subdivision or
Maror! @ Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4.9
Dear Benny:
We have received the above referenced DEIS. Our estimated cost of services
to review this document for scope and adequacy and a critical review of the accepted
DEIS is $2,250.00. This fee is broken down as follows:
Review of DEIS for Scope
and Adequacy S 750.00
Critical Review of Accepted
DEIS $1,500.00
Please let CVA know as soon as Possible if the above is acceptable. If we
receive an immediate response to proceed we shall make cvcry effort to have a
recommendation for the determination of completeness to You Prior to your October
22nd Planning Board meeting.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Ve t 0 S,
ry t
o as W. Crame
er, ASLA
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
I k1;
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward _1� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald
Kerinc.1h L. Fdwards P.O. Box 1179
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
"' � ' - �' I I October 11, 1990
Thomas Cramer
Charles Voorhis
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
Re: Major Subdivision of
Macar4 at Laurel
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Messrs Cramer and Voorhis:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
above-referenced subdivision was received by this Office on
September 27, 1990.
Please send an estimate for the cost of reviewing this
document for completeness. After receiving written authorization
from this office, proceed with your review. The Planning Board
would like to make a determination of Completeness (or
incompleteness) at its October 22nd meeting, if Possible. It
would be appreciated if You indicate whether you can meet this
deadline when you send us your review estimate.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Very Truly Yours,
Bennett Orlow�s�il
Chairman
Enc.
Ilk 0 77--jj�
FOLLASI,HOMO ETE A L INFORMAILDRO FFI� 9 BLOCKCODUTUNED IN ORANGE 14,7 _5
SIT BACF 01 1 ORK,CUT FOR �0111L� PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS
UIR FEDFTUA1
I U�
1,� "
uk. i u to I
--4
TO(ReOpent's Name) Had for Book Up or�Saftheary
HIRE "E'Apiers Phone Nuarbor
FE
It OX A D,
y CX A
DEPARTMENTIFILOOR NO. COMPANY DEPART MENT/FLOOR NO
A,,i
'A STREET ADDRESS(P.O.BOX NUMBERS ARE NOT DELIVERABLE)
Coulo-1
—�]L T STATE CITY STATE
Zia— yk t# t iAi�,A I — ------
0
Zip SICIARACT C,1.OIFII 101 0 INES11 aTIVII
CCP I.,. N T"NIEPUNG THIS ED Zip AC UESTE ZIP CODE FEE
11 C SRALIF NOT BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL INCIDEN I
T 0, ED G I JE I I / 1 ICE in
MWWAPI Ren INTENDERINGTHIS IPMENT.SHIPPER AGREES THAT
LE, TAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING FROMI
CLAMS ALL AARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH FEDERAL EXPRESS USE ui
(FIRST AB!CTERS WILL ALSO APPEAR ON INVOICE) CARRIAGE HEREOF F E C DOO cc
RESIPPECT TO TRIP SHIPMENT THIS IS A NON NEGOTIABLI FREIGHT CHARGES
At RBILL SUBJECT TO CONDIHONS OF GONTRACT SET FORTH
ON REVERSE OF SHIPPER 0 OOPY UNLESS YOU DECLARE A
t not
11cont's F.E.C,AmL 0 Bill 3rd Party F.EG,ACCL D Nil Crooft Carol HIGHER VALUE THE LIABILUP OF FEDERAL EXPRESS COB
POTATION IS LIMITED TO$100 On FEDERAL EXPRESS DOES
NurnboviCrecit Card No NOT CARRY CARGO LIABILITY INSURANCE DECLARED VALUE CHARGE
DELIVERY AND SPECIAL HANDLING PACKAGES WEIGHT DEV CAL LAURED
E GAS I
1�1 t CHECK SERVICES REOUIRED AGTIPRO ADVANCE ORIGIN
HOLD FOR PICK UP AT FOLLOW-INC,
El PP,LVF I Li FEDERAL EXPRESS I SHOVIN
IN SEPV10E GUIDE 4CIPIENT S I
CHOSE NUMBER IS IfEQUIRED ASTAIRE) ADVANCE DESTINATION
t 'i 2 E] OUT.
V4
TDICA1 1111.11 DOURO
3 El fen—D.,.—R.B.S.1......I.,, -TOPTAL TOTAL TOTAL OTHER
ZSTRIFED ARTICLES SERVICE(P 1 I'd
Indild A.,OR....1....dr.B.11 NEEEIM AT
0 1. SPE.11 SnEr., SHIPPER&rSOTROP TOTAL CHARGES
IT.
PIPP IS,.DE.D.HE.) 0 REGO
6 In,IS HIS F.11.11,ONICALL STOP
Usl 0 EIRECOR,IDSVII, Foodual Exprinas Corporation Ernploy.No.
AY Ay a DAYIA
TO DEILII 8 PART
U S, #2041730750
DATEITIME For Releral Expands HER, FEC-S-0750 DI
REVISION DATE
2183 A
IT PRINTED U S A.
I I Z,
r Ir p is,. 1,1111 11 1, 111 L
CONDIMONS I tl'RAC� el r � 1 0, , '! I�,
,cl that di. I- v , ,I ,, A i !
by him or an I t is f � i ntil It I
2 The shipl,, that - r,, 1 1.mll,zl",'I 111ill if -mell hit r,al r, i'I, or ... .....
stated hopin , Prms Imll, ",allio stated , FI or 1, 1, i Ill. .....
cent Federal F elabl, 1, n,,,,, rrli r,
,.rated int, 11 1 , �F- I, I,b EP, I, I It ri la,w,
3 In Andi l�Irn,t SHIPPER WARRANT S rl. il lh, FEDERAL EXPRESS SHALL NOY BE LIABLE IN ANY EVEN'
rent I, r, I I. 10,,s� I'llod-, i t HCIDENTAt OR COM!iEOUENTIAL DAMAGES INCLUDING rl�
"iec'nse, r I �, no. that ,,, r r,k,,,, i i OSS OF PROFIT S OR INCOME WHETHER OR NOT l
11.11I.Itall .bar,,,-Ill 1 Inlo�,Jiir 1. )t.1 noted)for re...a,,. ill Scroll KNOWLEDGE THAT SUCH DAMAGES MIGHT BE INCURRED
4 Whem �... 11 1 ,, " , I ,,, r If .,thin in,, Fctdl `111 WRITTEN NOTICE OF LOSS DUE 11 �Aeml�
ri lors 1, 1 E1,11,11 51,sr,1 -,,, -.1j,r DELAY MUST BE REPORTED BY I SHIPPER Al� ;�
"as,nial, F,f If d0filely of ill 1hutiIi DELIVERY OF THE SHIPMENT. WRITTEN ri OlF
5 In to, ,, r I� ""' "I'Li'l"' �'Ii"'I ��L CIPTANCE OF THE SHIPMENI OR CAREll
relating I� it, k I I I I i�, 1 111 �-f"ti,., "I" rf F 1 1, 1 "I'll -,,r, ' L� � _ ,
Rolri, R'la's,I ,l i,�Z ,,oec at Woarl -.[,and , 3,mber It 61n 238-535� i f;
12 1929,,pall ,,ly I,,lr1 11111111� 11,ni 11, me a .,erradl moral ji,,...... 'ohm, 1otlfKdl.n Dnrilml
6 DECLARi� Ip L'i -14C, I ill.,\ --F LIAGLIPY THE LIABILITY OF 1,1 :�l ,, L,olleted 11 1 ril I'll, 'L LI
FEDERAL "Pi I 'IW7TE�, 1 13 � r ;UNI OF$100.00 rr, , ,,h,r �Ilu, I, r r�T 'Ll
herlarri Iii, j-, r,'i i, t,l I I �r,1 11 r harcle paid at the rate f-'04 Air$100 Vj
hi" auc trii
lltl�d Th, ma,,-;l, Immer denlred duY is Z5000 00 Shplitil'lli i t ii ,It cher,as of V,l ,r-ri i,
of o0e.l
,00alairl r,mad Clothing jewor, -t,r,
gam, 111", t ir, eirl 111JUH1.11 hsIlL I
'worre ,,, ., , � r, I- I I brifllrr I:, I "ll",a, pr,mo
ptartmong cloill! I LF '11, 't I Ill Inr,d machmsr, eni r, i, ill' 1-1 ir,
Fem, hadfil tl'T 111L I, V, thVr, oo,elem) or ro, i i"It", I—,
looi-de,li --1,1 ,1 1- 1 r, .......no dAdii"d �a,Lo, f $5no or, ")I ,,cha,ir 1-0 -fold, mist be Tisto it o;
When orrilld" LL'-I' I I h:1 ruirill I �1, [As trot ,l.1 if.Y,flh,dsl, Air diames most a filed
1pi the harder, �,,ke... l,l,�, �it f i are reibi to im,por b, ELL, jol.l
lmd,w,..l ll'l I 'i"-i'l"l d"',- 11 ,:,shre-Ir H..se,PEC ia not mlf,,,, I,rl
hill Iti, Ill, hril -1- 1 1 1 ,—1111 all let 11h.hinle
ropormorn desfared I v, .,, I i,r,;,l p,pi r,
limited In ll., it r lor, Etr.,e drilrnie, i rap. ablit,
Fair I for, ,1 r� 't, 11"!,11,1 f 1i I
r1r,I Iul, 1 11 1-11 ril-F r.... -I ;,d,
Il 'i. 'r 11.,oll i&I I,,, ,11 in tF, r:It,,.-r
",her flirt, r. ,,u df the ile,r- ly 'table I 'ose, ar,
dleferit, dhjjT,,i,:, to, the danger ., , 'r I�, I and '(It cost, f,
of In' f r" I tria a:fblll or In the Frami'll i I on so'hill l, I,
3rr,,.r,q, Gil,11, 1, ,proper.1 med"ahent pl,',,%, t 11 Itirt"i 1� , I'll
mars, j, '', I tj do... any of if-- 'ller" I, ',I 'idral ll
'hodi I itl, for tornelocruff or ah,pinnomp, rili,,, , -, ,', il -rl
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
271 Main Street
Northport, NY 11768
(516)754-3415
September 26, 1990
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Enclosed are fifteen copies of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Macari at Laurel for your examination.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
RAJ:mcb Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
President
Enclosures
cc: P. Danowski
J. Macari
H. Young
SP 2T IM
A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
mr.MC t2l4fiL
PRO,NO K853075
BONDED&INSURED
GAR13EN CITY PARK, N.Y. 11040
4 THIRD SfREET
(719)291-2220 DATE
(516)746-4�48
s 0 t-
A
P
p 'v
IF
m D
Y COD BILL
AUTHORIZED By
4*11 THE is UE OF THI BILL OF LADIN
RE EIVED,SUBJECT TO I A -ASSIFIcATIONS AND TARIFFS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE 0 OVERNIGHT MULTIPLE
IMMEDIATE SCHEDULED EXPRESS �
Af, CO3, PA10 ITY N IGHT
PRIO
PACK ENVELOPE
N.Y.D.O.T.
US IS DECLARED,THE SU[PPER HEREBY RELEASES VALUE
LES&A DIFFERENT VALALUE NOT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
R TO A V UE DECLARED WILL
jR��FVWI T CHARGES FOR ACIDITIONAL VAL S($10000)
0 1 OF+n CENTS�500)PER 0 HUNDRED DOLLAR
AT A RATE 0 SIGN—
D"IVERING DRIVER
PIC V P m
His is UR I HT BILL
DI T THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
D HN7D S ACC ATIONS
M M
F ONA SSIO GUL
-IVED'"....ORDER AT TIME
THE ABOVE ME,,-RKiPn GOODS RECE
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road SCOTT L. HARRIS
rj
P.O. Box 1179 Supervisor
Southold, New York
Telephone (516) 765-1800
11971 Fax (516) 765-1823
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 4, 1990
Robert F. Kozakiewicz
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE: Proposed subdivision of
Joseph Macari
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Kozakiewicz:
In response to your letter of March 16, 1990 regarding the
status of A. T. Holding Corporation' s application, enclosed
please find a copy of correspondence from the Chairman to
William Esseks notifying him that the A. T. Holding Corporation
file is considered to be closed.
With regard to the Long Form EAF - Part III, staff will be
contacting Cramer & Voorhis Associates in an attempt to locate
it and obtain a copy. In the future, please route such material
through this office so that our files are accurate.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
lAatt;-,c5F�"�
Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
Encl.
cc: Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516)765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 6 , 1989
William Esseks,Esq.
Esseks, Hefter & Angel
P.O. Box279
Riverhead, New York 11901
Re: Application of A.T.Holding
Company
SCTM # 1000-121-5-5. 1
Dear Mr. Esseks,
There has been no response to the Planning Board' s
certified letters of June 6, 1989 and August 18, 1989, regarding
the Preparation of a draft environmental impact statement.
Accordingly, the A.T. Holding Co. application file is
considered to be closed. If at some point in the future, your
client wishes to subdivide his property, he will have to reapply
at that time.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Very Truly Yours, .
Bennett Orlowski , Jr.
Chairman
CC: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney
f
L � c .
LAW OFFICES
PE:TERS. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
R 0. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. FAX (516) 727-7451 MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ
PAMELA A. BLAKE
GRACE GATZ
EILEEN L. BRACKEN
ALICE SALVI
SECRETARIES
April 11, 1990
Town of Southold
Planning Department
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Valerie Scopaz
Re: Major Subdivision
Joseph Macari - Laurel Lake
Dear Valerie:
Per your request, enclosed please find two ( 2 ) copies of
the Long Environment Assessment Form - Part III as well as
Supplemental Traffic Report with regard to the above captioned
matter.
Very truly yours,
r
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ
RFK:as
Enclosures
P�
LAW OFFICES
PETERS. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P. 0. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. FAX(516) 727-7451 MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ PAMELA A. BLAKE
GRACE GATZ
EILEEN L. BRACKEN
ALICE SALVI
March 16, 1990 SECRETARIES
Planning Department
Town of Southold
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Melissa Spiro
Re: Joseph Macari
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Melissa:
Pursuant to our discussions today, I enclose a copy of our letter
dated August 23, 1989, wherein a Long Form EAF - Part III was
sent to the Town ' s consultant, Thomas Cramer . We, unfortunately,
are not in possession of another copy at this time .
Also, Valerie indicated A.T. Holding Corp. had withdrawn its
application. However, neither Peter nor I could find written
withdrawal made by A.T. Holding Corp. Am I to assume Valerie is
referring to Bennett Orlowski , Jr. 's correspondence dated August
18, 1989?
Thank you for your attention .
117 truly yourse
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ
RFK/ejf
Enclosure
SUFFOILK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
David T. Ross Administrative Offices:4060 Sunrise Highway,Oakdale,NY 11769-0901
Deputy Executive Director November 1 , 1989 (516)589-5200
1 Fax No.:(516)589-5268
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
Town Hall , 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Orlowski :
In reply to your inquiry on the status of the Laurel Lake
area, I am happy to report that approximately three weeks ago we
issued purchase orders to two appraisers and the appraiser' s
efforts are now under way. Unfortunately, we were delayed due to
the problem of locating appraisers who didn' ul iixve a ,,ested
interest in the vicinity. I have directed our personnel who work
with the appraisers to determine their progress and I should have
an estimated time of completion later this week.
I am also happy to report that our activities to determine
water quality and quantity at the Mill Lane site is moving
forward. Our driller started boring activities on October 30 ,
and within two weeks we should have a drilling log that would
indicate formation characteristics . At that time , we will select
various well depths for test pumping to determine quality and
quantity.
Representatives from our watershed Oversight Protection area
and I are meeting some of your technical people on Wednesday,
November 8 , 1989. At that time, I will provide an update on
Laurel Lake area.
If I can be of any other assistance , p se call .
o rs
S jin c e tri Y�y r s,
Off
DaV1—d T. Ross
DTR:mk
cc : Valerie Scopaz , Town PlanneV
CERTIFIED MAIL
TO: All involved Applicants
FROM: , Mr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr.
chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
RE: Scoping Outline for the DEIS on
Peconic Homes SCTM #1000-121-5-5 . 1
Douglas Miller SCTM #1000-121-4-10 . 1
DanielJacoby SCTM #1000-125-1-5
Joseph Macari SCTM #1000-121-4-9
A.T. Holding SCTM #1000-121-5-8
DATE: August 18, 1989
Enclosed please find the scoping outline for the above
referenced projects. The attached document constituts the
outline of what must be addressed in the Draft Environmental
impact for the above referenced actions. All actions must be
addressed in one comprehensive document, as outlined herein, due
to the potential for cumulative impacts.
As this DEIS is to address five projects in a cumulative
manner, it is imperative that we receive an indication as to
your intentions of completing this document. Accordingly, we are
requesting verification of your intent, in the form of a
certified letter, indicating whether or not you intend to pursue
the individual application referenced above and if you are going
to participate inthe preparation of the comprehensive DEIS.
Please forward your responses by certified mail, in order to
ensure the most efficient handling of the correspondence. We
must receive your response by SeDtember 1, 1989, or we wilY-
assume that you do not wish to exercise the option of preparing
the DEIS and this agency shall terminate review of your Droject
in conformance with 6 NYCRR Part 617 .8( a) .
Please contact the office if there is any questions with
the above.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SCOPING OUTLIN
f o r t h e
Laurel Lake Study Area
Southold, New York
INTRODUCTION:
This document was compiled using the Scopin, Checklist
contained within 6 !VYCRR Part 617. 21 Appendix D, and as a
result Of a scoPin- meeting held July 13, 1989 at the Town Of
Southold Town Hall for the following actions:
Peconic Homes SCTM -&1000-121-5-,T. i
Douglas Afiller SCT.1V -i1000-121-4-10. i
Daniel Jacoby SCTM �*1000-125-1-5
Joseph Macari SCTIV #1000-121-4-9
A. T. Holding Co. SCTV #1000-121-5-5. i
The purpose of this document is to idenLifj, the basic
topic areas which must be addressed in the DEIS. Topics
which require detailed discussion are so noEed. This
document will be used, in conjunction with Part Cl 7, 1 -j ,
review the proposed DEIS with regard to scope and no,equacy au.
the time if submission to the lead agency, T
n :iddiclon, �is
the action includes five projects, with potential cumulative
effects, relevant sections of Part 617, 15 will also be
utilized in the review.
For the purposes of this scoping document the area
containing the five above actions will be referred [o as 11 i�he
project site " and the five actions will be referred as "the
project ". It is recognized that a significant amount of
information may have already been compiled, in connection
with one or more of the actions. It is advisable i1tili7-
this information and expand on it, where appropriate, to
adequately address the potential impacts. The information
must be presented in a single comprehensive document for the
purposes of fulfilling the rules and regulations of SKQR in
conjunction with this positive declaration.
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page I of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
SCOPING OUTLINE.,
1 . Cover Sheet
The EIS shall begin with a cover sheet that includes :
A. That this is a draft statement
B. Name or other descriptive titles of the project
C. Location (county and town) of the project
D. Name and address of the lead agency which required
preparation of the statement and the name and
telephone number of a person at the agency to be
contacted for further information
E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of
the statement and a contact name and telephone
number
F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS
G. In the case of a Draft EIS , the deadline date by
which comments are due should be indicated
II . Table of Contents and Summary
A table of contents and a brief summary are required for
Draft EIS and Final EIS ' s .
The summary should include :
A. Brief description of the actions and project as a
whole .
B. Significant , beneficial and adverse impacts ,
( issues of controversy must be specified)
C. Mitigation measures proposed
D. Alternative( s ) considered
E. Matters to be decided (permits , approvals , funding )
III . Description of the Proposed Action
A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS
1 . Background and history
2 . Public need for the project , and municipality
objectives based on adopted community
developments plans
3 . Objectives of the project sponsors
4 . Benefits of the proposed action
a ) social
b) economic
B. LOCATION
1 . Establish geographic boundaries of the project
( use of regional and local scale maps is
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 2 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping- Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
recommended )
2 . Description of access to site
3 . Description of existing zoning of site
C . DESIGN AND LAYOUT
1 . Composite map of pending actions
a ) proposed layouts
b) Suffolk Cty, Tax Map No ' s .
2 . Estimated site data
a ) proposed impervious surface area ( roofs ,
parking lots , roads )
b ) amount of land to be cleared
c ) open space
3 . Structures , proposed number and layout
4 . Proposed drainage systems
5 . Sewage Disposal
6 . Water Supply
D. CONSTRUCTION
1 . Construction
a ) total construction period anticipated
b) schedule of construction
c ) future potential development , on site( s )
or on adjoining properties
d ) Sll---aested protection methods
E. APPROVALS
1 . Required changes or variances to the -,�onin-
regulations
2 . Other permit approval or funding requirements
including but not limited to :
- Town
- County
- State
fV. Environmental Setting
Natural Resource
A . GEOLOGY
1 . Surface
a ) List of soil types
b ) discussion of soil characteristics
examples :
- physical properties ( indication of
soils capabilities and or limitations )
c ) agricultural soil properties
- list soils by name , slope and soil
CRAMER. VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 3 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
group ranking within NYS Land ( 1 NYCRR
370 )
number of acres within each group
d ) distribution of soil types at project site
- location of soils on map
e) suitability for use
examples :
- agriculture
- recreation
- construction
f) subsoil discussion
2 . Topography
a) description of topography at project site
examples :
- slopes
- prominent or unique features
b) slope analysis ( example ; 0-10%, 10-20%,
>20%)
c ) description of existing drainage areas ,
patterns and channels
B. WATER RESOURCES
1 . Groundwater (detailed discussion)
a) location and description of aquifers and
recharge areas
examples :
- depth of water table
- seasonal variation
- quality
- quantity
- direction & velocity of flow
b) identification of present uses and level
of use of groundwater
examples :
- location of existing wells
- public/private water supply
- industrial uses
- agricultural uses
c ) studies and reports
- Special Groundwater Protection Area
( LIRPB)
- Water Advisory Committee of the Town
of Southold
- North Fork Water Supply Study
2 . Surface water
b) identification of uses and level of use
of all surface waters
d) discussion of potential for flooding ,
siltation, erosion and eutrophication of
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 4 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoring Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
water supply
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
1 . Vegetation (detailed discussion)
a ) list vegetation types on the project site
and within the surrounding area
b) discussion of site vegetation
characteristics
examples :
- species presence and abundance
- age
- size
- distribution
- dominance
- community types
- unique , rare and endangered species
- value as habitat for wildlife
- productivity
2 . Wildlife ( detailed discussion)
a ) list of wildlife species on the project
site and within surrounding area ,
including migratory and resident species
b) discussion of wildlife population
characteristics
examples :
- species presence and abundance
- distribution
- dominance
- unique , rare and endang
- productivity gered species
3 . Wetlands (detailed discussion)
a) list and map wetland areas within or
contiguous to the project site
b) discuss wetland characteristics
examples :
- acreage
- vegetative cover
- classification
- benefits of wetland such as flood and
erosion control , recreation
C ) location and description of Surface
waters located on project site or those
that may be influenced by the project
examples :
- seasonal variation
- quantity
- classification according to New York
State Department of Health ( if
appropriate )
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 5 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
----------------
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
d) discussion of potential for flooding,
siltation, erosion and eutrophication
Human Resources
A. TRANSPORTATION
1 . Transporting services (detailed discussion by
a professional traffic engineer)
a ) description of the size , capacity and
condition of services
examples :
- roads
- intersections
- traffic control
- access/egress from site
b) description of current level of and use
of services
examples:
- a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow
- vehicle mix
- source of existing traffic
- accident history
- capacity analysis
B. LAND USE AND ZONING
1 . Existing land use and zoning
a ) description of the existing land use of
the project site and the surroundin- area
within a quarter of a mile of the s1te
examples :
- commercial
- residential
- agricultural
- business
- retail
- industrial
- vacant
b) description of existing zoning of site
and surrounding area
2 . Land use plans (detailed discussion)
a ) description of any land use plans or
master plans which include project site
and surrounding area
b ) discussion of future development trends
or pressures
c ) plans to be discussed , but not limited
to :
- Town Master Plan
- 208 Study
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 6 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL A ND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
- NURPS
- North Fork Water Supply
- Suffolk County Water Authority
C . COMMUNITY SERVICE ( for this section include a list
of existing facilities and a discussion of existing
levels of usage and projected future needs )
1 . Educational facilities
2 . Police protection
3 . Fire protection
4 . Health care facilities
5 . Social services
6 . Recreational facilities
7 . Utilities
8 . Public water supply
9 . Solid waste disposal
D. DEMOGRAPHY
1 . Population characteristics
a) discussion of existin-- population
parameters
examples :
- distribution
- density
- household size and composition
b) discussion of projections for population
growth
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 . Visual resources
a) description of the physical character of
the community
b ) description of natural areas/land use
patterns of local visual importance .
2 . Historic and archaeological resources
a) location and description of historic
areas or structures listed on State or
National Register or designated by the
community , or included on Statewide
Inventory
b ) identification of sites having potential
si-�nificant archaeological value include
results of cultural resource Survey; to
be conducted by qualified archaeolo�,,i�r. .
V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in
Page 7 of 13
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by
the proposed action and require discussion. The following is
a summary of some impacts which maybe potentially large.
This list is not meant to be all inclusive, nor is it true
that all of these impacts may occur with the proposed
project :
A. PHYSICAL CHANGE TO THE PROJECT SITE.
1 . impact on soils and topography
B. AFFECT ON GROUNDWATER
1 . adverse affect to groundwater
a) water quality
b) water quantity/availability
c ) conformance to plans and regulations
C . THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
1 . reduction of species found on State or Federal
list ( if applicable )
2 . loss of habitat and resultant impact on specie
D. NON-THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
1 . interference with residence or migratory
2 . loss of habitat
E. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
1 . level of service
2 . capacity analysis
3 . physical factors
- curvature
- site distance
4 . access and safety
F. COMMUNITY SERVICES
1 . availability of services
2 . projected demand
G. LAND USE PLANS
1 . compatibilitY/conformance
2 . existing land use patterns
H. CULTURAL
1 . historic
2 . pre-historic
3 . visual and open space
VI . MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 8 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse
impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief
listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas
of impact .
Natural Resource
A. GEOLOGY
1 . Surface
a ) use topsoil stockpiled during
construction for restoration and
landscaping
b) minimize disturbance of non-construction
sites
C ) design and implement soil erosion control
plan
2 . Topography
a ) avoid construction on areas of steep
slope
b) design adequate soil erosion devices to
protect areas of steep slope
C ) minimize disturbance of non-construction
sites
B. WATER RESOURCES
1 . Groundwater
a ) locations of sanitary discharge
b) maintain permeable areas on tile site
C ) landscaping and landscape managemenL
plans
d ) stormwater controls
2 . Surface water
a) ensure use of soil erosion control
techniques during construction and
operation to avoid siltation
examples :
- hay bales
- temporary restoration of vegetation to
disturbed areas
- landscaping
b ) design adequate stormwater control system
c ) restrict use of salt or sand for road and
parking area snow removal
d ) avoid direct discharges to surface water
resources
D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
1 . Vegetation
a ) restrict clearing to only those areas
necessary
Page 9 of 13
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
b) preserve part of site as a natural area
C ) after construction, landscape site with
naturally occurring vegetation
d) purchase open space at another location
and dedicate to local government or
conservation organization
2 . Wildlife
a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and
food ) for remaining wildlife species
b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive
periods of wildlife cycles
c ) wildlife plantings to restore and/or
create habitats
Human Resources
A. TRANSPORTATION
1 . Transportation
a ) design adequate and safe access to
project site to handle projected traffic
flow
b) install adequate traffic control devices
or roadway configurations
B. LAND USE AND ZONING
1 . Existing land use and zoning
a ) design project to comply with existing
land use plans and studies
b) design functional and visually appealing
facility to set standard and precedent
for future surrounding land use
C. COMMUNITY SERVICES
1 . Police protection
a) provide equipment, funds , or services
directly to the community
2 . Fire protection
a ) provide equipment , funds or services
directly to the community
3 . Utilities
a ) install utility services underground
b) incorporate water saving fixtures into
facility design
c ) incorporate energy-saving measures into
facility design
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 . Visual resources
.CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 10 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
a) minimize visual impact through thoughtful
and innovative design
b ) design landscaping to be visually
pleasing and to serve as a buffer between
surrounding land uses
c ) preservation of existing vegetation
2 . Historic and archaeological resources
a ) Prepare a plan, including measures to
mitigate impacts to historic/
archaeological resources through data
recovery, avoidance and/or restriction of
project activities
b) develop measures to convey cultural
information to the community ( e . g .
through scientific/popular reports ,
displays )
c ) preserve architecturally significant
structures and make an adequate permanent
photographic and statistical record of
those that must be destroved
VII . ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF
THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section
',nat can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation
-1-asures considered in Section VI .
VIT . ALTERNATIVES
This section contains categories of alternatives with
o,xamples . Discussion of each alternative should be at a
level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs ,
benefits and environmental risks for each alternative . It is
not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular
alternative is or is not feasible . Identify those categories
of alternatives which should be included in the EIS by
placin.- a check in the box located to the left of the topic .
A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES ( detailed
discussion, can be combined with VII-B below )
1 . Site layout
a ) density and location of structures
b ) location of access routes , parking and
utility routes
2 . Orientation
compatibility with slope and drainage
Page 11 of 13
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
patterns
b) site size and set back requirements
3 . Technology
a) Pollution control equipment
b) innovative vs . proven technologies
4 . Mix of activities
a) townhouses
b) large lots
B. ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT( S) (discussions and maps ; maps
can be conceptual in nature but should provide
sufficient detail in order to assess potential
impacts and/or desirability of alternative layouts )
1 . Limiting factors
a) availability of land
b) suitability of alternative layout to
accommodate design requirements
c ) suitable market area
d ) compatibility with local zoning and
master plan
e ) compatibility with regional objectives
C. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING
1 . Commence construction at a different time
2 . Phase construction/operation
3 . Restrict construction/operation work schedule
D. NO ACTION
1 . Impacts of no action
a) effect on public need
b) effect on private developers ' need
c ) beneficial or adverse environmental
impacts
2 . Public acquisition of portion and/or total
area.
a) public need
b) public benefit/impact
c ) environmental need/benefit/impact
IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Identify those natural and human resources listed
in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made
unavailable for future use .
X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
3
CRAMER, VOORHIS &'ASSOCIATES Page 12 of 13
ENV1RONMENTAL\,,AND,FLAffNI�G CONSULTANTS
V;/// Ilk\
Scoping Outline
Laurel Lake Study Area
Describe in this section the potential growth aspects
the proposed project may have . Listed below are examples of
topics that are typically affected by the growth induced by a
project .
A. POPULATION
1 . Increases in resident population due to the
construction of housing
B. SUPPORT FACILITIES
1 . Business and community service demand created
to serve the increased population
C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1 . Introduction or improvement of infrastructure
( roads , waste disposal , sewers , water ) to
service proposed project
2 . Creation of further growth potential by
construction of improved infrastructure
XI . APPENDICES
Following is a list of materials typically used in
support of the EIS .
A. List of underlying studies , reports and informaLion
considered and relied on in preparing the statement
B. List all federal , state , regional , or local
agencies , organizations , consultants and private persons
consulted in preparing the statement
C . Technical exhibits ( if any) at a legible scale
D. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may
be included ( required in the Final EIS )
A Page 13 of 13
CRAMER, VOORHIS, WASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTA�_ PLANN!,,�G CONSULTANTS
LAW OFFICES
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P. 0. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. FAX (516) 727-7451 MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ OF COUNSEL
PAMELA A. BLAKE
GRACE GATZ
July 13, 1989 EILEEN L. BRACKEN
ALICE SALVI
SECRETARIES
Town of Southold
Planning Department
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Att: Jill
Re : Joseph Macari Laurel Lake Subdivision
Dear Jill :
Pursuant to our conversation held this day, enclosed please find
my check in the amount of $250 . 00, made payable to the Town of
Southold representing the scoping review fee relative to the
above matter.
Very ��uly yours,,/—,
PSD pb) PETER S . DANOWSKI, JR.
EnC��ure
mr- Macari
H. Young
Fo%�n HAL 53095 Maiii Road
P.O. Box 1179
sk
Sotithold. New York 11971
rELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 24, 1989
Peter Danowski
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, NY 119ol
RE: Joseph Macari
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The fee for the environmental review of the above mentioned
Application will total two thousand dollars.
However, the Planning Board has been billed for the review
to date, which is two hundred and fifty dollars.
Please pay the two hundred and fifty dollars upon receipt
of this letter.
Thank you for your coorporation.
V(I!:x truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI ,JR.
CHAIRMAN
CC: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
r
41,
To%kii Hall.
53,095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1 179
SoLithold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 24 , 1989
Peter Danowski
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE: Joseph Macari
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The fee for the environmental review of the above mentioned
ADplication will total two thousand doilars.
However, the Planning Board has been billed for the review
to date, which is two hundred and fifty dollars.
Please pay the two hundred and fifty dollars upon receipt
of this letter.
Thank you for your coorporation.
Ver truly yours,
��4
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
Cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
' ec( 7-17
��-WA YOU/
L5 V,
...........................
Town Hall. 53095 Mairl Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 119 71
TELEPHONE
(5 16)7 65-19 38
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CERTIFIED MAIL
TO: All Involved Applicants
FROM: Southold Town Planning Board
RE: Scoping Session for:
Peconic Homes SCTM #1000-121-5-5.1
Douglas Miller SCTM #1000-121-4-10. 1
Daniel Jacoby SCTM #1000-125-1-5
Joseph Macari SCTM #1000-121-4-9.
A.T. Holding Co. SCTM #1000-121-5-5. 1
DATE: July 6, 1989
This is to confirm the Scoping Session date of Thursday, July
13 , 1989 at 2 p.m. for the above mentioned subdivision
applications.
The Scoping Session will be held in the Meeting Hall of the Town
located on the Main Road in Southold.
—2--=L31 924 273 1 services are desired, and -OMPIOt- ItOrn.3 the Planning Board
ay6n&O side. Failure to do
U.9111 Provide vg t this
his-,, r
..%W rOqussted. vl�irnmvkjl faff-pl.-Cepinsuit
ress. 2, 0 Oft Icted Delivery
t X he e)t
4. Arti
e —Nurnmr
31 7-7q :2-?3
-46, 71-7 Type of Service.
Registered Infured
0 Certified
EICOD
El Express Mail
Always 0 in signature Of address"
or agent nd D E DE VERED,
15 8- Addresses's Address(ONL Y if-
requested andfee paid)
L
P
wo DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
to
q4
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
ol
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CERTIFIED MAIL
TO: All Involved Agencies
FROM: Southold Town Planning Board
RE: Scoping Session for:
Peconic Homes SCTM #1000-121-5-5. 1
Douglas Miller SCTM #1000-121-4-10 . 1
Daniel Jacoby SCTM #1000-125-1-5
Joseph Macari SCTM #1000-121-4-9.
A.T. Holding Co. SCTM #1000-121-5-5.1
DATE: July 6 , 1989
A Scoping Session has been set for Thursday, July 13, 1989 at 2
p.m. for the above mentioned subdivision applications. The
Scoping Session will be held in the Meeting Hall of the Town
Hall which is located on the Main Road in Southold.
A copy of the Positive Declaration was sent to you under
separate cover.
If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any
comments you may have as to items you wish be addressed in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board
office. For your assistance, the Board' s fax number is 765-1823 .
if you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board
office at 765-1938 .
cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of . Environmental Conservation
Suffolk County Department of Planning
James Schondebare, Town Attorney
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
Building Department
Zoning Board of Appeals
Board of Trustees
jt
iz r
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516)765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 12, 1989
Peter S. Danowski,Jr.
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Applications in
Laurel Lake Area which
received a Positive
Declaration on June 5, 1989
Dear Mr. Danowski:
Enclosed please find the Town Board resolution .of June 6,
1989, which may be of significance to your client.
Noted below are three tentative dates for the scoping
session which the Planning Board will be conducting. Please
notify the Planning Board office by June 16th as to which date
is most convenient for you. You will be notified of the
confirmed date and time.
July 6, 1989 - no specified time
July 7 , 1989 - no specified time
July 12, 1989 -no specified time
Please contact the office if you have any questions
pertaining to the above.
ulyy ur
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
CHAIRMAN
enc.
ms
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(5 16)?65-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 7 , 1982
Peter S. Danowski,Jr.
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE: Joseph Macari
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowiki:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, June 5, 1989 .
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board issue a
Positive Declaration under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
The Planning Board, as lead agent, determined that the
proposed action described in the enclosed positive declaration
may have a significant effect on the environment and that a
Draft Environmental Impact Statment will be prepared.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Very. truly yours,
CHAIRMAN ORLOWSKI,JR.
enc.
jt
4_�C�v
U-3 W�
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 119 71
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 7 , 1989
POSITIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT to Part 617 of Article 8 of the Environmental Conser-
vation Law, the Southold Town Planning Board assumes lead
agency, and, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed
actions described below may have a significant effect on the
environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
shall be prepared.
NAME OF ACTION:
A.T. Holding Co. SCTM# 1000-121-5-5 .1
1000-122-2-25
34 lots on 91 . 53 acres.
Joseph Macari SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
27 lots on 63 . 57 acres .
Peconic Homes SCTM# 1000-121-3-7
1000-121-1- p/o 5
19 lots on 45 . 28 acres.
Daniel Jacoby SCTM# 1000-125-1-5
2 lots an 10. 58 acres.
Douglas Miller SCTM # 3-000-121-4-10 . 1
3 lots on 8 . 2 acres.
SEQRA STATUS:
Each of the individual actions around the Lake is, in
effect, an unlisted action, but the cumulative effect is akin to
a Type I action.
**CONTINUED**
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
There are three major and two minor subdivision proposals which
together encompass approximately 219 acres and 85 lots in the
vicinity of Laurel Lake; and
There should be consideration of the potential cumulative effect
of the proposed development on the ecology of the area with
regard to the overall impacts on groundwater quality, surface
water quality, wildlife habitat, and public lands; and
The Laurel Lake area has been under study as a special
groundwater protection area by the Long Island Regional
Planning Board' s Special Groundwater Protection Area Advisory
Council; and
The stretch of Sound Avenue between Bergen Avenue to the west
and Cox Neck Road to the east is the sole point of ingress and
egress, and none of these subdivisions has additional access to
other public roads. This stretch of road is a heavily travelled
east-west corridor and also a curving road on hilly terrain.
Its capacity to handle safely the additional volume of traffic
from the projected development should be examined.
CONTACT PERSON:
Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M.
Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971.
cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Conservation,SB
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
Building Department
Zoning Iloard of Appeals
Board of Trustees
Planning Board
Applicant
it
LAW OFFICES
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
VR 1 2
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
R 0. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ OF COUNSEL
PAMELA A BLAKE
April 7, 1989 GRACE GATZ
EILEEN L. BRACKEN
ALICE SALVI
SECRETARIES
Planning Department Planning Board
Town of Southold Town of Southold
Town Hall Town Hall
P. O. Box 1179 P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971 Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Melissa Spiro
Re: Joseph Macari - Laurel Lake Subdivision
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Melissa & members of the Board:
After reviewing copies of the traffic study completed by
Dr. Richard Jacksonf which Was hand delivered to the Planning
Board Office, I would ask that the Board issue a "Negative
Declaration" .
As pointed out previously, a Negative Declaration issued
on the same parcel several years ago, when twice the number of
lots were proposed. Additionally, we have made every reasonable
attempt to present a well designed plan, which will be consistent
with good traffic design.
This report should also support the desires of Peconic
Homes and Mr. Jacoby. I have forwarded a copy of this study to
Mr. Richard A. Ehlers, representing Mr. Jacoby and Mr. Henry
Raynor , who has Previously represented the Horton Brothers .
I believe the Board has acted properly with regard to the
Thorton Smith subdivision which has limited access onto Sound
Avenue . The Smith Subdivision has shown a potential tap street
for the future to a subdivision that has not yet been developed.
As can be seen by our plans and those of Peconic Homes , a
limited access point can be agreed to.
Very truly yours,
PSD Cas PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
cc: Howard Young
'_7
LAW OFFICES
PETERS. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE [!AM!- 7 M
P. 0, BOX 779
SOUTHOLD TO""�l
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 PLANNING BOA
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ OF COUNSEL
PAMELA A. BLAKE
GRACE GATZ
April 7 , 1989 EILEEN L. BRACKEN
ALICE SALVI
SECRETARIES
Planning Department
Town of Southold
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Melissa Spiro
Re: Joseph Macari
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Melissa:
Enclosed herewith please find copy of traffic study
completed by Dr. Richard A. Jackson with regard to the above
captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
PSD 6as,,,/ PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
Enc Ure
cc: David Emilita
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
FEB -T 1999
SOUTHOLD TO'NN
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
February 6, 1989
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Laurel Lake Subdivisions - SEQRA Evaluation
(Daniel Jacoby: SCTM # 1000-125-1-5)
(Joseph Marcari: SCTM # 1000-121-4-9)
(A.T. Holding Corp.: SCTM # 1000-121-5-1 & 1000-122-2-25)
(Peconic Homes: SCTM # 1000-121-3-7 & 1000-125-1 & p/o 2)
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Service (SCDHS) has reviewed the
above-referenced proposals. We have no objection to Town's designation as lead
agency.
Based on our preliminary review, we strongly believe that the potential for project-
specific and cumulative negative environmental impacts is significant.
Specifically, we believe that independently, the proposed actions pose potential
significant impacts on groundwater, surface water, freshwater wetlands, wildlife habitat,
and public lands resources within a similar geographical area.
In addition, the close proximity of these proposals and their collective location
within a designated Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA), supports a
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 1 1901
Letter to Valerie Scopaz
February 6, 1989
Page 2
comprehensive assessment of short- and long-term cumulative impacts on the Laurel
Lake area.
As a result, we recommend that the above-mentioned proposals (and others which
may be proposed in their vicinity) be reviewed collectively through a Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS).
We believe the need for a Laurel Lake GEIS is well supported by the implementing
rules and regulations for the State Environmental Ouality Review Act (SEORA) which
state in pertinent part that:
"A Generic EIS may be used to assess the environmental effects of
(1) a number of separate actions in a given geographic area which, if considered
singly may have only minor effects, but if considered together may have
significant effects; or ....
(3) separate actions having generic or common impacts..." [NYCRR: Part 617.15
(a)]
The GEIS can provide government agencies and the general public with an
accurate impact assessment of the overall development of this area, and identify
mitigation measures necessary to minimize potential impacts to the entire affected area
(not simply individual site specific measures).
Also, we are confident that a GEIS for the entire 211-acre (approximate)
development area will reduce duplication of efforts by the applicants and involved
agencies, which may well occur in the event of independent, segmented reviews of
each application.
Finally, we believe the most valuable function of a GEIS for the Laurel Lake area
would be its identification and discussion of design alternatives. Responsibly
undertaken, this part of the document would provide a detailed assessment of
alternatives and project designs and comprehensive planning strategies [i.e., transfer of
Letter to Valerie Scopaz
February 6, 1989
. 1�
Page 3
development rights (TDR), clustering, partial/total acquisition, etc.] intended to minimize
potential negative impacts on the overall study area.
We appreciate the opportunity to review these proposals and have enclosed a
separate scoping outline which identifies content areas we would like to see addressed
in a Laurel Lake GEIS. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely,
Robert S. DeLuca
Biologist
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E
Charles Lind, S.C. Planning Dept.
Frank Panek, NYSDEC
Enc.
RECOMMENDED SCOPING OUTLINE
FOR
A
LAUREL LAKE GEIS
1. Description of the Proposed Actions:
A. Location
The document should contain detailed design drawings and include Suffolk
County Tax Map numbers for the overall project sites.
B. Sanitary Code Compliance
1. The SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of water supply and
sanitary sewage disposal systems. We recommend, therefore, that the
document provide a detailed discussion of the regulations and compliance
requirements of our agency as they apply to the proposed development and the
potential alternatives to the proposed actions.
In addition, the document should outline the Article VI application status of the
proposed projects, and explain proposed methods of compliance with the
appropriate requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC). General
statements regarding the applicants' intentions to comply with all appropriate
SCDHS standards should not be considered sufficient detail for this portion of
the document.
2. If the applicants have not yet submitted applications for realty subdivision
approval to our agency, applications should be submitted at the earliest possible
date so our staff may provide technical comments.
C. Water Supply
The document should discuss in detail sufficient for technical assessment, the
water supply requirements for the proposed actions and should demonstrate
water supply availability.
D. Wetlands Delineation
Wetlands and water bodies must be represented accurately on property surveys
and site plans submitted to our agency for review. Proposals with inaccurate
information regarding wetlands and surface waters cannot be evaluated for yield,
equivalent density, or proper locations of sewage disposal systems or water
supply facilities.
H. Environmental Sgnin
A. Groundwater Quality
1. We are concerned about potential groundwater quality impacts associated with
the overall development of the study area, especially with respect to potential
impacts on wetlands and surface waters. We recommend that the GEIS
evaluate potential groundwater impacts in the study area with specific attention
to the potential impacts on Laurel Lake and its associated freshwater wetlands.
2. The entire GEIS study area is located within one of the Special Groundwater
Protection Areas (SGPA) designated by the Long Island Regional Planning
Board (LIRPB).
The LIRPI3 has made substantive general recommendations regarding zoning
and land use, aimed at protecting these area's groundwater resources.
We encourage the Town to require discussion of the LIRPB's recommendations
for these designated areas relative to the proposed actions and alternatives
being evaluated in the GEIS.
B. Wildlife Habitat Identification and Protection
1. The document should provide a detailed assessment of the study area's
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This section of the study should provide a
detailed cover map of the study area and include the results of an on-site
species inventory. (The document should not contain merely a predetermined
list of probable species found in habitats similar to the subject study area.)
In addition, the dates of all field studies and qualifications of the individual(s)
conducting the investigations should be included in the document for review.
2. The document should identify potential short- and long-term impacts to wildlife
species and habitat as a result of the proposed actions. Information pertaining
to rare and endangered species, habitat fragmentation, area-sensitive species,
and loss of indigenous natural communities is important to this discussion.
3. The document should evaluate (in detail sufficient for comparative assessment)
project design alternatives which maximize protection of contiguous natural
areas and provide for the highest diversity of natural habitat types. We are
especially concerned about the full protection of any areas providing habitat for
rare and endangered species.
4. Sources of information pertaining to rare, threatened and endangered species
should be stated in the GEIS.
We recommend the discussion be supplemented with information obtained from
the regional office of NYSDEC and the New York State Natural Heritage Program.
The Natural Heritage Program offers a Significant Habitat Information Service (518-
439-7486), and can be contacted at the following address:
New York State Natural Heritage Program
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, New York 12054
C. New York State Regulations and Reguirements
1. Development of parcels within the study area will be subject to regulation and
review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), pursuant to Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Act of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law.
The GEIS should outline the regulatory requirements of the State pursuant to the
above legislation and discuss how the proposed projects affected by this
regulation will satisfy State permitting standards and policies.
2. The document should provide a detailed base map of the study area which
includes NYSIDEC-approved wetland delineations, and regulatory limits.
D. Impacts on Public Lands and Historic Resources
1. The GEIS study area should include discussion of public. lands of the NYIDSEC
and Camp Malloy. We are especially concerned about potential development
impacts to the NYSDEC preserve property, and fishing opportunities on Laurel
Lake.
2. Also, we are concerned about any potential impacts on historic resources as a
result of proposed development projects. We recommend, therefore, that the
GEIS include historic resources data for this area and a historical and
archeological impact analysis for any of the proposed projects which may be
necessary.
E. Alternatives
The GEIS should provide appropriate design alternatives with site plans which
are suitable for comparative assessment.
We recommend that alternative designs seek to maximize protection of the study
area's natural habitats, freshwater wetlands, and water resources
comprehensively, and be presented in an objective manner. Alternatives which
unquestionably have greater impacts than the desired actions are inappropriate.
Town Hall 53095 Main Road
Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516)765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 12, 1989
Peter Danowski,Jr.
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE: Joseph Macari
SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, January 9, 1989.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the
coordination process to determine Lead Agency and Environmental
Significance on the following:
Peconic Homes- SCTM #1000-121-3-7/1000-125-1-p/o 5
Joseph Macari- SCTM #1000-121-4-9
A.T. Holding Co. - SCTM #1000-121-5-8/1000-122-2-25
Daniel Jacoby- SCTM #1000-125-1-5
PLEASE NOTE THE FURTHER EXPLANATION ENCLOSED.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
"-V�erry truly you ri�?
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
enc.
j t
WHEREAS, the stretch of Sound Avenue between Bergen Avenue to
the west and Cox Neck Road to the east is the sole point of
access and exit for four major and one minor subdivision
proposal which in total encompass 210 . 96 acres and 84 Lots; and
WHEREAS, none of these subdivisions have ready access to other
public roads for additional access; and
WHEREAS, this stretch of road is a winding, and curving road on
hilly terrain, its capacity to handle safely the additional
volume of traffic from the projected development is in question;
and
WHEREAS, this stretch of road is a heavily travelled east-west
corridor; and
WHEREAS, these particular applications are in the vicinity of
Laurel Lake, there should be consideration of the potential
cumulative impact of the proposed development on the area with
regard to Potential stormwater runoff, septic system leaching,
groundwater quality and loss of habitat; and
WHEREAS, the applications lie adjacent� to or within, whether
-4,wholly or in part, the Core Watershed Protection Area which has
been designated by the Town Board (January 19, 1988) as a study
area; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Water Advisory Committee has been
reviewing land use management practices in this area, and the
Core Watershed Protection Area has also been included as a
special groundwater protection area by the LIRPB'S Special
Groundwater Protection Area Advisory Council; and
WHEREAS, these individual actions around the Lake are in
effect, unlisted actions, the cumulative effect is akin to a
Type I action, and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The Southold Planning Board
hereby assumes lead agency status in the review of the following
applications:
A.T. Holding Co, . SCTM# 121-5-18 and 122-2-25 ( 34 lots, 91 . 53A)
Joseph Macari ScTm# 121-4-9 ( 27 lots 63 . 57A) ,
Peconic Homes SCTM# 121-3-7 and 121-1 p/o 5 ( 19 lots, 45. 28A)
Daniel Jacoby SCTM#125-1-5 ( 4 lots lo . 58 acres)
and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The Planning Board hereby
determines that the cumul'fftive impact of- the above noted
applications, for the above mentioned reasons, is likely to have
an adverse environmental impact.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 119 71 -t 14
TELEPHONE -
(516)765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 12 , 1989
Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request
Dear Reviewer:
The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8
(State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental
Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following:
1 . your jurisdiction in the action described below;
2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead
agency; and
3 . issues of concern whi ch You believe should be evaluated.
Enclosed Please find a copy of the proposal and a completed
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response.
Project Name: JQ2eRh Maa"i SCTM #1000-121-4-9
Requested Action: Applicant prolDoses to subdivide a 63 . 5691 acre
pa eel into 2 —� - - -s-z-e
!_c_l�ste d rangin�gin �i
LLU111 14UFUVU . 6. 1 ' UU U / Juuu . s- t - located—at Laurel .
SEQRA Classification: 1XX3 Type I
I I Unlisted
Contact Person: Lill M. Thorp
��16-765-1938
The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental
impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty ( 30) days of
the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you
have an interest in being lead agency.
Planning Board Position:
[XXA This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action.
This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead
agency status for this action.
[XXA other. (see comments below)
Comments:
See attached resolution.
Please feel free to contact this office for further information.
Sincerely,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI , JR.
CC: A3"oard of Appeals CHAIRMAN
�Board of Trustees
'/Building Department
TSouthold Town Board
*,,/Suffolk county Dept. of Health Services
*,/NYSDEC- Stony Brook
.NYSDEC- Albany
�ZS.C. Dept. of Public Works
I
U-S—kr-my—Cor-p of Engina-e-r-s
Z-21.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation
Maps are enclosed for your review
Coordinating agencies
LAW OFFICES
PETERS. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
R O� BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727 4900
PETER S. DANOWSKi, JR. MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ PAMELA A BLAKE
EILEEN HUBERT
August 5, 1988 SECRETARES
Town of Southold
Planning Department
Southold, NY 11971 AUG 5 10
Att: Bennett Orlowski , Jr. ,
Chairman
Re Joseph Macari, 121-4-9
Dear Mr. Orlowski :
Please find enclosed 10 copies of the revised map, pursuant to
your letter of June 14, 1988, a copy of which is also enclosed.
very uly yours�,
<
I K
PE�ER S. DANOWS I, JR.
P SD�*p
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Macari
Mr . Skrzypecki
Mr. Young
BY HAND
P
TO 01
Ln
S
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 14 , 1988
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Joseph Macari , 121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The Planning Board inspected the above mentioned site to make
a determination on where the access point should be.
Please refer to the enclosed map to find the relocation of the
access, along with additional changes. The Planning Board feels that
the line of sight is better at this point than where it is on the
proposed map.
Upon submission of revised map reflecting these changes, in
addition to what was discussed with Melissa Spiro on May 6 , 1988 ,
regarding the location of the certain lots , the Board will proceed
with their review of this application.
yours ,
Bennett Orlowsk'i, Jr.
Chairman
Enclosures
P
TO D
U�
S
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 14 , 1988
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Joseph Macari , 121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The Planning Board inspected the above mentioned site to make
a determination on where the access point should be.
Please refer to the enclosed map to find the relocation of the
access, along with additional changes. The Planning Board feels that
the line of sight is better at this point than where it is on the
proposed map.
Upon submission of revised map reflecting these changes , in
addition to what was discussed with Melissa Spiro on May 6 , 1988 ,
regarding the location of the certain lots , the Board will proceed
-with their review of this application.
yours ,
Bennett Orlowski , Jr.
-fhairman
Enclosures
LAW OFFICES
PETERS. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P. O� BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F. KOZAKIEWICZ
March 3, 1988 PAMELA A BLAKE
EILEEN L. BRACKEN
SECRETARIES
Town of Southold
Planning Board
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Att: Valerie Scopaz
Re: major Subdivision Application
for Joseph Macari
Dear Valerie:
Please find enclosed the following relative to the above matter:
1 . My client' s checks as follows: $1,000 .00 application fee and
check in the amount of $6, 356. 91 representing fee of $100 .00
per acre.
2 . environmental assessment form;
3 . 12 prints of subdivision sketch plan;
4 . 12 prints of standard subdivision sketch plan.
Very truly yours,
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
PSD/pb
Enclosures
cc: Joseph Macari
Howard Young
BY HAND
UWAR140
/Planning Board -3- April 7, 1980
RESOLVED to approve the preliminary map of the subdivision
of Joseph Macari as revised November 26, 1979, subject to the
fol ing recommendations of the Town Engineer and Planning Board ),�io
Inspector:
1. Cuts and fills be balanced.
2. Four leaching pools be provided near highways, one each
at the start of the piping to the drainage areas to
lessen the amount of sediment entering these areas.
3. Baffles or other suitable devices be provided at the
corrugated metal end sections in the drainage area to
eliminate scouring from excessive velocities of the water
entering the drainage areas because of very steep grades
of the last sections of piping.
4. Fencing and curbs be provided around drainage areas.
5. The width of pavement on Road I'D" for the one-way traffic
lanes be reduced from 30 feet to 24 feet and the center
island be used as a swale to assist leaching pools.
6. The section of bank on Lot #48 at the entrance to Road
I'D" from Soundview Avenue be removed to provide sight
distance.
7. The reserved area between Lots #15 and #16 be paved to
the property line of A. V. Reeve.
8. The turnaround at Lot #13 be eliminated as this is a
nuisance for the Highway Department to maintain.
9. Drainage easement be provided on only one property
rather than have center of easement down the center of
property line.
10. Elevations be raised at low points on Road "All at stations
4-50 and 26-00 three feet and use 200 foot vertical
curves to increase sight distance.
11. Profile for Road "Ell as shown not in accord with information
on the road sheet. Road sheet data should be used.
12. Plans call for one solid wall ring in the 3 ring leaching
pools. All �rings should be storm drain rings.
13. The capacity of the five pools at the end of Road "B"
is not suffici�nt.
14. The capacity of the four pools at the entrance road is not
sufficient.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Gordon, Orlowski, Latham
LAW OFFICES
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P 0 BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 4MH TOWN
R OLU 7OW
N I R
NIOG SOARD
(516)727-4900
MICHAEL T CLIFFORD
PETER S DANOWSKI, JR. OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ PAMELA A BLAKE
EILEEN HUBERT
SECRETARIES
Town of Southold
Planning Board
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Melissa Spiro
Re: Macari - Laurel Lake Subdivision
Dear Ms. Spiro:
Enclosed herewith please find as an aid to the planning staff and
Planning Board, an Environmental Review of my client 's project.
As discussed, Mr . Howard Young, The Clover Corporation and
myself , will be more than happy to meet with the Board or staff,
to discuss any questions concerning my client' s project. As you
know, we have tried to proceed in an orderly fashion and have
tried to listen to comments from neighbors and the planning
staff .
The density is in conformity with the Town zoning and we have
provided a good deal of open space. As you know, Mr. Macari has
owned this property for some period of time, and the proposed
density is a great deal less than what was originally proposed
some years ago. Based upon the mitigating factors outlined in
our environmental report, we would like to be considered as a
candidate for a negative declaration.
Very truly yours,
PETER S. DkNOWSKI, JR.
P SD:
Enclosure
cc: David Emilita
0
LAW OFFICES
PE:TER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P. 0. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD, NY 11901
(516) 727-4900
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ
PAMELA A. SLAKE
EILEEN L. BRACKEN
SECRETARIES
March 3, 1988
Town of Southold 11n F.'
Planning Board
"AD T WN
T '
'7D
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Att: Valerie Scopaz
0 N
QAR0
-APINING 8 0
Re: Major Subdivision Application ---- ----------46�1
for Joseph Macari
Dear Valerie:
I have enclosed standard and cluster subdivision plans with
regard to property owned by my client, Joseph Macari . A great
deal of thought has gone into the cluster plan, which was
prepared by Mr. Howard Young, licensed land surveyor. An attempt
has been made to anticipate potential problems that might be
raised with regard to the site.
With regard to the cluster plan, the obvious most valuable lot
would have been in a location bordering directly on Laurel Lake.
Despite this value to the client, we felt that the Town and
neighboring property owners might prefer that no residence be
constructed at this location.
With regard to areas near to any suggested wetland area, building
envelopes can be set back from the wetlands, and if necessary,
natural or scenic easements can be created. Drainage areas have
been reviewed and are suggested on the plan.
In the normal course, a tap street on an easterly or westerly
direction might be recommended by the Planning Board, however, I
do not know that a tap street is feasible, in that large lot
subdivisions have been granted to the east and west with regard
to what I understand are minor subdivision plans.
We have attempted to understand the concerns of our neighbors and
made a brief presentation to members of the Laurel Lake Civic
Association.
-2-
The owner and his representatives would ask for an early
opportunity to meet with the Planning staff and thereafter with
the Planning Board.
Very truly yours,
(2��
PETER S. DANOWSKI , JR.
PSD/pb
Enclosures
CC: Mr. Macari
Mr. Young
BY HAND
P
To�
D
Ln
S V y
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
February 24, 1988
Frank Yakaboski, Esq.
Smith, Finklestein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski
456 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Major Subdivision
of Joseph Macari
SCTM# 1000-121-4-9
Dear Frank:
I have just been notified that another subdivision
application will be made on the above referenced parcel.
This office has no record of your response to our May 9 ,
1987 request for a determination on the zoning of this property.
Please forward another copy for our files.
Sincerely,
Valerie Sc�a
Town Planner
FPO"-
Celic Estate Agents, Inc.
Celic Realtors
Main Road and Marlene Lane, Post Office Box 786, Mattituck, New York 11952 (516)298-8000
Main Road, Post Office Box 640,Greenport, New York 11944 (516)477-9400
April 24 , 1987
Robert W . Tasker , Esq .
425 Main Street
Greenport , NY 11944
Dear Bob ,
On behalf of Mr . Joseph Macari , Jackson Heights , NY 11372 , 1 am
herein requesting a " legal determination letter" as to the current
status of his application regarding a 49 one-acre lot subdivision
located at Laurel Lake and Sound Avenue , Mattituck , which received
preliminary approval , subject to revision , on April 7 , 1980 .
It would appear , as evidenced by the attached Southold Town
Planning Board transcripts , that because this application received
preliminary approval long before passage of the two-acre townwide
zoning ordinance , Mr . Macari would be exempted from any further
reduction in building lot yield .
Your promptness in providing a legal ruling regarding this matter
would be deeply appreciated by all parties involved .
On a personal note , I sincerely hope you are recovering nicely
from your recent illness .
Thanking you in advance for your cooperation .
r truly,
tt U i Y'
6Robert A. Celic
cc : Mr . Joseph Macari
Mr . Bennett Orlowski , STPB
MEMBERS OF
NATIONALASSOCIATION OF REALTORS SUFFOLK COUNTY REAL ESTATE BOARD
NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS EASTERN SUFFOLK BOARD OF REALTORS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FARM&LAND BROKERS INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE FEDERATION
NEW YORK STATE SOCIETY OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED APPRAISERS
FIGURE 19
MAP OF SITE SHOWING LOCATION OF TEST HOLES
............
C A6.
23
z*
22
zt
2
is S
71
16
15 z.
14
13
112
2
EXPLANATION
io
rest hola-s
io
9
9 Positive test holes
areas of prehistoric
7
archaeological sens4tivity
6
"P
1\0
2
KL
72
6
possible within this zone, depending on location.
As noted in Figure 4, the Upper Glacial Aquifer directly
underlies the site area (Jensen, et al. , 1974) . This aquifer is
the uppermost aquifer of Long Island and contains the water
table. This shallow aquifer generally includes saturated coarse
sands and gravels in the upper Pleistocene deposits. The upper
limit of the aquifer is the regional water table and the lower
limit of the aquifer is marked by the Magothy Aquifer.
This geohydrologic cross-section (Figure 4) is drawn roughly
north-south from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic ocean,
through the North and South Forks, respectively. The
cross-section area is located approximately 1 mile west of the
site and indicates that the Upper Glacial Aquifer is
approximately 600 feet thick. This illustration also
demonstrates the presence of the Magothy Aquifer beneath the
Upper Glacial Aquifer under the site (Jensen, et al. , 1974) .
The Town of Southold has established a Water Resources
Management Program in order to protect the existing and future
groundwater supply of the Town through a combination of
environmentally sensitive land use policies and practices. In
addition, the site is within the Central Suffolk Special
Groundwater Protection Area, Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed
(Suffolk County Executive, 1990) .
Seven (7) monitoring wells (Figure 6) were completed at the
site in order to determine the present elevation of the
111-49
groundwater table and to establish the general groundwater flow
direction at the site. The groundwater table is approximately 6
feet above sea level at the site (Appendix C; Figure 7) . Depth
of the water table below the surface ranged from approximately 0
to about 45 feet (Appendix C) . Although the water table is
considerably lower than the ground surface throughout most of
the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the
north-central portion of the site intersect the water table,
creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively.
Seasonal fluctuations in the regional groundwater level can
be estimated from data obtained from a nearby U.S. Geological
Survey/Suffolk County Department of Health Services well (U.S.
Geol. Survey, 1986) :
S16756. High elevation (1/9/85) ; 8.53 feet MSL.
Low elevation (7/11/85) ; 6.77 feet MSL.
Municipal Well (Town of Riverhead) , located
approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site.
An approximate 2 foot seasonal variation in groundwater
level at the site is projected from the data obtained from this
well.
111-50
facilitate an increase in adsorption of viruses, thus lessening
the potential impact on the groundwater in the vicinity of the
site. With increasing distance from the site, the probability
of viral contamination lessens considerably.
The project will have private wells associated with each
housing unit.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1988,
page 2, first paragraph) in its "Standards and Procedures for
Private Water Systems" describes the requirements for
"Single-Family Residences on Lots in Single and Separate
Ownership" (such as the proposed action) as follows:
"A minimum horizontal separation of 150 feet must be
provided between the well and the leaching pools.
Where such separations are physically impossible to
obtain, hookup to Public water mains beyond the
required distance must be considered. "
Consequently, the proposed action will be compatible with the
regulations governing septic system design and distance from a
potable water supply source.
The allowable sewage flow (Suffolk County Department of
Health Services) is 300 gallons per day per acre, or
approximately 19, 080 gallons per day (300 gpd X 63 .6 acres) .
Since the projected sewage discharge value for the proposed
action is only 8, 100 gallons per day, acceptable levels of
discharge are anticipated.
Finally, there is concern as to Potential contamination
V-45
from the proposed action to nearby private wells and to Laurel
Lake. AS stated above, the groundwater movement direction is
probably southeast or south-southeast at the site.
Consequently, with the distribution of the housing units
proposed for the site, the septic effluent discharge will have a
minimal effect on Laurel Lake because of the great distances
from the lake and the direction of groundwater flow.
In addition, the septic systems on lots closest to the
private residences south of the site (i.e. , Lots #14, #15, #16,
and #17) are a distance of at least 200 feet away. This is in
excess of the minimal 150 foot separation distance between
septic systems and drinking supply wells, as required by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. In addition, the
groundwater flow will probably direct the septic effluent in a
southeasterly or south-southeasterly direction, north of the
private wells. The only lots that will produce effluent that
might intersect with private residences are Lots #21, #22, #23,
#24, and #25, located in the northwestern portion of the site
(Plate 1) . The distances from these lots to the closest private
residence is approximately 1,000 feet. The septic effluent will
be able to mix and dilute for approximately 10 times the
distance required by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services for separation between septic systems and drinking
supply wells. Thus, the septic effluent from these lots should
not adversely effect the drinking water quality at private
V-46
Seaburn, G.E. , 1970, Preliminary Results of Hydrologic Studies
at Two Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-C; Washington, D.C.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982, Report on
the occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in
Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County: prepared by
Bureau of Water Resources, Baier and Robbins; 71 p. ,
Appendices A-H.
, 1987, Sanitary Code, Article 6, Groundwater
Management Zones (Map) ; Hauppauge, New York.
, 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan: Division of Environmental Health
(SCDHS) , Dvirka and Bartilucci, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1988, Standards and Procedures for Private Water
Systems: Division of Environmental Quality; Hauppauge,
New York; 14p.
, Division of Environmental Quality, 1988, Standards
for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewarge Disposal
Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences, Hauppauge,
New York.
Suffolk County Executive, 1990, The Suffolk County Drinking
Water Protection Program; Comprehensive Acquisition Plan;
Hauppauge, New York; 78p.
Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1985, Eastern forests: Audubon
society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New
York; 638p.
Swihart, M. M. and Petrich, C. H. , 1988, Assessing the Aesthetic
Impacts of Small Hydropower Development: National
Association of Environmental Professionals, The
Environmental Professional, Vol. 10, No. 3 ;
Alexandria, Virginia; pp. 198-210.
Tchobanoglous, G. and Schroeder, E.D. , 1985, Water Quality,
Characteristics, Modeling, Modification: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company; Reading Massachusetts.
Todd, David K. , 1959, Ground Water Hydrology: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. ; New York, New York; 336p.
R-6
2689t, 'ON J1 I *S I 'S A 14 'DNnOA M G HVMOH "61-Z8
gt,SZI ON 011 S I q) 3d 'SAN 'ONnok M N301V 001 �..l 3-1v3s
�N N1 ..I O1�111��.l.1
N.A�1. A11
'A N 'CIV3HU3AIN 'ONnaA 9 DNnok ).96: :JZ '330 31VO I NVQNV��l P111
996 09 'NVr .��1111 v
.1 11�Hll 11.NO 01�
101 . M CM N.L�U IHI .1
S am 0009
,OP,60�61V AAOD inif all
N�NCISNOD� LON 11WHO JYJ`
�-1 .1 MW 1A.1LAW.:-N,,','-E
M,00,000000r11-V9A", 1A 00 POONeN do 990 00 6.90 01 V LVN dvw uAins sm o nuoo
YY0A 1143AI IuNnOO Y 70— Of. 7 ! 401
IlViS MOA�N 3HL 10 60ZL N011331
0 70/-/1/70S —40 A1114OZ 'l 7 N3 NOUVIOJA V St OANns sim o)
04
73Y17 V 7 1 V -djroa,,O1?v
IYVOVN Hd-7.901'
0
..............
YOY G-7YVc1-7Yc1 Tc�, 000 Z17 n-1
IVV7cl 1-10Z-;WS NOISIAIG67nS
i SAO
!cz
7 2 10
S4 .......l"")
NM01 G]Oki)6,� ,, �� l' , 20.
N ... ........
P11
F �y
Tc� 000 It,
00008 7
q4 N V 119 A,
�-QN9V *61,9 '61, 09.
rp
( q-SVI I �V� OVLOS V�INV 1N�IIA-3CV9 09111 1w I
VANV
J j
6)k9c, 147,
NOuvingiv5, N:g.Lrr1iq l, �4 - 1
A % J A ,liv, 11 1
rq-
Aj
[a
—Aa4, �i (D
otOS = C�4VON -�O H19N-91
1,Z - �Lol =10 ON IV-LOL V
1VNn_L-1M91A-�V/ 1V11N1,11�9N - V,
�3cn 9NINOZ Z
C,aNOV I bd>G 1�.j V�NV JVj_o.L I
� .,cL, �\Ooc;il,
3 0 01,\ yaq.0"p
t�-, % Oo—
N O"Pu
C, 000 11, �j C-) 000 CNI,
p
001
-Fil , 11 1 , � 'IN ;; � ;�;A�q;.
(6Zb1 -1�W) 6AON
O-L 4�9NMda.GN 7%
9MY NOAA;IH NMOHO, �NOUV�� 1� I M
b 10-1—t 'Nlq 1q14
JVW XV.L UNno5, =J�n� I
11ON
C� 0001-ir,
v\%�, 3,00,acO 619 e"
-3,c� 000 01V I
�I 0007t, C'� ir
0,1 118UP.9
ht,04 4FO 0 g9 g SO/joy?
1"00" 0
J,,00,
'0 Q, 'it, rot
Ot, Z, ,61
V
o? g� p4OUT"\ .9 \ L, I
WOVNIVN, b
000 VV
-7
1A
4 vqoS &jj.M
zi,
0z" 1 E) I
v, L�00 1 000
Cb
lb,
-31--t-"
V,
,1 77, T, 7777�,
_77
000
wl
I , X, � le,
OOLI 7.V Z
A w -1-
4q,
"'n
v,
..........
M lN,'I
g,
A,�
c, ...... 1 4
Y
......... 0
"XD5
'Q, Oq�,j 0
xv
Olt T
N j
%�A,
�w -
c7 000 Tv e
..........v, � -�,,�n �,, 11
2;YOO 7 V
4 .......V
-A "c', ,
6� ...
"A,
c. .. ...... 'I" TJ -kL�
.......... N
4�
A
A���s A,
.90S
-S Frig
4�' -g,,0
og,10
"k, ......
Fg,005
3,0g,
V H.19,Or flu JVW NOIJV*201
uxll��tj '0"
111q.l �q
A- Kjo-ki `10 11 E 0,16-11 -f
'23,
patI $V,efer )15.0500
II/f joseI a I -eIMPI -rVKN-A9OUN"------- 7408C' S/
5 go.63'50"E I I I I I/s, It Am
0, IN" �`flwl
F 11,
496 97' A70"I
,gz--,
All
S"6-067'30 777'
wm co"
"I— All .1
ju
'AlII
ld.�
71
....... A..
m
ru
7
A
-40
Ib R
548'52�504.
w VIT",7A I
16 94'
A-
141-
Styr,
or
41
4.4,200 P.
`E
lfNI
If
42-
kl,
f
421000
38
1110 VI ll, -i�, - ------
10
d
...... IN�`Od
11-N�jll'
A'
>
WI Sobat F,'
LOCATIII MAP 'AI ""'I k"'All 43
XAIF 1"z6O0` VII 11
,;�V71'104 �120 W 41
N:
S21052,0c 94 40
72
0
13-54;?O"W
d 14 '4ZODO �.F 1�1
55,13'
nr I35-33�,O'Iw I)
---40-
as
T.
, 1.�, d 1 1, 1��I I
FI -- 1 1 1 1 11 %
203,61,
SlI lZ.
d-
, , , III ' III I"'k,L
A*
ort"w"',40 , , II
I'm
49 7
I\V/ NI
't- �I ll, I 1, '70 SUFFOLK ccuvrr 7AX MAP
DIST 1000 SECrIRIBIOCIN4 LOr-9
z. FtEvArlow SHOWN -7,
0"- -ARE
k, HEREON
I A ,'
-k "t, i REFERENCED TO NGVD (MSL 19R9)
fit 0
n 00
- -- - -- OU7
of . . ...IVA,
b bpi 'f Ib I-r E PATA
N� �,`, I -ICITAIL. AI 65.56,91 A695b
Z7
A Z� 7.0WING, LI�E VI1b-rKI6-r'
20000, -- --- -----
I, 4ZOOO c�.F: 5 'rO-rAI- NO. OFLOTIO = Z7
1,ENIGTH OF KOI =S500� LA
4,1 0,)&e-I'j—,
"id,
...... 495
It
ej 00
61,V'�TEIC 0A1LCVLXrION
TO�A� AKEA z: &3.13&91 ACKFIb
-I`I-ANV� Agr
d-, WF zA - 14900 �.F (034ZI A6KEtl)
60760 Iv F. (1,1665 A&915�)
LILCO EA�15MENT AKrA
Is jIg,- AL 496,494- ACKE�� +'3'5&0 �.F/A,6KE 80000 INF.- Z7.03 LOT.:,
4ZI900 t-11, A IV, -4.
43.
j,
A- W E TL A ND3
f,�,VpPACBV�
-7 't'd
2
4v �'A
A, .... ..... If
000 91
g
46000
I'd: George a Guldi 0 DwI Miller
�o UG
N/0, , , w
to,"", CLUSTER
JII �VWIIN,
�,Nl N,
-7'CH PLAN
"64,
f
SUBDIVISIOAl SKE
0, RD
PLANNING 8
'dward J.fi'If u
"o
41 PREPARED FOR :
"N
AT LAUREL
......, IL JOSEPH MACARI
W
.4
7OWN OF SOUTHOLD
-A,Ls IL
R16HT 0 w uu SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW rOR
ROAD N14-59b ?65.�I 2 0 Go,W .30.04,00"w.
61.00,
9 00940"
009'40'
50.00
940
- -4
filf Pectnic ftm 'AND It
JULY 24 1,988
DA7F1 17 YOUNG a YOUNG
SCALE lI 400 osrRANDER Amr, RIVERHEAD, NX
NO. 87-1963 ALDEN W YOUNG, MYS. PE.a L-S. LIC.NO. 12845
HOWARD W YQUI116, MKS. L.S. LI NO. AM45