HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-56.-4-13.3PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
RICHARD G. WARD
Chairman
GEORGE RITCHIE LATH.AM, JR.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
WILLIAM J. CREMER$
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, Now York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
August 23, 1995
Vincent Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island. NY 11964
RE: Site Plan application for
Vincent Geraghty
Route 25. Arshamomague
Zoning District: Marine II (Mil)
SCTM~f 1000-56-4-13.3. 13.4. ~, 14
Dear Mr. Geraghty,
At your request, this letter will confirm the current status of your site
plan application,
On October 6, 1995. the Planning Board received a letter from your
consultant Mr. David S. Yudelson withdrawing your application for the
purposes of resubmission at at a later date, {Copy of consultants letter
enclosed ) ~
There is no site plan application pending before this Board.
If you have any questions, or require further in formation, please contact
this office.
/
Site Plan Reviewer
cc: David S. Yudelson. Sive. Paget ~, Riesel. P. C.
enc.
O~: L ~f:-'r,I
F F :*1'I E, [ '.'E, F'F~3E T L P [ E':_,EL
TO
September 30, 1994
VIA FAX and MAIL /516-765-3136)
Mr. Robert Kassner
$outhold Town Planning Board
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Geraghtv site Plan
Dear Mr. Kassndrl
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning
wherein I informed you that the applicant hereby withdraws the
above-referenced Site Plan Application for purposes of res~mission
at a later date.
,inc:rely,
David S. Yudelson
OSY/
TI-ITel p. fl~
Pres u b missio~-c---oconfe-rence SITE P_LAN
(Within $0 days of written request)
Complete application received
(Within 4 months of presub, conference}
ApPlication reviewed at work'session
(Within 10 days of receipt)
Applicant a~vised of necessary revisions
(Within a0 days of review)'
Revised submission received
Lead Agency Coordination
SEQRA !;t~termination
Zoning Board of Appeals /
(written c.omments Within 60 days of request) --
Board of Trustees
Building Department (certification) /
' Suffolk County Department. of Planning
· Department of Transportation -State ~
Department of Transportation ~ County
Suffolk County Dept. of Health /
Fire Commissioners
RECEIVED:
Received. -- ~ --
Draft Covenants and Restrictions
Filed Covenants and Restrictions
Landscape plan
Lighting plan
Curb Cut approva1
Health approval
Drainage plan
Reviewed by Engineer
Approval of site pian'
-W/th COnditions
Endorsement of sire'plan
Certificate of Occupancy in'spection
One year review
TO
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938 PLANNINGSOU*[HOLD BO~DT O:~'i'~ ~ j
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN
Date of A~plication Filing Fee Date Rec'd
New Use&/ Change of Use Re-Use Extension of Existing Use
Revision of an Approved Site Plan (Date of Approval
Other .Specify
-)
Name of Business or Site ~x'~&/~f~ ~
Location of Site /~/N ~' ~,~7~/d/' /t~,~
Address of Site, if available
Name of Applicant /~/~/~, ~j~ ~ ~ ~
Address of Applicant /m ~ = ~ ~ ~~ /=, ~ //~
Telephone ~/~ ~C~//~
Person to be responsible for Construction ~ - ~
Telephone ~/~
Applicant's interest in site-check one: ~ner of Land ~
Under contract to purchase
~ner of Fee Title to Land ~/~ ~ ~/~w~ ~~
Address /~ ~ ~/~ ~m~//~ ~ Telephone ~/g ~/
Site Plans Prepared by ~. License No.
Address Telephone
Total Land Area ofSite -__~__~~F~Sq. Ft. Zone District F~,-
Existing Use of Site_~¢/~ ~roposed Use of Site~;~/~
Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) ~-~ sqft. ~ sqft.
Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) 4/F,, sqft. sqft.
Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) %
Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) %
Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) %
Datum(Specify)U.S.G.S. Other
Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by
Board of Appeals
Case Number /';/m Name of Applicant /a~,c~,,~,~/~/~'~,~,*/
Date of Decision ~xpiration Date
Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the sufkolk county
Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site?
If so, have proper permits b~en obtained?
Number and Date of permit issued
NO ACTION (EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) MAY BE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL
OF SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
_~/Q"~.,,,'~.1¢"~',~¢~/~.,~/~//// being duly sworn, deposes
and says that he resides at /~ .~¢'~ /~ --~F//~/F /~ W~
in the State of New York, and that he/is the owner of the abQv~property.
or that he is the ,6~. ~.'.4.4~ of the F~./~-~ I~//~
(Title) (Specify whethe~ Partnership
which is hereby making application; that the
'or Corporation)
owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense,
install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII
of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein
and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land
which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel,
including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are
shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly
filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to
roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the
Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with
same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or
changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board;
and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in
strict accordance with the plans submitted.
Sworn to before me this
_~____day of ~~
Ndtary Public)
JOYCE M. WILKIN8
Ten~ F-.,xplr~ June 12,
( Owner )~/
Signed
(Partner or Corporate Officer and Title)
617.21
Appendix C
Slate Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
:ORMATION ~ To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
SEQR
3, PROJECT LOCATION:
~New ~ Expansion ~ Modiflcat io.laltera,]o.
6, DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFCY:
Lj ~
~U~O TOWN
~ ~NNING BOARD
Initlal]~ ~?~ acres Ultimately ~cres
~ Yes ~ No If No, describe briefly
~ Residential ~ Industrial ~ Commercial ~ Agriculture ~ Par~ForestlOpen space ~ O~
·
6TATE OR COCAC)?
~Yes ~ No If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals
11. DOES ANY aspEcT OF THE A~TION HAVE A cUaaENTLY ~LID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
~Yes ~ No If y¢~, list agency name and permilla~proval
~a. as a Resuut OF ~aOPOsEu action w;LL ex,stoNe ~ERmmaPsROvaL REOumE moo~e~cat~oN~
Yes ~ No
I C~TIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
/
Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the [
If
the
action
Is
In
the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
PART~II--ENVIRONMENTAL .~ be completed by Agency) ,
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.127 If yes, coordinate the review brocess and use ths FULL EAF.'"~
[] Yes [] No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 6f7.67 If No, a negatlve de(;laratlon
may be superseded by another involved agency.
[] Yes [] NO
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFt:Ui~ ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may he handwritten, if legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwate~ quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood c,~aracter? Explain brlefl
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, signUJcant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain qrtefiy:
C4. commun ty's existing pla~fl o~ goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain brief
C$. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified in Cl-C57 Explain briefly.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE UKELY TO BE. CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
[] Yes
[] NO If Yes, explain briefly
PART III--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIF_!CANCE (To be completed by Agency)
· INSTRUCTIONS: For d~ch adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, la_[ge, important 0.[ otherwise si n flcant.
Irreversibility;Each effect should(e) geographicbe assessed in connection with its (s) setting ( .e. urban or rura ); (b) pl;0babillty of ~u~'ring; (c) dulrgatton; (d)
scope; and (f) magnitude, if necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that
explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed.
[] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY
OCCL=. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
~ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed acti'on WILL NOT result in any. significant adverse environmental impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the~reasons supporting this determination:
Name of Lead Agency
Date
PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
North side of Route 25, Arshamomaque.
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR
En-Consultants, Inc.
Town of Southold
IBUSINESS TELEPHONE
616 } 283-6360
ADDRESS
1329 North Sea Road
CITYI~ STATE ZIP CODE
Southampton NY 11968
NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Vincent P. Geraqht¥ (516 749-0118
ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 768
CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE
Shelter Island NY 11964
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Construct a two-story boat sales
parking area, sanitary system, etc.,
attached site plan.
Please Complete Each Question-- Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
and service; office building,
all as shown on the
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
suburban) I~Rural (non:fa~rm
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and u~d~.~ed areas.
1. Present land use: DUrban I-Ilndustrial [Z, Commerc~al [:3Residential
r-IForest DAgriculture r-IOther
2. Total acreage of project area: 1.47 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) _ 2 r~ acres .22 acres
Forested ,14 acres .05 acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) .33 acres .33 acres
Water Surface Area acres acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) .75 acres .38 acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres .49 acres
Other (Indicate type), acres acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Filled land
a. Soil drainage: DWell drained % of site [3~'Moderately well drained 78 % of site
~[Poorly drained 22 % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4, Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? r'qYes r~No
a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet)
.ApproXir~ate'° percentage of propose~ject site with slopes: [~0-10% ~ % 1~10-15% %
~15% or grea~ ].3
6. Is groject substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? []Yes
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? []Yes
8. What is the depth of the water table? 8 (in feet) (at test hole)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~LYes I~No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? []Yes [~o
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
[]Yes ~INo According to Rc)~v T,. r4~ ~
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
~lYes r~No Describe
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
[l-lYes [~No If yes, explain
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? [~No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name unnamed tidal wetland
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~Yes []No
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection?
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
b. Size (In acres)
[~'Yes I-1No
I~Yes ff~No
.33
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? []Yes ~"~No
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes ~]No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? []Yes [~'No
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ].. 47
b. Project acreage to be developed: .49 acres initially; .49
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped .98 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: ~1/A (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing O ; proposed ].9
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 54 (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family
Initially
Ultimately
i. Dimensions [in feet) of largest proposed structure ~ ? height; ~ 5 width;
j, Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 582
acres.
acres ultimately.
Condominium
a~ length.~
ft.
3
2., How much natural material (i.e., r earth, etc.) will be removed from the fi
3: Wi!l disturbed areas be reclaimed? DYes ~lNo ]~N/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~lYes I-INo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I-lYes [3No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
I-qYes [~No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ASAP months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1
c. Approximate completion date of final phase
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases?
8. Will blasting occur during construction? I-lYes [~No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
(number).
month
month
DYes
[-1No
tons/cubic yards
year, (including demolition).
year.
; after project is complete 4
I-lYes ]];]No If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes (~No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes [-1No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
Sewage
I~Yes I~No
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [3Yes
16. Will the project generate solid waste? [~ryes I-1No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~Yes [3No
c. If yes, give name Southold Town Collection ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
PJiNo
I-lYes ~No
17~ Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? I-lYes
l-lYes r~No
tons/month.
years.
E]No
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? E3Yes ~]No
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? E]Yes
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? l(1Yes I-iNo
If yes , indicate type(s) Domestic oil and electricity
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 900 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? OYes ~No
If Yes, explain
~]No
· :~$: Atppro. vals Required:
City, Town, Village Board I~Yes I-lNo
City, Town, Village Planning Board []Yes [No
City, Town Zoning Board I~Yes
City, County Health Department I-lYes I~No
Other Local Agencies [~Yes
Other Regional Agencies ~lYes []No
State Agencies [~Yes ]-1No
Federal Agencies ~lyes I-INo
Submittal
Type Date
Site Plan
Trustees
DRC
5/94
4/94
7/8?
C. Zoning and Planning Information
I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [~Yes I~No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
[]zoning amendment []zoning variance [special use permit I-lsubdivision ~]site plan
I-Inew/revision of master plan F~resource management plan ~]other Trustees wetlands
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? MI~
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
Marine salesr service
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans.~ ~]Yes
7. What are the predominant land use{s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action?
Marinas~ commercial and residential
I~No
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? J~]Yes [No
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? []Yes ~No
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fi~ protection)? [Yes [~No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [Yes I~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? I~Yes [No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name R~y T._ ~j~: ~-~n~-~-~; T~ Date M~y I f~: ] q94
Signature Title Pres ident
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment·
5
¥[EMBERS~~
pLANNING BOARD !
RI CI-IARD G.
Chairman
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 11'79
Southold, New York 119'73.
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWIq OF sOUTHOLD
1V~y 28, 1996
Vincent Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island, NY 11964
RE: Site Plan application for
Vincent Geraghty
Route 25, Arshamomat,~ue
Zoning District: Marine II (Mil)
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4, & 14
Dear Mr. Geraghty,
The Planning Board has received your letter of May 20, 1996, requesting
the status of the above referenced project.
As indicated in the Board's letter to you of August 23, 1995; your agent,
Mr. David S. Yudelson, wrote to this Board on September 30, 1994,
requesting that your application be withdrawn.
On March 1, 1995, I met with Mr. Richard E. Warren of Interscience at
his request to discuss possible future strategies recarding your former
application. This was the only meeting I have had with Mr. Warren.
My recollection is that I asked the Trustees to check on the activity at
the Barge property and I was informed that there were no violations at
the site. I thought that I had informed you of this , but if not, I
apologize.
I am sending a copy of your letter to the Trustees for their review and
response.
If you have any questions, or require further in formation, please contact
this office.
Site Plan Reviewer
Enc.
Albert J. Krupski, President, Town Trustees
VINCENT P. GERAGHTY
P. O. Box 768
SHELTER ISLAND, NY 11964
May20,1996
Southoid Town Planning Board
Robert G. Kassner
Town Hall
53095 Main Road, Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Bob:
I understand from Richard E. Warren from Interscience, that he's had a number of
meetings with you and the Board regarding my propetx'y on the main road in Southold Section 56-
4-13.3 and 13.4. To date, he's advised me of no progress on my application and I would like to
know the true feelings of the Board and of yourself as to what you would suggest my next step
would be. Also, I would like to know when the last meeting was you had with Imerscience with
Richard Warren and the Board, and actually how many meetings were involved and what was
discussed, so I can get a true feeling of the information he related to me and the actual feelings of
the Board.
Also, over a year ago, I questioned the fact that they were filling in the beach area at the
old barge property and you were to look into it and get back to me. I would like to know at this
point if they did, in fact, have a permit to do this work, since it's a very close piece of property to
my situation.
Thank you. I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.
~,,~~tmly yours,
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchle Latham, Jr.
Bennett Ortowski, Jr`
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Halt, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Albert J. Krupski,
Board of TrUstees
Robert G. Kassner,
Jr., President
Site Plan Reviewer!~
Site Plan
for Vincent Geraghty
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4, & 14
DATE: October 3, 1994
This is to inform you that the above referenced site plan has
been withdrawn by the applicant.
Attachment-.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Man~ S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of
Appeals
Richard G. Ward, Chairman~
RE:
Proposed Site Plan for
Vincent Geraghty
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4 & 14
DATE: October 3, 1994
This is to inform you that the above referenced site plan has
been withdrawn by the applicant.
Attachment:
SIVE, PAGET ,~ RIESEL, P. C.
460 PARK AVENIrE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-1906
TELEP~ONE~ (212) 421-2150
September 30, 1994
VIA FAX and MAIL (51~-765-3~36)
Mr. Robert Kassner
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Geraahtv Site Plan
Dear Mr. Kassner:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning
wherein I informed you that the applicant hereby withdraws the
above-referenced Site Plan Application for purposes of resubmission
at a later date.
~__S incerely,
David S. Yudelson
DSY/
09-30-199~ 0=.: i]PM F~OI'I '~I~*E,PAGET :: PIESEL TO
SD-E, PAG]~T & I~SEL, P. C.
4601~
NEw Y0 ~.~,
'I~'~'~ON~: ~21~ 421,21~0
September 30, 1994
VIA FAX and MAIL f516-765-3136)
Mr. Robert Kasaner
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Gera~htv Site Plan
Dear Mr. Kassner:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning
wherein I informed you ~hat the applican~ hereby withdraws ~he
above-referenced Site Plan Application for purposes of rent.mission
at a later date,
.erely,
David S. Yudelson
SIYE. PAGET & I~IESEL. P.
460 P~ AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.~ 10022-1906
Septe~kber 27, 1994
VIA FAX and MAIL (516-765-$136)
Mr. Robert Kassner
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Geraahtv Site Plan
SOUTHOLD TOWN
_ PLANNING BOARD
Dear Mr. Kassner:
This letter is to follow up on our conversation of September
26, 1994 wherein I informed you that additional time beyond the
three weeks granted in your letter of September 13, 1994 is
required for us to amend the above-referenced site plan and
resubmit it to the Board for consideration.
Although we have tried to act as expeditiously as possible, we
were unable, due to the County's unavailability, to meet with them
to discuss the sanitary system until yesterday. We intend to
refine the specifications of the sanitary system based on the
County's comments.
Moreover, we are in the process of retaining a traffic
consultant who can work with the State Department of Transportation
and the Town to arrive at an acceptable driveway pattern.
We are also reviewing the square footage requirements for the
proposed building and the required emergency access and plan to
make modifications in these areas as well.
We believe that providing us the time to refine this proposal
in ways that are beneficial, both with respect to the environment
and public safety, is in everyone's best interest. It would be
inefficient and wasteful of the Board's and my client's resources
Mr. Robert Kassner
September 27, 1994
Page 2
SIYE, PA(}]~T & RIESEL, P. C.
to issue a determination with respect to a proposed project which
is being amended.
Although our intention is to have the proposal submitted as
soon as possible, we respectfully request that no date for
resubmission be set. We ask for this to avoid having to come back
and request additional extensions (thereby wasting the Board's and
its staff's time) if set dates cannot be met due to reasons beyond
the applicant's control. Notwithstanding a literal reading of the
"few weeks" referred to in my letter of September 8, 1994, my
understanding was, and I think the transcript reveals, that the
Board subsequently approved such an arrangement on September 12,
1994.
If a date certain for resubmission is required,
respectfully request that it be November 15, 1994.
we
It would be greatly appreciated if this matter of adjourning
the determination could be definitively resolved without the need
for an additional appearance before the Board. I can be contacted
at the Dumber indicated on this letterhead to discuss this with
you, the Chairman or any member of the Board.
As noted in my prior letter, it is acceptable that the 30 day
period for a SEQRA determination begin to run from the date of
resubmission.
Sincerely,
DaVid S. Yud~lson
DSy/
p: \dsy\9999\ger.
Southold Town
Lead
Fla~ Board 5 ~ptember ]2, ]994
SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS~--STATE
AN MINOR
QUALITY REVIEWACT
Coordination:
Mr. Ward:
square feet
SCTM~ !000.-176--5--2
Ann Abbott -- This lot
5,890 square feet lot and
What's the
change is to subtract 4,440
to a ?7,750 square foot lot.
the Board?
Mr. Orlowski: I make a .on that
under the State Env'
coordination process on this
because the property is
(CEA).
Id Town Planning Board, acting
Act, start the lead agency
action. This is a Type ] action because
Bay, a critical environmental area
Mr. Edwards: Second/3f6e motion.
Mr. Ward: Moti/~/seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr/~Donald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. T~tham, Mr.
Mr./War/dar.d: OpDosd? Motion carried.
Mr. Ward.
SITE PLANS -- STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
Determinations:
Mr. Ward: Yi~ce~t Geraqht¥ ~- This site plan is for the construction of a 4,800
square foot boat sales service and office buildin~ with outdoor boat display
area, in Arshamomaque. SCTM~ ]000--56-4--13.3, ]3.4 & ]4. I believe the applicant
is here?
Dave Yudelson: The attorney for the applicant, Dave Yudelson. We submitted a
letter on Friday reguesting that consideration be postponed while we make
amendments to the proposed site plan and finalize a written submission to
accompany.
Mr. Ward: OK, so we'll be looking for seeing a re--submission, which would mean
another environmental review...
Mr. Yudelson: Right. We believe that we can address some- of the concerns that
have been stated.
Mr. Ward: So, we'll hold on that.
Mr. Yudelson: If it pleases the Board, if we could...after we submit, start the
clock ticking again at that point, whether it's complete or not, you'll make your
decision and we can ask that it be brought back for consideration.
Mr. Ward: After we see the submission, we'll get bac]¢ to you on that.
Mr. Yudelson: OK, thank you.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowskl, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Ha#, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 13, 1994
David S. Yudelson
Slve, Paget & Riesel, P. C.
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022-1906
RE:
Site Plan Application for
Vincent Geraght¥
Route 25, Arshamomaque
Zoning District Marine II (MII)
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4, & 14
Dear Mr. Yudelson,
The Planning Board has received your letter of September 8,
1994, requesting that a determination under SEQRA be postponed.
The Board will grant a three week postponement of the
declaration in order for you to submit an amended site plan.
If you have any questions, or require further information,
please contact this office.
e ey,
CC:
Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Trustees
September 8, 1994
VIA FAX 516 76~ 3136
Robert Kassner
Southold Town Planning Board
Southhold, New York 11971
Re: Ger~ahtv Site Plan
Dear Mr. Kassner;
This letter is to confirm the applicant's request that
consideration of the above-referenced site plan presently l;cheduled
for September 12, 1994 be postponed, we intend to submit, £n the
next few weeks, an amended site plan which seeks to take into
account the environmental and other concerns of the involved
agencies.
It is acceptable to the applicant that the thirty day period
for a SEQRA determination of significance begin to run f~m the
date of submission.
Sincerely,
David S. Yudelson
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
26 AuDUSt 22. 1994
BE
(April 2,
(August
com;
that the
responsive in
The Planning Board
, of the
RESOLVED that due to the length of time that has passed since the
was deemed complete (June 4, 1991), the Final ElS was initially
t2) and the additional information for the Final ElS was submitted
and May 26, 1994), the Planning Board will conduct a
review of the entire Final ElS. This review is
is reflective of current site and area conditions an*
;lng comments on the Draft: ElS in view of
Jitimately responsible for the content, acc and
and due to the inordinate delay ' of Final ElS
3rehensive document review is , to determine
acceptance.
Mr. Orlows~: Second.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Mr. McDonald: I abstain.
Tape malfunctioned. The
Spiro at the meeting.
is reconstructecL
notes taken by Melissa
SITE PLANS
Final Dett
- This site plan is to remove and relocate existing
parking area on a 5.8 acre site located on Rt. 25 in
lO002-,w- ,-, The final determination and the SEQRA determinal
ov/¢ until the September 12th meeting.
SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
and
lUe. SCTM#
Determinations
~~¢This site plan is for the construction of a 4,800 square foot
bb 't~'~e'~Vice and office building with outdoor boat display area, in
Arshamomaque. SCTM# 1000-56-4-45.$, 15.4 & 14
The applicant's attorney, David Yudels0n asked the Planning BOard to postpone the
SEQRA determination. He explained that he had recently been retained by the
applicant, and had not had sufficient time to familiarize himself with the file.
The Planning Board members discussed the request with Mr. Yudelson. They
explained the options the applicant had; to proceed with the application as Is, or
to withdraw the application and to present a new revised application.
~ To~n Pt~nnlr~ I~ 27 Auaust 22. 1994
determination had been made. Therefore, what was to be gained by postponing
the determination? The Chairman stated that the Planning Board was in a position
to proceed with the SEQRA determination that evening.
After the discussion, the Board decided to grant Mr, Yudelson's request Dy
postponing the SEQRA determination until September 12th, the next Planning
Board meeting. They noted that if the applicant wished to postpone the decision
to a later date, a written request would be required.
~ _ . . . _POSALS ~
o Wineries. Planning Board~ send comments to the
PI~,O oct ber 25,1993 and July11,
Ta~o further business to come before the Board, the"r~-,~ing adjourne~l
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Jones
Secretary
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett O~towski, Jr.
Mad( S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
August 23, 1994
Vincent Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island, NY 11964
Re: Proposed site plan for
Vincent Geraghty
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4 & 14
Dear Mr. Geraghty:
As per your request, the environmental determination for the above mentioned property
will be held over until the Planning Board' s September 12, 1994 meeting.
Please contact this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
cc: Roy Haje
VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES,~C.
CRAMER,
Environmental & Planning Coflsultat~B
54 N. Country Road Suite 2
MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK ].].764
(516) 331-1455
ATTENTION
RE:
JOB NO.
WE ARE BENDING YOU [~ Attached [] Under separate cover via the following Items:
[] Bhop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications
[] Copy of letter [] Change order []
THESE ARE TRANSMi i i t:D as checked below:
[] For approval
[] For your use
'J~ As requested
[] For review and comment
[] FOR BIDS DUE
REMARKS
[] Approved as submitted
[] Approved as noted
[] Returned for corrections
19__
[] Resubmit
[] Submit
[] Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
[] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPYTO SIGNED: ~'~'~ ~-~S~ V~t'~
CRAMER, Vq~ {~OCIATES
ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS
Mr. Richard G. Ward
Chairman
Southold Planning .l~r. d
Town Hall, $~95 Mmn Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
SEQRA EAF Review
Vincent Gernghty
Boat sales and service facility
Routm 25, Arshamomague
Zonln~ District Marine Il (M-II)
SCTM# 1000-~13.~, 13.4 & 14
August 4, 1994
Dear Richard:
· Enclosed is ~ completed Long Eavironmental A~estm~ent Form for .the
aoQ. ve re~fere.nced project. Please note that we have performed a field iaspection,
rev~ewon .mm correcte,d..the Part I, and completed Parts ~, 111 and Visual Addendum
for ~ project. In addition, a draft SE. QR Positive Declara~n is included for your
cons~derauon due to the fact that siSmfficant en~ronmental impacts are anticipated.
Thc Long FAF should be used as a basis for the determination. In the case of
construction on a state road where tidal wetlands are on site, the Town Trustees,
~de ,og~ pro. lc. ct we ~an~Aci~.that the Town ~ Board will a~une the
rote o[ .t~a~., Ag. en~.. m ace?,oance ?th ~ 617.6 (aX1Xu)~ ~ ~ A~ency shall
.~ete~r~ ~.n~ ttte~ Sl~mun,C~,.,.ce Ot~ .tile, action within 20 days of receipt of the application,
?e ..v~.~r .ana ~ aomtional mtormation.reasonably ~ to make the
aetermmation- ~ ne enclosed documentation provides the additional information
necessary to make the determination.
· , It.is our ,reco .m~, endation tha. t the Planning Board review the enclosed
mtorma~on aha conmoer the adop. uon of a Positive Declaration. The draft
Declaration was prepared so that ~t may be orinted onto Plmm Board tafi~
a~i. opted and filed in accordance with P~'t 61'7.10. In addition, can be
orculated as additional support for the determination.
If you or the Board have any questions pertaining
do not hesitate to call.
enc: 1F, AF and Draft determination
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 ~ 331-1455
LONG ENVIRONMENTAl.
ASSESSMENT FORM
PARTS I, H AND HI
Town Planuing Board of the
Town of Southold
Town Hall, $3095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.
54 North ¢~untry Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
Date: August 3, 1994
"?~.14-~6>2 (2,'g7)-- 7c
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Rewew
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full lEAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that mavoccur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of lEAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 []Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
[] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s} and, therefore, is one which wlll not
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
[] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONlED negative declaration will be prepared.*
[] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will he prepared.
* A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
?Z
Name of Action
Name of I.ead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer m Lead Agency
Signature of Responsible Officpr in Lead Agm~cy
ritle 01 k ~s., s~bh, Olficer
Date
PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAr will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
North side of Route 25r Arshamomaque,
NAME OF APPLICAN~SPONSOR
En-Consultants, Inc.
Town of Southold
IBUS[NESSTELEPHONE
616) 283-6360
ADDRESS
1329 North Sea Road i STATE i ZIPCODE
CiTY/PO
Southampton NY 11968
I BUSINESS TELEPHONE
NAME OF OWNER (If different)
Vincent P. Geraqhty ( 516 749-0118
ADDRESS ·
P.O. BOX 768 t STATE I ZlPCOOE
NY 11964
CITY/PO
Shelter ~sland
DESCRI~IONOFACTION
Construct a two-story boat
parking area, sanitary system,
attached site plan.
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
sales and service; office building, etc., all as shown on the
a. iLL
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
suburban)
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and u[~e~,lt~d areas,
1. Present land use: r-iUrban ~lndustrial [~Commercial r-lResidentiall
~Forest I-IAgriculture
2. Total acreage of project area: 1.47
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
(2]Other
acres.
I-IRural ~non-f a~-r~)
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type).
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
,..~ -55 acres ~.t~ acres
· 14 acres .05 acres
acres ,. acres
./ .qCJ acres ~ '~ acres
· 0~ acres .0~' acres
_ 7/ .2.~) acres .;2,,~ acres
~ .49 acres
acres
acres ,. acres
Filled land
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: I-IWell drained % of site [~Moderately well drained ~ % of site
[~Poorly drained .~ ~)~)% of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes
a ~6/hat [s depth to b~drock? (in feet)
5 App,~o;imate percentage of proposet )ject s,te with slopes: ~0-10% ~-10-t
"' ;~15% or greater ~ I(~ %
~ Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? OYes ~No
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes ~No
8. What is the depth of the water table?~'1~/ (in feet) (at test hole)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer,~ [~Yes I~No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? (~Yes
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endanqered~
i-lYes ~No According to Roy T,. Ha j~
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusua] land forms on the proiect site.~ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geolog,cal ~Yes J~ Describe TI oAI.
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation ar~,a~
~Yes ~No If yes, explain
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the commumty? [~Yes [~No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to proj~ect area: \
a. Name unnamed tidal wetland 10N
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities.~ [~Yes nNo
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection.~ [~'Yes
b. Size (in acres)
[-INo
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection.~ [qYes I~No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article
Section 303 and 304? ~Yes ~]No
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [~Yes I-INo
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes~ OYes [~'No
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 1.47
b. Project acreage to be developed: .4 9 acres initially; .4 9
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped · ~)8 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: ~/A (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing O ; proposed 19
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 54 (upon completion of project).~
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family
Initially N/A
Ultimately
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ~? height; ,~'~vidth;
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 582
acres.
acres ultimately.
Condominium
4 3 length.
ft.
2..Ho~ much natural matenal I~ e,
3;. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? L'~Yes ENo ~N,A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ~No
arth. etc ) wd] be removed trom the
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? EYes _~No
~.1~ acres
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site?
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this prolt'Ct"
f-lYes ~No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ASAP months, (including demolition)
7. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
[-]No
year, (including demout~onl
year.
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month
d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? f-Yes
8. Will blasting occur during construction? I-lYes i~No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20 ; after prolect ~s complete 4
10. Number of iobs eliminated by this project 0
11. Will project require relocation of any proiects or facilities? ~,'Yes ~QNo If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? r-lYes r~No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? g3Yes F3No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain ,~Yes
Sewage
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain?
16. Will the project generate solid waste? [][Yes [No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? D~Yes ~No
c. If yes, give name Southold Town Collection ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
EYes [~No
GYes ~No
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? []Yes
[Yes ~No
tons/month.
_ years.
~No
19. will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? E3Yes
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~Yes [-']No
If yes , indicate type(s) Domestic oil and electricity
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 900 gallons/day.
24 Does proiect involve Local, State or Federal funding? ~lYes ~No
If Yes, explain
~3No
;~$. Pt,pProvals Required:
City, Town. Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
City, Town Zoning Board
City, County Health Department
Other Local Agencies
Other Regional Agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
Submitlal
Type Date
~:Yes []No
~Yes []No Site Plan 5/94
[Yes [No
[]Yes i-INo
~Yes []-] N o Trustees 4/94
l-lYes E3No
[~Yes [3No DR~ Tidal W~t]a'nd.~ 7/89
[~Yes ~No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~Xyes r~N~
If Yes, indicate decision required:
I-Izoning amendment []zoning variance I~special use permit ~lsubdivision ~]site plan
F'lnew/revision of master plan []resource management plan X~other Trustees wetlands
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? MII
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
Marine sa).es, service
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A
o
5~ What is the maximum potential deveJopment of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~'qYes
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 'A mile radius of proposed action?
Marinas,. commercial and residential
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V~ mile? ~Yes ~No
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? QYes _'_XNo
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fi=~ protectk'q)? ~Yes [2~No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~]Yes ~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Yes ~:No
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? r-lYes ~No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowled~.e.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Rc~y L. H~j~,; ~n-~','~,~lt-~nt-~: Tn,~. Date M~y 1fl: lqq4
Signature Title Pres ident
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form beiore proceeding
with this assessment.
:ROJFCT IMPACTS AND THE~ MAGNITUDE
General hfformation (Read Carefully)
* Identifying that an impact ~iJl be potentially large (colunm 2) does not mean that ,t ~s also necessardy significant.
asks that it be looked at further.
' The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and ~herever possible the threshold c
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State an,
for most situations. But, for any specific project o'r site other examples and or lower [hresholds may be appropriat
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
' The impacts of each project, on each site. in each [oca ry. will vary. Therefore. ~he examp[es are i[lustrat'ive am
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds ~o answer each ques: on
e The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question,
' In identifying impacts, consider long term. short term and cumlative effects.
Instruclions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the Dotenual s~ze of th:;
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example prowded, check column 2. ~ impact ~ll occur but threshoh
is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact ~ben consider the impact as potentially large and proceed ~o PART 3.
e. If a potentially large'impact checked in column 2 can be mmgated by change(s) m the prolect to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reductron ~s not possible. This
must be expJaihed in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the prolect site?
E~NO ~'~ E S
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
· Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
3 feet.
· Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
· Construction on land where bedroc~ is exposed or germrally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
' Construction that will c~ntinue for more d~an 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage.
' Excavation for mining ptJrpose~ dmt would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., ~ocE or spit) per year.
' Construction or expansion of a
' Construction in a designated /Io<)dway.
' Other impacts ~J~
the Site? (ie. clifl's, dunes, ;'uoio~:u al
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can ImPact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] i-lYes I-1~o
[] [] []Yes []No
L-] [] [:]Yes []N0
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] E3Yes E3No
[] [] ~es []No
I
~ [] []Yes []No
~ [2 L~Yes
L
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body desr~:nated as protected~
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservat,.o,n Law..
Examples that would apply to column 2 I'~,NO ,/~YES
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
· Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
· Other impacts: '"P~T~I~'T~L~ I~,~C.T~ ~
4. WHI p~oposed action affect any non-protected existin8 o~ new body
of wate~ ~NO ~YES
Examples that would mpplv to column 2
· A ~0% increase o~ dec~ease in the surface area of any body of wa~e~
or more than a q0 ac~e ~nc~ease or decrease.
~ Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of Surface area,
~ Othe~ ~mpacts:
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groun'~water
quality or quantity? []NO XYES
Examples th.at would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
· Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
· Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
· Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
· Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conveye J off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the ext(.nt that there will be an obviuu~ visual
contrast to natural conditions.
· Proposed Action will require the storage of petroJuum or rhemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons.
· Proposed Action will allow residential uses in',~reas without water
and/or sewer services.
· Proposed Action Inca:es ComnwrciaJ and/or industrial usr,s whi¢'h m;tV
facilities.
· Other impacts:
C. 6. Will proposed ,tction alter dr,mlage Ilow r~r I)att~'rrls, or stlrfa( ~
L3NO ~','t- k
water runo(f?
Exa~nples that would aIHdy to rolumn 2
Proposed Action ~vould ~ hanoi, Ilood water flows
7
1 2
Sm, ail to Potential
Moderate Largo
Impact Impact
3
Can Impact
Mitigated
Project Chain
~Yes [--iN
~F'~ Yes
~Yes ~]N.
~Yes E]N,
E~Yes I-'IN,
'r-Yes ~--_:No
~Yes ~No
~Yes
~Yes ~No
'~'Yes
~No
rmYes ~No
~Yes E]No
'-J Yes E]No
~Yes E]No
~Yes E~No
E~Yes F-INo
E]y~ E3N0
~Y~:s ~No
· Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
· Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
· Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quaJity~ ~',;O t-;YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour.
· Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of
refuse per hour.
· Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the d.ensity of industrial
development within existing industrial areas,
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? ONO EyEs
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
·Removai of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
· Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
· Other impacts:
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endangered species? ONO ~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
· Proposed Action requires the remov,d of more tlhln It) acres
of mature forest (over 100 years of a~e) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricuJlural I,md r~,~o roast'
ExamtiJes Ih,it would apHly to column 2 ~N('~ I3Yl:S
land ( n~, , , · ;4 Itur,d
,-,u~l~s cropland hayfmids paslure, vin~.¥ard r~rchard, etc.)
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
2
Potential
Large
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
3
Can impact B:
Mitigated By
Project Chang:
E]Yes [~No
E~Yes [~No
~Yes
~,-~ Yes [:]No
i'~W es r-]No
OYes F1No
;=Yes ~No
~Yes ~No
~','es FnNo
~,Yes ['-']No
E]No
E]Yes l']No
I-lYes [~No
E]Yes E]No
[~Yes [-']No
[~]Ves [~No
[:]Yes ~No
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultural District. more
than 2.5, acres of agricultural land
· The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of aqricultural
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
C]Yes []No
[~Yes E~No
[~]Yes ['-]No
E}Yes I"-INo
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? I--INO '~YES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in Sharp contrast to current surrounding land ~J'$e patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
· Proposed Jan~t. uses, or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
·Proiect components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening of scenic views I;nown to be important to the area.
· Other impacts:
~Yes [--~N~
I'-~Yes []No
FqYes [:]No
I--lYes [-~No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre*
historic or paleontological importance? ~II~NO t-lyES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
· Any impact to an archaeological site or /ossi~ bed located within the
project site.
· Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the ~qYS Site Inventory.
· Other impacts:.
[]Yes []No
[::]Yes ~]No
I'-]Yes
[]Yes E:]No
C
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed .-~4 tlon affect tl.t qu31~tlty or q[t,llity of exl~lm~ or
Examples that ~%uuld apply to ~olumH Z ~NO UYES
· Othe~ impacts: ~
L-~Yes ~No
~','es [E]No
~','*s F-1No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existinl; transportation systems?
~NO XYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
' Alteration of present patterns of movement of peopl~ and/or goods.
· Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? ,~J(N O ~.YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will cause a greater than .5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
· Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than S0 single or two famdv
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
· Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPAC.'[S
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? - ~JJ~No ~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
· Od•ts will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
· Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~NO I-lYES
· Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pestic ¢ es. chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Inw Jewel
discharge or emission.
· Proposed Action may result'in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, hi~:hly reactive, rad oa ye irritatinl:,
infectious, etc.) '
' Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquifi~,d natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
within 2,000 feet ol a slt~ used for the rhsposal of sohd or hn/ardou~
· OJher impacts:
10
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
[]
[]
[]
0
2
Potential
Large
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
12
3
Can impact F
Mitigated B~
Project ChanL
[]Yes ON,
[~Yes I--IN,
[~]Yes •N~
[]Yes ON•
[]Yes F'INo
~' Yes []No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes E~No
[]Yes E~]No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes •No
Oy,,s []NO
· /-~Y,'s [~No
C
C
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY' OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the,~×~stmq comm~u,,~,~
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The permanent population of the city. town or village in which the
proiect is located is likely to/grow by more than 5%.
· The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5°4 per year as a result oi: this proiect.
· Proposed action will coni:lict with officially adopted plans or goals.
· Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
· Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
· Development will create a demand for additional Commumty services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, otc.)
· Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
· Other impacts:
19
Sm311 to Potential Can Impact
Moderate Large Mitigated
impact Impact Project Cha
[] ~ []Yes E~,
[] [] ~Yes
[] [] ~Yes
Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy relat.ecJ to
potential adverse env~}onmental impacts? I~NO ~YES
If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
C
Part 3~EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
· Part 3 must be prepared jf one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even ii the impactls) may be
mitigated.
Inslrucllons
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe {if apPlicableJ how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a smaU Io moderate hnpact by project chan§e{s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable [o conclude [bat this m~pact is iml.~rlant.
To answer the question of importance, con~ider: ' The probability of the impact Occurrinl~
· The durat,on of the imlJilct
· Its irreversihili y in(:Judin~: permanently lost r~'~otlrc~.~ of
~ Whether H~ imp4c( can or will be controlled
11
Appendix B
..... te ,'-n~lron,mental Quality Review
Visual EAF Addendum
SEQR
C
This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question !l of Part 2 o
the Full EAF.
(To be comp!eted by Lead Agency)
Visibility
1. Would the project be visible from:
· A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available
to the public for the use. enjoyment and apprec at on
of natural or man-made scenic qualities?
· An 9verlook or parcel of land dedicated to public
observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural
or man-made scenic qualities?
· A site or structure listed on the National or State
Registers of Historic Places?
· State Parks?
· The State Forest Preserve? ~
· National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges?
· National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding
natural features?
· National Park Service lands?
· Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic
or Recreational?
· Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such
as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak?
· A governmentally established or designated interstate
or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for
establishment or designation?
· A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as
scenic?
· Municipal peri(, or designated open space?
· County road?
· State?
· Local road?
Distance Between
Project and Resource (in Nliles)
O- Y.~ Va. V2 'A.3 3-5 fi +
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
2. Is the visibility of the p~oje¢l r.~:aso~.l? (i.e.. :;cree~,xl by :;ulnmcr £oliage but vi~dble duling olher
seasons)
[]]]Yes
(luring which Ihe prol,:c~ will I.,e ~Yes ~Ho
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT
4. From each item checked in question l, check those which genera y describe the surrounding
environment.
Within
Essentially undeveloped []
Forested []
Agricultural []
Suburban residential []
Industrial []
Commercial
Urban []
River, Lake, Pond ~
Cliffs, Overlooks []
Designated Open Space j~
Flat
Mountainous r~
Other I--'
NOTE: add attachments as needed
.5. Are there visually similar projects within:
*Y2 mile E]Yes
' 1 miles ~rJyes []No
'2 miles I-lYes ~]No
'3 miles []Yes []No
* Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate.
EXPOSURE
6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is ~.
NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate.
CONTEXT
7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is
FREQUENCY
Holidays/
Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally
Travel to and from work [] [] [] []
Involved in recreational activities [] [] ~ ~
Routine travel by re~ident, '~ [] [] 13
At a residence [] [] [] K-~
At worksite ~ ~ ~ I~
Other ~ ~ ~ l]
2
LONG EAF PART HI
LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOILM. PART III
EV~U~O~ OF TH~ IMI~J3K~ OF ~MP~CTS
Vineem P. Geraghty (Construction of Boat Sales/Service Facility), Arshamomague,
.The. site of the ~ applicon is located on the north aide of Route 25, east of the
intersection of Oki Main Road and Route 25, in Arahnmomague, New York.
Vincent P. Geraghty (owner)
PO Box 768
Shelter Island, NY 11964
En-Comultants (applicant)
1329 North Sea Road
Southampton, NY 11968
August 3, 1~4
· . ..Tl~.)pr...oi~.d project .and the environmental character of the project site is descn'bed
mae ,t~u .wnn~n.. tn~ ~ v_,nwronn~.n.tal. Asse~.ment Fo_.ma. ( ..LEi~ pan L The ~ Part
H, evai.mt, res..t~...prole. ? ~ aaa t~etr ma~ommde. This seclion of the LEAF ~ intended
to provtoe aaamonai mtormatton on t~
.... .he ~ of ~ ~ of ~ proposed project
on the environment, m oroer to torm me oas~s tor We aooption of a determination of
The !.I=AF Part HI is prepared if one or more ~ are ,.considered as being
poten~ large,.as identified in the !.~-AF Part II. This sectmn will briefly describe each
potentially large ~mp~ available mitigation, and importance.
· , . In ? case.of .the sub~., proposal, the Town ~ Board of the Town of
__o~u_ _u~___ ~,r,ace~v, e~..,an,.~, for ~ ~ction ot"a lloat.Sa~../Service Facility
P~el
vtnceat P. Ger~
Long Environmental Assessment Form
The proposed action will result in a physical change to the project site.
The pro,~po~., d,..action involves the construction, o.f. a two-story office building (4,800
square leer), the western boun _da~ of the .buildin~ prooo~d is at the imniediate tOD
et a steep slope,, at .the bottom of the slope ~an e. xls~h~ tidal wetland. The site
,bu .pro .po d pr om ant
pme.~....o.~ eroamg ,mm ~ wetl .a~ds. A l?gu po...r~on of emsting vegetation (.24.
a~, .,es) wm. o~. removeo ano lmpervuous sunaces will cover 4.9 acres upon completion
el me projee~.
The proposed action will affect groundwater quality.
The subject site lies within Groundwater Management Zone IV.
.The location of the p. roposed building has a depth to groundwater of between 6 and 8
feet. On other locations on site the depth to groundwater is between 0 and 5 feet.
Discharges will potentially impact ground water and surface water quality.
The proposed action will affect tidal wetlands.
~.A~.teYanaC~vity .on ,h,i~ .si .te will hav. epo. tentially large '.unpacts to the tidal wetlands on
..mt m.e aOjolmng parcel to tile north.. Siltation and other disc _barge during
construction ~s a concern. Development w~thout acceptable setbacks from the
wetlands will have substantial impacts on the habitat.
The proposed action will affect aesthetic resources.
The.s~. bj .eet site is presently vacan.t land. The current character of the subject site is a
combination of mea. dow, fill. and tid. al wetlands. The site consists of low 1yinR
vege.t?i~., vegetation associated w~th.tidal wetlands, shrubs and trees. S~rr~und~g
uses include open space and commercial uses associated with the waterways in the
It is. re..~:e., d that the s.i, te is privately owned land; however, the extent of the
project relative to the buildable, area of the. site. is considerable and is exoected__ to
nave an unpact on the aesthetic characteristics of the are~.
The proposed action an impact on plants and animals.
d~si~t~l°cated substan~aily contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area
· .pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL and 6 NYCRR 617· ..The proposed
project will remove 10,454 square feet of trees, shrubs and vegetation.
The tidal wetland provides a habitat for many shellfish and wildlife species. Any
Vinttnt l'. ~'~ht~
Lon~ Environmental Assessment
change in the habitat may have drastic impacts on the species that inhabit the area.
The proposed action will affect the existing transportation system.
The site is located on the north side of Route 25. This road is a largely traveled east-
west roadw.a.y which is an important corridor in the area. The construction of
structure will necessitate the ingress/egress in a location where a safety ~ rail has
been strateg~al_lyplaced by the New York State Department of Transpo~tloa. It
may not be fe~dble to remove the guide rail. The impacts involved with removal of
the guide rail should he analyzed and considered in conjunction with th/s project.
The proposed action is expected to have a s/~onificant impact upon the environment,
as discussed above. The pro~..~d project is expected to result in direct impacts to the
p?ject site as well as to the adjacent site, as a result of construction and future use of the
site.
It is recc, mmended that a Positive Declaration be haued in order to provide a more
de.tailed invcs.tigation into the projp.o~l,, allow .for the proper public and inter-agency forum
for impact review, and create a critical evaluation of the proposal and the anticipated
impacts it may cause upon the environment.
An P.-nvironmental Impact Statement (ELS) will allow for inventory of the existing
natur.al e.nwro.n.mental resources associated w/th the site, and result in quantification and
~o~. o.t' impacts. There are numerous .alternatives which are best explored through
. cs,.in__ udi uses, ternauve loc.a. ions for proje .
nutiga&ion for unavoidable ~ Th/s would provade the Town Plarming Board vath
useful information in the dec//ion-making process.
Pa~e3
SEQR
POSITIVE DECLARATION
l~icc of In~.n~ to Prcp~rc a Dra~ ~Lq
D~te:
P:annins
of the Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
August 2, 1994
.This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining
to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
· The ~ ~ h~ determined that the prope~d ~ de~ribed below may have
a ...s~tticant e~iect on toe environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be prepere~
Title of Actlom
SEQR ~tatus:
Project Description:
SCTM Nuabem
Locatiom
Construction of Boat Sales
Vincent P. Geraghty
@ Arshamomague, New York
Type I Action
.The project which is the subject of this Determination,
involves the consUuctinn of a ~ boat ~ and
service facility .with a 4,800 square foo~ commercial
structure., parking area ~_na_ boat stora~e/displey area.
The project site gs located in a CriticalF. nvi/onmental
Area and contains tidal wetlands. The project will
involve poteDtlalJy ~ impacts.
1000-$6-04-133, 13.4 & 14
The site consists of 1.4712 acres and is located west of
Mill Creek at the western intersection of Main Road and
Old Main Road.
Page 1 o~2
SF. QR Detetminntion
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determinntion of
significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Parts I and 1I, and the following specific reasons:
(1) _The.proje.ct has bee. n e.valuate, d through a review of a Full EAF Part 1 prepared by
ttn-cansultants, a rote mspectton, and the completion of Part 2 of the State EAF
which the project impacts and their n nitudes.
(2) The action ~w4~ result in. significant loss of open space in a Townand County
designated C-'r/fi.cid .En.vi~. o~. mental Area which contains unique habitats and
r_esom' ..c? .ar~a.. ted ~ the.tidal wetlands on s/re mid adjacent s/tes to the north.
(3) 'l~e m will result m ~m,n~exlt of the viability of unique habitat a~eas inct~ding
tragme.n, tatton and loss of same represents a sign/ficant ecological unpaa.
(4) 'lhe action may cause im~vact t.o the surface .waters and wetland vegetation of the tidal
wetland located on the site and to the north tn the form of erosion and sedimentation,
siltation, st,ormw, ater .runoff and ni~og~n.lo~ing- In .addition,.the actions w/Il require
water supply ano use tn an area of limited water supply potential.
}~l--The act!Of n will cause p°tential visual impacts'
rlhe.action re. quire removal of an exh_tint guardrail which is located to provide
.maxum~. salety f.o~', veh/cular travel aloag blsln Road.
(7) .An envtronmeatal, unpact statement would permh the proper considzr&tion of tbe
un.p_a~, associated w/th the project, and allow for reasonable mitigation measures
and alternatives to be explored.
For Further Information:
Contact Person:
Richard Ward, Chairman, Planning Board
Town of Southold
Address:
Phone No.:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
(516) 765-1S01
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
So.hold Town ~ Department
Surfak County of .Hegl. th Services
NYS.Dept. of State, Mohabir Persaud, 162 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12231-0001
AppUcant
P~2 ~2
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Man~ S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 18~ 1994
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates,
54 N. Country Road
Miller Place, N~ 11764
Inc.
Review of LEAF
Vincent Geraghty
Route 25, Arshamomaque
Zoning District Marine II (MII)
SCTM# 1000-4-13.3, 13.4, & 14
Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis,
The enclosed materialwas 4n~4vertently not included in the
Planning Board's letter of July 15, 1994.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Site Plan Reviewer
Encls:
Albert J. Krupski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Martin H. Gan'ell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Robert Kassner, Planning Board
Albert J. Krupski, Jr, President
Board of Trustees
Vincent Geraghty
56-4-13.3 & 13.4 & 14
July 1, 1994
The Southold Town Board of Trustees has worked with Mr. Geraghty
for years to determine if an environmentally sound plan could be
developed to utilize his property.
Our past President, Mr. John Bredemeyer, worked out a plan with
Mr. Geraghty that would have very little impact on existing
marshland or water quality.
When your Planning Board matters are reviewed the Southold Town
Board of Trustees is ready to vote on a permit for the site.
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
SUBJECT:
SCTM#:
COMMENTS:
JUL I ~ 19~
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Ortowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 15~ !994
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates~ Inc.
54 N0 Country Road
Miller Place~ NY 11764
RE:
Review of LEAF
Vincent Geraghty
Route 25, Arshamomaque
Zoning District Marine II
SCTM# 1000~%-13.3, 13.4, &
(MII)
14
Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis,
The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Lonq
Environmental Form for the above mentioned site plan to your
office for review.
The Planning Board has received the $400.00 review fee from the
applicant.
The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover.
If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff.
~.~/~.O~)~?t~ G. Kassner
Site I~lan Reviewer
Encls.
D;'PARTMENT OF HIt'AI.TH S£RVICE$
COUNTY OF' SUFFOLK
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY £XECUTIVE
July 1, 1994
Richard O. Ward, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Site Plan for Vincent Oeraghty
SCTM#: 1000-56-04-13.3,13.4,14
Dear Mr. Ward:
The Suffolk County Depa, hi~ent of Health Services (SCDHS; "Department") has received
your letter concerning the above-referenced project. The Department has no objection to your
designation as lead agency.
Based on a review of the subject coordination, the Depam~ent offers the following
comments. However, the Depaixment wishes to reserve its right to provide more detailed
information within thc comment period(s) established for to_is action. Also, these cormnents
should not he cons~'ued as an implicit SCDHS approval or rejection of the project. All
applications are reviewed thoroughly with respect to Suffolk County Sanitary Code concerns by
appropriate depa~h,~ental personnel when SCDHS applications are completed.
An application for this proposed project has not been submitted to the $CDHS.
We are concerned with the on-site soil types which may impede the proper functioning of a
subsurface sewage disposal system. Subsurface soil conditions will he evaluated by SCDHS via
excavation inspection as part of the SCDHS application procedure. Our concerns with the
proposed sanitary system are magnified by the shallow depth to groundwater which exists at the
site, which may also hinder the operation of a sanitary system. Diminished treatment of
wastewater can result in increased bacteriological, virological, and nitrogen (and phosphorus)
loading to groundwater and/or surface water.
Letter to Richard G. Ward~l~
July 1, 1994
Page 2
Additionally, we are concerned with the proposed sanitary system with respect to the
proximity of the proposed project to surface waters. The surface waters of this area are stressed
by stormwater runoff and septic system effluent pollution contribution created by past and
present development pressure. In general, septic systems near surface waters can result not only
in increased bacteriological and virological contamination, but also in elevated BOD, solids, and
nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loading to surface waters. Such loading could result in
adverse effects on a surface water ecosystem and, ultimately, in the accelerated pollution and/or
eutrophication of the system. Thus, any project which may have an adverse impact on these
surface waters deserves close scrutiny to examine measures to mitigate the potential adverse
impacts to the maximum practicable extent. In the case of the proposed project, this scrutiny
should extend to an evaluation of impacts of stormwater runoff and septic system effluent on on-
site and neighboring wetlands and natural resources in addition to groundwater and surface
water. The loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and open space should also be carefully assessed,
as should any available hydrogeologic and surface water quality data).
The tidal wetlands which occur on and/or near the subject property are affected by Article 25
(Tidal Wetlands). A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (N'YSDEC)
permit may therefore be required prior to SCDHS approval of this project. A NYSDEC-
approved wetlands line should be designated on the site plan. The proposed development of the
subject property should subsequently incorporate the maximum practicable setback from any
wetlands boundaries.
The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and
relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal. Design and flow
specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site plan details are essential to the
review of this project. These considerations are reviewed completely at the time of SCDHS
application. 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 Depa~'h~ent approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2078.
Sincerely,
Mark $. Reuschle
Environmental Planner
Office of Ecology
MlR/amf
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Frank Dowling, SC Planning
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
HaupPauge, N.Y. 11788
JOHN C. EGAN
COMMISSIONER
July 21, 1994
Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Ward:
Site Plan for
Vincent Geraghty
We have reviewed the referenced site plan and Environmental Assessment Form. We
concur with your wishes to be the Lead Agency.
The proposed point of ingress and egress is located in the area where guide rail
has been installed for safety reasons. It may not be feasible to remove or
relocate this guide rail. It may be possible to relocate the ingress/egress to
the east, but a traffic analysis would be required to determine the feasibility
of this relocation. Also, the need to provide a left hand storage lane for
eastbound traffic should be addressed. The applicant must submit site plans
directly to our Traffic and Safety Section for review prior to securing a permit
for ingress and egress or for any work in or adjacent to State right-of-way.
We have no project in our Five Year Program within the subject area.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG~CUSA
Planning & Program Management
J. Hartofil, Traffic
v. Lena, Traffic
SOtJTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Bullding40--SUN~ ~onyB~ok, New York11790-2356
?elephone (516) 444-0365
Fscsi=ile (516) 444-0373
Nay 18, 1994
Hr. ROy L. Na~e
Eh-Consultants, Zno.
1329 North Sea Road
Southampton, NY 11968
Re: 10-89-1243
V. Geragh~y'
Dear Hr. HaJe:
The Department has reviewed your April 5, 1994 1G~tter and
revised plans and has no objection to this proposal, however.
before review can be completed the following items mus~t be
submitted:
SEQR Determination of Significance from the Town of
Southold.
2. A letter f~om local authorities.stating that 4 foot
on ~ne eastern ena of the buildzng is adequate for
fire/emergency access.
Please submit these items to my attention.
Sincerely,
Susan Ackerman
Environmental Analyst I
SVA:cg
cc: V.
Geraghty
STATE Of NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
VETERANS MEmoRIaL HiGhWaY
HauppaugE, N.Y. 11788
JOHN C, EGAN
COMMISSIONER
July 21, 1994
Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Ward:
Site Plan for
Vincent Gera~ht¥
We have reviewed the referenced site plan and Environmental Assessment Form. We
concur with your wishes to be the Lead Agency.
The proposed point of ingress and egress is located in the area where guide rail
has been installed for safety reasons. It may not be feasible to remove or
relocate this guide rail. It may be possible to relocate the ingress/egress to
the east, but a ~raffic analysis would be required to determine the feasibility
of this relocation% Also, the need to provide a left hand storage lane for
eastbound traffic should be addressed. The applicant must submit site plans
directly to our Traffic and Safety Section for review prior to securing a permit
for ingress and egress or for any work in or adjacent to State right-of-way.
We have no project in our Five Year Program within the subject area.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG S~FRACUSA
Planning & Program Management
CC: J. Hartofil, Traffic
V. Lena, Traffic
o/7 -
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Odowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
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 which you believe should be evaluated.
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response.
Project Name: ~'/~'~
Requested Action:
SEQRA Classification: ~ Type I
( ) Unlisted
Contact Person: 1~. ~-*'..~,~q ,~'~',,"~'~"~/~
(516) 765-1938
Page 2
Lead Agency Coordination Request
The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS)
on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in
writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency.
Planning Board Position:
()f,,) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action.
( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency
status for this action.
( ) Other (see comments below)
Comments:
Please feel free to contact this office for further information.
Chairman
cc: ~, Board of Appeals
Board of Trustees
~ Building Department
Southold Town Board
~ Suffolk County Department of Health Services
~ NYSDEC - Stony Brook
NYSDEC - Albany
'S'd~unty~ Department-of-Public- Works
· -U. S-~Afmy-Gerp-ef-Engineers
~ New York State Department of Transportation
*Maps are enclosed for your review rev. 4/94
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Odowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 14, 1994
Vincent Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island, NY 11964
Re: Proposed site plan
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4 & 14
Dear Mr. Geraghty:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at
a meeting held on Monday, June 13, 1994:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the
coordination process on this Type I ac'don.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward '"~--~
Chairman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Ortowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765.3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
June 13, 1994
Vincent Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island, NY 11964
RE:
Site Plan Application for
Vincent Geraghty
Route 25, Arshamomaq~e
Zoning District Marine II (MII)
$CTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4, & 14
Dear Mr. Geraghty,
The Planning Board has received your letter of May 25, 1994.
The following changes/additions must be made before the Board
can proceed with its review:
1. The scale must be 1" = 20'
The net area of a lot or parcel after deducting
wetlands, streams, ponds, slopes over fifteen percent
(15%), underwater land, easements or other restrictions
must be 80,000 square feet per use.
3. Lot width at the building setback must be 150'.
4. Lot depth must be 150'.
5. Side yard must be 25'.
6. Rear yard must be 25'.
7. Elevation drawings arerequired.
8. Proposed. foot bridge if above ground must meet set back
requirements.
As your plan shows that the above requirements are not met, a
'variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required.
The above list should not be considered complete as the Zoning
Board may impose additional conditions.
A check in the amount of $400.00 made out to the Town of
Southold is required for the Town's Environmental Consultants to
review your Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF). No
determination will be made by this Board until this review is
completed.
New York State Department of Transportation, Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and Southold Town Trustees permits
must be obtained before any possible approval could be granted by
this Board.
If you have any questions, or require further information,
please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
CC:
Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Trustees
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
DATE:
SENDER:
SUBJECT:
CO~,NTS: S s;~c i~l~s
JUN I
~OUTHOLO TOWN
PLANNING BOAR~
EN-CONSULTANTS, INC.
1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
516-283-6360
FAX NO. 516-283-6136
May 10, 1994
Mr. Vincent Geraght¥
P.O. Box 768
Shelter Island, New York
11964
Dear Vinnie:
Attached please find a copy of the long EAF which is to
be attached to your application for Site Plan Review to
the Planning Department.
Also enclosed please find our bill for work done to April
8, 1994 which was inadvertently sent to the Centerport
address.
Should you have any questions or problems in compiling
the Site Plan application, please do not hesitate to
call.
RLH:rm
Enc.
Ver~ truly yours,
Roy L. Haje
President
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
SCTM#:
COMMENTS:
~80ARD
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 6, 1994
Vincent Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island, NY 11964
RE:
Site Plan Application for
Vincent Garaghty
Route 25, Arshamomaque
Zoning District Marine II (MII)
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4, & 14
Dear Mr. Geraghty,
As recently discussed~a site plan will be required for your
above referenced project.
A site plan application is enclosed for your use.
If you have any questions, or require further in formation,
please contact this office.
Site Plan Reviewer
Encl:
Albert J. Kmpski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Martin H. Garrell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall /~/~-
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Bob Kassner, Planning Board
Albert J. Krupski,Jr., President
Board of Trustees
Vincent Geraghty
SCTM #1000-56-13.3,13.4 & 14
May 5, 1994
The following actions were taken by the Southold Town Board of
Trustees on Thursday, April 28, 1994:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees recess the
public hearing in the above reference application until such
time that SEQRA is completed.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants the
Planning Board lead agency for this Type I action.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
AJK:jmd
cc: En-Consultants CAC
DEC, Carol Amara, #10-89-1243
ZBA
Bldg. Dept.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George Ritchle Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orfowski, Jr,
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President, Town Trustees
Richard G. Ward, Chairman~
Response to lead agency request dated March 30, 1994.
Proposed site plan for Vincent Geraghty
Route 25, Arshamonaque
SCTM# 1000-56-13.3, 13.4, & 14
DATE: April 26, 1994
The Planning Board has received your lead agency coordination
request.
The Planning Board would like to be lead agency for this Type I
action.
This Board has requested of Mr. Geraghty a site plan application
and a site plan showing all of the site plan elements required
by code. When this site plan is received the Board will start
its review process.
cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge
Albert J. IOupski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Martin H. Gan'ell
Peter Wenczel
Town Hail
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Bob Kassner, Planning Board
Albert J. Krupski,Jr., President
Board of Trustees ~
Vincent Geraghty
SCTM %1000-56-13.3,13.4 & 14
May 5, 1994
The following actions were taken by the Southold Town Board of
Trustees on Thursday, April 28, 1994:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees recess the
public hearing in the above reference application until such
time that SEQRA is completed.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants the
Planning Board lead agency for this Type I action.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
cc: En-Consultants CAC
DEC, Carol Amara, %10-89-1243
ZBA
Bldg. Dept.
MAY 5 1994
,
Albert J. Kmpski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Martin H. Gan-ell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST
Town Hail
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
L, ,, IpI~A~qNING BOARD
DATE: ~--~.~-~
Enclosed is a permit application and a completed part I of the
Environmental Assessment Form.
Southold Town Trustees are interested in your ageny's comments
in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency~for:
NAME: ¥Ia;C6,~7' ~6~-WT~ , ~
PE~IT ~QUIR~: ~) Tq~ ~TL~ ( ) ~
SEQ~ CLASSIFICATION:~) ~e I ( ) ~e II
( ) ~LIST~ ( ) C~
Please contact ..Albert J. ~rups~, Jr.,.Trgstee , within 30
days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees (WANT)/(DO
NOT WANT) to assume ~lead agency.
SENT TO: DOS ( ) DEC (~) DOH ( ) PB (~) ZBA ~) BLD ~)
Please complete,
processing.
Involved Agency:
Project Name:
Location:
'SCTM:
We at
AGENCY
Trustees assuming Lead Agency.
detach and return this form to expedite
(Have/No)
objection to Southold Town
comments/Reasons:
Signature of Authorized Representative'
Oe~erk~ by F. ~. ~'lynn before Southold ~oerd of Wrueteeson ~
,~erch 24, 1994
Pc, Vincent P. Cerm~h~ ~pp~ic~tlon, N/s ~te. 2~. drsh~momuck
(P]~t. 1000 Sec. 56 Blk. 4 Lots 13.3, 13.4, 14
My ~n~t~el ~emsrks have to do with the adequacy, or rather
inadeouacy, of the published le~el not,ce regarding this
application.
· he location of the property is described as" "Route 25,
Southold".
Route 25 traverses Southold for a distance of approximately
20 miles. The published deecriptAon is hardly ~nformetive
to the public.
It was not even considered necessary to differentiate
between the northerly and southerly sides of the highway!
surely e matter of some importance.
The subject property is DPt in the hamlet of Southold.
Were you to consultthe plan submitted by the applAcant,
the property ia properly located at Arshamomuck. In addition,
the section, block and lot numbers are plainly stated.
Were it really the intent to inform the public, these lot
numbers could have been recited, the abutting owners '~*~i~"
identified, and the distance westerly from Mill Greek
stated.
I hsd hoped that the new board would constitute a break
from the cavalier attitude of the previous.
'/With respect to the application itself, ! have done some
J research into its background. ! will state my understanding
J of the matter and you may, of course , correct me if I am
mistaken.,
As I unddrstand~ the intent of this application is to enable
the construction of a two story building for boat sales
and repairs and to utilize a seperate, westerly portion
of the property, accessible via e bridge, for the display
of boat~, new and used.
Apparently, this application~provisione of Article XII (M II)
of the Town Code, Cection 100 - 121 A (5), (?).
The proposed uses are in obvious conflict with the .~
stated Purpose and intent of the Southold Code. The Code
clearly states that such facilities are confined to waterfront
locations with direct access to. or location in, marine or
tidal waters. The subject property is obviously severed from
such access by Route 25.
With respect to the specifics of the application, I understand
it is intended to construct a two story building of some
4,800 sq. ft. on the easterly portion of the property and
located e "minimum of 17 ft. from the edge of the existing fill.
I Selieve this is a misleading way of stating 17 ft. removed
frem~the~wetlands to the west. This represents a 77% rehe~ie~
from the usual 75 Ft. requirement.
I presume the board would not permit construction in [l~
wetlands! witness the proposed bridge spanning the wetlands
to the west.
(2)
Incidentaly, the proposed bridge constitutes a structure
by Code definition and should be set back 35 ft. from
the highway frontage.
It appears that~he improvements are to be concentrated
on Lot 14, the easterlymost lot ~end assessed to Vincent
P. Geragty as vacant rural land. The total assessment is
$300.00 which reflects the properties limited utility.Lot
13.3 is also assessed to Vincent P. Geraghty ss vacant
residential land with an assessment of ~00.O0.Ths westerly-
most lot. ~. , Lot 13.4 is assessed to William J. Geragh~y
as vacant residential land at ~800.00.
Correspondence from the DEC leads me to believe that all of
the property described in the Environmental Asseesment.~a~ ~J~J0
Therefore, questions concerning the fill~ the property
are germane to this prooce~ding.
Apparently, the applicant filled a portion of the property
and, as a result, was issued a Notice of Violation by the
DEC on ~ay 1, 1988 with · concurrent order to cease operations.
I now pose this 0uestion - where and when was.~he fill placed~
The actions of the Trustees reveal a dichotomy. ~ previous
board had issued a positive declaration on this application.
The ~reaent board issued a negative declaration on ~ebr~ar~
1994. Was it the addition of fill which influenced this latter
decision?
Correct me if I am wrong. If the applicant had not filled
the site, it would be unbuildable~ ~f the fill were placed
on the property in violation of DEC regulations, it was
illegal. Memories are presumed to be short. Now approximately
six years later, approval of this project would constitute
~e legitimiztng of this action and the applica.nt would be
J Irewarded for his violation.
r,~s,~ ~,~'~'s,~'
!:he subject property was reportedly purchased in 1978 and
1979. SEqBA has been a law since August 1, 197%. Since the
fill was apparently added on, or about, ~ay of 1988,
Ignorance of the provisions of the Act was hardly likely
and, in any event ignorance is no defense.
In conclusion, review of both the Short and Long Form
Environmental Assessments reveals some dierepancies. They
provide little data, at least some of which is of questionable
accuracy. The area of the property is cited in the assessment
ss being 1.~7 acres. This ~s precisely the area of lots
17.3 and 13.~. The property incorporated in the site plan
includes lot 1S for a total of 2.99 acres. The area of
Lot 1S is 1.52 acres. From say standpoint, it is obvious
that the assessment does not include all the area sh~e~on
the site plan.
Also, the assessment form describes surrounding land usagw
as residential. This would hardly be my characterization.
P~rhaps the preparer of the application was confused by the
fact that portions of the property were, and are, assessed
as vacant residential land.
~Y observations lead me to conclude that most, if not all,
~f~h~'pPopePty's highway frontage is severed from the highway
by a Department of Transporstion ~uard rail. If this is
the case, the Pg~ apparently deed not consider this s safe
or propitious ~ii area for highway access.
Tn view of the ouesttons raised, -r request that the Board of
Trustees deny this application summarily.
Albert $. Krupski, President
John ~
TO:
BOARD OF TOWN TR1
TOWN OF SOUTH(
LEAD AGENCY C00RDINATI¢
Enclosed is a permit application and a completed part I of the
Environmental Assessment Form.
Southold Town Trustees are interested in your ageny's comments
in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for:
LOCATION. ~T~ ~ ~T~ D
TAX MAP:J"6-q-~'~ l$. ~ n' iy
DESCRPTN: ~'=7~ &Lb~ WF~a~-7~4~ ~$66' PERMIT # F~b/W~--
PERMIT REQUIRED: ~) T~) WETLAND ( ) OTHER
SEQRA CLASSIFICATION: Type I ( ) Type II
( ) UNLISTED ( ) CEA
Please contact .Albert J. Krups~, Jr., Trustee , within 30
days and be advised that the Southoid Town Trustees (WANT)/(DO
NOT WANT) to assume lead agency.
SENT TO: OOS( ) DEC (~) DOH ( ) p~ (~) ZEA ~) H~ ~)
971
]92
Please complete,
processing.
Involved Agency:
Project Name:
Location:
'SCTM:
We at (Have/No)
AGENCy
Trustees assuming Lead Agency.
detach and return this form to expedite
objection to Southold Town
Comments/Reasons:
~ignature of Authorized Representative
EN-CONSULTANTS, INC.
1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
FAX
516o283-6360
516-283-6136
January 3, 1994
Mrs. Carol Amara
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
SUNY, Building 40
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: VINCENT GERAGHTY - #10-89-1243
Dear Mrs. Amara:
After careful deliberation of the potential use of this
property, the plan has been modified to take into account
the concerns stated by the NYSDEC in previous corre-
spondence.
An irregularly-shaped two-story building, will be con-
structed a minimum of 17' from the edge of the existing
fill and, thus, wetland. For this, we recognize the
necessity for a variance.
Parking associated with the structure will be located
immediately south of the building while the sanitary sys-
tem will be constructed as close to the easterly property
line as possible and a minimum of 100' from wetlands.
The existing upland to the west will be used only as a
boat display area. Access between the two sections Qf
upland will be via a 4' .x 85' pedestrian bridge that will
span the wetlands and the drain ditch. None of the wet-
lands will be filled or other%~ise developed.
The need for variance for structure to wetlands setback
is dictated by the limited amount of uplands that we'are
able to utilize. Of the total area of 64,087 sq. ft.,
approximately 33,000 are comprised of "upland.,,
EN-CONSULTANTS, INC.
1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968
ENVIRONMENTAL
~SERVICES
516-283-6360
FAX NO. 516-283-6136
January 3, 1994
Mrs. Carol Amara
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
SUNY, Building 40
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: VINCENT GERAGHTY - ~10-89-1243
Dear Mrs. Amara:
After careful deliberation of the potential use of this
property, the plan has been modified to take into account
the concerns stated by the NYSDEC in previous corre-
spondence.
An irregularly-shaped two-story building will be con-
structed a minimum of 17' from the edge of the existing
fill and, thus, wetland. For this, we recognize the
necessity for a variance.
Parking associated with the structure will be located
immediately south of the building while the sanitary sys-
rem will be constructed as close to the easterly property
line as possible and a minimum of 100' from wetlands.
The existing upland to the west will be used only as a
boat display area. Access between the two sections of
upland will be via a 4' .x 85' pedestrian bridge that will
span the wetlands and the drain ditch. None of the wet-
lands will be filled or otherwise developed.
The need for Variance for structure to wetlands setback
is dictated by the limited amount of uplands that we are
able to utilize. Of the total area of 64,087 sq. ft.,
approximately 33,000 are comprised of "upland.,,
Mrs. Carol Amara 2 - January 3, 1994
Of this, approximately 2,§00 sq. ft. is a w~ded band
extending into the meadow and, therefore, unusable for
development. The irregular shape and diep~rate location
of these uplands made development with a variance and
impossible without it.
If we were to maintain a 75' setbeok, only a ~ery small
portion of the upland in the southeast corner would be
usable. Taking into account the side and frontyard set-
backs of the Town of Southampton and the n~cessity for
placing the sanitary system here as well, no usable area
for construction would result.
We do not believe that the proposal as presented will
have any adverse effect upon the adJacen~wetlan~s. This
belief is based upon the nature of the surroundings and
the fact that the Long Island Railroad right-of-way is
located on the north, Main Road on the sou,--h, and filled
parcels to the east and west. This hea~y utilisation is
expected to impact upon the usage of the wetlands by
wildlife.
The capacity of the wetlands as a drainage and absorption
basin for floodwaters will be undiminished. The feasi-
bility of the site for instruction, recreation, etc., is
also minimal. There should be no change in~rainage pat-
terns as the proposed struoture will be fitted with dry-
wells to recharge roof runoff.
Pavement will be bluestone so th~ drainage can occur
through it.
The usage of the property is in keeping with local zon-
ing.
Please consider these comments in your deliberations on
the amended project.
Very truly yours,
Roy L. Haje
~resident
RLH:KD
Encl0~
cc: ~__?wn of Southold Trustees
Vincent Geraghty
r,,..,,, i{.Jil. ~,.l(p)~ Main I,'n.M
~otHIt~dd. N,,".v York I t')7l
II)Lt.~l ~1¥ Ol' ^pPL~c,~William and Vincent Geraghty by ;',.Jr~C r~o
" ~' k' ~%-~ ~-U i :t-a-ri t-s-,' '"f~{(~ · - ............ 516-249-6644
~u~,~c:~s or ~c,c~,~ (William)60 Harned Drive (V~ncent)12 Cozy Lane
..... 11964
~,~ ~.~.,. ,~u ~1000-056-4-13.3 and 13.4
?,C,:r~T ~Oy ............................ . H~je_, En-Consultants, Inc., 1329 North Sea
Southampton, New York 11968 ............ 5t-6--283-6360
Ma .i n. _ ~ga.d., .~r shamomaque
60 llarned Driye_c.Centerport,
New York 11721
See abov_e
9000+
DEPTH AT LOW TIDE
DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL N/~ FT.
DISTANCE PROJECT EXTEND:~ BEYOND SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THE A~EA~._~N_/_~_
15 THIS FOR PRIVATE OR BUSINESS USE? Commerci&l
AR~A ZONING
............ F~3~..~q.~ ~_u. mped, and graded.
Parcel has been partially filled.
AGCNCY NO known Trustees permit granted. Sum~OnSIssued
_Q~[~ work to sto~. Case pending which directs defendant
............................... . ...... ~ .... ~------~ .... ~ ........
to file application.
THC P.OJECT ~,T~ ,, HUCL:;:;~,,¥ Uppn co~ptet, ipn o.f__f~.!~< .........
fill will be graded and planted with rye grass to stabilize.
Wl2iTi'r'N CONL~£NT OF Till: OWNLI~' or r~u
a~,~,~.~CAmr. -- Attached
AP.E TILERm.- ANY COVENANTS OR RESTR~.CTIONS IN YOUR DEED TIIAT WOULD
PROIIIBIT TiIIS PROJECT? None known.
· 14'.1~-~2 (2187) 7c
617.21
Appendix A SEQ
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full FAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a proje~
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequen
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureabJe. It is also understood that those who determin
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environment,-,
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affectin
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determinatio~
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect and its site. By identifying basic projec
data. it assists a reviewer in the ahalysis that takes place in Parts 2 an~ 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provide~
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFiCANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: I-'l Part 1 ~ Part 2 ' r~Part 3
Upon review of the informatJo~ recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magJtude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one ~vhJch will not
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will ~lot be a signifiCant
effect for this Unlisted Action b~cause the mitigation 'r~easures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negalive declaration will be prepared.*
C. The project may result in one or more ~arge and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
* ^ Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Name oi Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title of Re~l)ons~ble Officer
Signature of Preparer (~'f different frown responsible officer)
Date
1
'Cen. u~_::~_,g.-.'.~ I N~y, ! ii7tl~, :,
{
2. Tol~i ?:r'¢:~,,,¢ ':-~ :;~'~¢,C, are~ ~,,~ .}7 .._ acres.
. .:,.-:: '.-e,-h..,.~:~. ~ - ~ .. ~,; A:t;,:ies 24. 2~ of ECl.}
J U,'~ ~.4,':n or fi!J!
.... ' ...... ',~,,h.~opes ~0-10% % ~_ ,--,'10-15%. _%
f~'!$% nr ~,reater
c ..... ~,.u~ . . ar can:am a buildins, sae. or d~s:rict, listed on the Sta(e or the
7 ~s pr~e,:~ ' '- , ' ' ~o - ~. N~tlonat Natural L~ndmarks~ ~Yes
:u,;~,an~ d ~,: cant~guo.4~ ~ s[~ ~;sted or, th~ Re i~ter of
.,~,: or animal hfe ~ha~ i$ identified as .h~ea..,~ or efldanter~d
~xo ,~ccord~n~ tc -.~C~.~_~ Pr~n~ ~me n~ ~-~_l~t~.' I~c.
L~'r'es ~No De~crlbe
~. ,:,,: .?e~e~lly u~d b~ :Ne c:mmumtv or neighborhood as ar, open space or recreation aria?
a '4a,:-e of 5~a:~: a~d na:~e of Ri',,e~ :o which it is tributa~
...... - -- _, b. Size (In acres) ,
~u ,;~,¢:,,, ¢~pac~t,/ ~x~: ~ ado.', co~n~ction~ ~Yes ~NO
, .~ ~ · . .
Section 303 and -n,. ..,df e~ pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law..Articte 2J-AA,
of the [C~. an~ ~ NYCR~ 51r~ ~'~s
20. Ha~ ,:,~ ~,¢e e~er ~een u~ed &,. the a,spo_a~ of -o~ c er hazard,~us wastes? ~Yes
B. Project Description
1. Phys..a~ d:.mensicns s'~d ';C~ie sr pr.l.jeet ~'"' ' '
.,H, ,~ '~ei~slons aS appropriate)
b r,'ejec: acreage tO be ~a'.'e;Cped. I ..i~ acres initiahy; ~ acres
c Project a.:reage ~o ramain undeveloped ... - acres.
d Len~r' '~ pro~e¢: in mil~s: n/~ ~,~ appropriate)
e. ff ~he ' - is
= ~e~t an ex~ansiom i~:d:c~[e ~e,car:t of expansion proposed _~./~ %;
f. N m~, ~, off-sheet p;:kin~ spaces exbHng n ; proposed
g ~4~x;m;;:~ vemcu,ar ..r~s ~.ra..d per hour 0 . {upon completion of prcject)~
h. If res.,J:nt~aj; ?~um~er ~nd *. - of housing . ~'- .
.......... ~'--~,,.~,~ project ~,i~I occupy is?
3
ground covers) will b~ /~mov~d from s:te~
¥.-.~r, (including dem=lition)
_
. 10, Numbe~ ,)~ ~,;b:. ~:mina'ed ~;y th~ ~ro~e~t _. 0
12. ;s
l,'if yeL ~nat is the amount per month tons
, a,te, p,o~ec. ;s comN,e.. __ ~
~No
eyes ~No
tons/month.
ENo
2g V~/~ prgj.~=t pr~duC~ op~latJ~ hOLe e~ceed~n~ the ~oc~t ambient ~oise le~els~ ~Y~s ~No
21. Will pre~,~c% result tn ~n increase m ene,~y
22. Jf ~'~t~r :U3D~y iS fca.'n w~Js. ;nd,c,~te p:,mpf;~ capacity n/a _ gallo~s/minu~e,
23. T~tai antic/Dated ,,,~:er u~ge per d~, .n/~ gallons/day.
~4 Does ~r.3j?;: invoJve L:caL S~ate or F~era~ /~nding~ ~Yes
4
ne~arkm by F. ~'. P~lynn before Southo]d hoard of ~rustseson
~arch 24, ~994
PeP Vincent F. Cera~hty ~ppl~cst~on, ~7/s ~te. 2~, ~rshamcmuck
(FSs~. 1000 Sec. 5~ Blk. ~ Lots t3.3, 13.4, 1~
My ~n~t~al ~emarks have to do w~th the ade,uacy, or rather
~.nadeouecy, of the published leMsl notice regarding this
epplicetion.
· he location of the property is described aS" "Route 25,
Southold".
Route 25 traverses Southold for a distance of approximately
20 miles. The published deserlpt~on is hsrdly ~nformative
to the public.
It was not even considered necessary to differentiate
between the northerly end southerly sides of the highway!
surely a matter of some importance.
The subject property is not ~n the hamlet of Southold.
Were you to consultthe plan submitted by the sppllcant,
the property is properly located at Arshamomuck. In addition,
the section, block and lot numbers are plainly stated.
Were it really the intent to ~nform the public, these lot
numbers could have been recited, the abutting owners
identified, and the distance westerly from Mill Greek
stated.
I had hoped that the new board would constitute s break
from the cevalSer attitude of the previous.
ith respa, ct t.o the application i.t. eelf, I have done same
search into its background. I will state my underStamdi~g
of the matter and you may, of course , correct me if I am ~=
mistaken.
As I und&rstand~~ the intent of this application is to enable
the construction of a ~wo story building for boat sales
and repairs and to utilize a separate, westerly portion
of the property, accessible via a bridge, for the display
of boats, new and used.
~pparently, this applica~io~provisions of ~r~icle XII (~ II)
of the ~o~ Code, Cection 100 - 121 A (5), (Y).
The proposed uses are in obvious conflict with the ._~
stated Purpose and intent of the Southold Code. ~e
clearly states that such facilities are confined to waterfront
locations with direct access to, or location in, marine or
t~dai w~ers. The subject property is obviously severed f~
such access by Route 25.
With respect to the specifics of the application, I understand
it ia intended to construct a two story building of some
4,800 sq. ft. on the easterly portion of the property and
located s "minimum of 17 ft. from the edge of the existing fill.
I ~elieve this is a misleadin~ way of stating 17 ft. removed
from the wetlands to ~he west. This represents a 77% re~c~i~a
from the usual ?~ Ft. requirement.
I presume the board would not permit construction in ~
wetlands! witness the proposed bridge spanning the wstta~ds
to the west~
(2)
ncldentaly,
the proposed brid~e constitutes s structure
by Cod. e definition and should be set back 35 ft. from
~the highway frontaFe.
It appesrs thst'*the improvements are to be concentrated
on Lot 14, the essterlymost lot i~snd assessed to Vincent
P. Gera~ty as vacsnt rursl land. The total assessment is
$300.00 which reflects the properties limited utility.Lot
13.3 is slso assessed to Vincent P. Geraghty as vacant
residential lsnd with an sssessment of $1~00.O0~The westerly-
most lot. ~ , Lot 13.4 is assessed to William J. Geraghty
as vacant residential land at ~800.00.
Correspondence from the DEC leads me to believe that all of
the property described ~n the Environmental ~ssessment.W~
· ~d~''
Therefore, questions concernlnK the fxll on the property
are germane to this prooce~ding.
Ap~.~ently, the applicant filled s portion of the property
and, as s result, was issued a NotiCe of Violation by the
DE-~on ~sy 1, 1988 with s concurrent order to cease opers.$ione.
I now pose this ouestion - where and when was the fill placedV.
The actions of the Trustees reveal s dichotomy. ^prev. ious
board~ad issued a positive declaratio__n on this application.
The present board issued a negative declaration..on FebrUary 24,
1994. Was im mne addition of fill which influenced this latter
decision?
Correct me if I am wrong.'If the applicant hsd not fille~
the site, it would be unbuildable~ If the fill were placed
on the property-nigh violation of DEC regulations, it~wss
~mories are presumed to be short. Now approximately
six years later, approval of this project would constitute
(3)
legitimizing o.f this action and the applicant would,be
The subject property was reportedly purchased in 1978 and
1979. SEqRA has been a law since August 1, 1975. Since the
fill was apparently added on, or about, May of 1988,
t~orance of the provisions of the Act was hardly likely
and, In any even~ i~orsnce is no defense.
In conclusion, review of both the Short and Long'Form
Environmental Assessments reveals some diorep~ciea. They
provide little data, at least some of which is of questionable
accuracy. The area of the property is cited in the assessment
as beinK 1.47 acres. This is precisely the area of lots
13.3 and 13.4. The property incorporated in the sate plan
includes lot 14 for a total of 2,99 ammes. The area of
Lot 14 is 1.52 acres. From any standpoint, it is obvious
that the assessment does not include all the area shc~on
the site plan.
Also, the assessment form describes surrounding land usag~
as residential~ This would hardly be my characterization.
Perhaps the preparer of the application was confused by the
fact that portions of the property were, and are, assessed
as vacant residential land.
~ observations lead me to conclude that most, if not all,
°f'~e'property's highway frontage is severed from the highway
by a Department of Tran~poration ~uard rail. If this is
the case, the PO~ apparently deed not consider this a safe
or propitious 'a~* area for highway access.
Tn view of the ouestlons rafsed, "reeuest that the Board of
Trustees deny this application summsrfly.
Oem~rks by F. ~. ~'lynn before Southo]d hoard of ~rusteeson
~rch 24, 1994
Pc, Vincent P. Cersghty ~pp]~c~t~on, ~!,/s rte. 2~. ~rshamomuck
(r~st. 1000 Sec. 5~ Blk. ~ I,ots ~D.3, 13.4, 14
Py initial ~emarks have to do w}th the sdecuacy, or rsther
tnadeouaoy, of the published leKsl notice regsrding this
application.
· he location of the property is described se .... Route 25,
Southold".
Route 25 traverses Southold for a distance of approximately
20 miles. The published descrlpt]on is hardly Informative
to the public.
It was not even considered necessary to differentiate
between the northerly and southerly sides of the highway!
surely s matter of some tmportsnce.
The subject property is not in the hamlet of Southold.
Were you to consultthe plan submitted by the applicant,
the property is properly located at arshamomuck. In a~dition,
the section, block and lot numbers are plainly stated.
Were it really the intent to inform the public, these lot
numbers could have been recited, the abutting owners
identified, and the distance westerly from Mill Greek
ate ted.
I hsd hoped that the new board would constitute a break
from the cavalier attitude of the previous.
PLANNING ltlOARO
// Wz~h respect t.o the application itself, I have done same
/ ~ research into its background. I will state my under, standing
mistaken.
As I understandS/the intent of this application is to enable
the construction of a two story building for boat sales
and repairs and to utilize a separate, westerly portion
of the property, accessible vis a bridge, for the display
of boats, new and used.
~p~ren~ly, %his applica%ion~prevt~tons of ~r%icle XII (M II)
of %he To~ Code, Cee%ion ~00 - 121 A (5), (7).
The proposed uses are in obvious conflict wi~h %he .~
eta%ed Purpose and in~en% of %he Sou%hold Code. The Code
clearly s%a.%es %hat such facilities are confined to waterfront
locations wi~h direct access %o, or location in, marine ~r
%tdal ~%ers. The subject property is obviously severed fr~
such access by Route 25.
With respect to the specifics of the application, I understand
it is intended to construct s two story~ building of some
4,800 sq. ft. on the easterly portion of the property and
located s "minimum of 17 ft. from the edge of the existing fill.
I 6elieve this is s mislesdin[r, way of stating 17 ft. removed
from the wetlands to ~he west. This represents a 77% reduction
from the usual 75 F~. requirement.
I presume the board would not permit construction in ~
wetlends~ witness the proposed bridge spanning the wetlar.~
to the west.
Incldentaly, the proposed brid~e Constitutes a structure
by Code definition and should be set back 35 ft. from
the hlghwsy frontsFe.
It appears that*the improvements are to be concentrated
on Lot 14, the easterlymost lot ~-snd assessed to Vincent
P. Gera~ty as vacant rural land. The total assessment is
$300.00 which reflects the properties limited utility.Lot
13.3 is also assessed to V~ncent P. Geraghty as vacant
residential land with an assessment of $1~O0.O0.The westerly-
most lot. ~ , Lot 13.4 is assessed to William J. Geraghty
as vecant residential land at $800.00.
Correspondence from the DEC leads me to believe that all of
the property described in the Environmental Assessment.~6 ~l~Jo
Therefore, ~uestlons concerning the fill on the property
sro germsne to this prooce~ding.
Apparently, the applicant filled a portion of the property
and, as a result, was issued a Notice of Violation by the
DEC on Nay 1, 1988 with a concurrent order to cease operations.
I now pose this euestion - where and when was the fill placed~
The actions of the Trustees reveal a dichotomy. A previous
board had issued s positive declaration on this application.
The present board issued a negative declaration on February 24,
~994. Was it the addition of fill which influenced this latter
decision?
Correct me if I am wronK.'If the applicant had not filled
the site, it would be unbuildable~ If the fill were placed
on the property in violation of DEC regulations, it was
illeEal. Memories are presumed to be short. Now approximately
six years later, approval of this project would constitute
Irthe legitimizing of this action and the
~wSrded for his violation. ~ . applies.hr would be
The subject property was reportedly purchased in 1978 and
1979. SEQRA has been a lsw since August 1, 1975. Since the
fill was apparently added on, or about, ~s.y of 1988,
t~orance of the provisions of the Act wac hardly likely
e~d, in any even~ ignorance is no defense,
In conclusion, review of both the Short and Long Form
Environmental Assessments reveals some dicrepa~ciee. They
provide li%%1e data, at leest some of which is of questionable
accuracy. The area of the property is cited in the assessment
as being 1.~? acres, This ~s precisely the area of lots
13,3 and ~3.~. The property incorporated in the site plan
includes lot 1~ for a total of 2.99 acres. The ares of
Lot 15 is 1.52 scres. From shy standpoint, it is obvious
that the sssessment does not include sll the area shcm~on
the site plan.
~lso, the assessment form describes surrounding land usag~
ss residential. This would hsrdly be my characterization.
Pwrhaps the preparer of the~application was confused by the
fact that portions of the property were, snd are, assessed
as vacant residentisl lsnd.
~Y observstions lead me to conclude that most, if not all,
of'%he'property,s highway frontage is severed from the highway
by s Department of Transporation ~usrd rail. If this is
the case, the DS~ spparently doed not consider this a safe
or propitious ~i* ares for highwsy access.
rn View of the *uestions raised, '" re,uest that the Board of
Trustees deny this spplicat]on summarily.
C;ty, Ccunr,'
Othe, Zeg~ona~
State age.~cies ~Yes
Type
Submittal
Date
t~ ~e~, ~d~::e q~c:5;O~ requited:
. :. ~.,~. ~:on~ng variance ~s;ecial u~e ~etmi: ~' "
· ~:ub~rv:$;~n ~s;te plan
~:~e-, -:~,q: ::~ -. ~--~- ~la. ~re~c~rce management plan ~other
·" , .... ~e,opm~,.:., the JJ~ i¢ de~eJoped ~ ."-'~
. pern,:,.=~ by the pre~en~ toning?
. po..n .... e o. ,.~, ~ the sRe i~ developed a~ pc.mR:ed by
~; .... .~,,s,~t:n: ~,~h the ;ec$,<mended uses i~ adopted local !and uae p:a,,s¢ ~'¢s ~No
Cc~.~e rciat
~ i~ t~ pr¢~o~ed '*; ~ -~.,~-~:" with ad]o n:~g'~urrou~ding land uses ~i:hi~ a
'~ If .h. :~,¢:~..~ act?~,~ :~e subdivision of Jand,. ~Cw many lots are,proposed~ n/a
cc.,er, req,~r¢ sc~' ~umohZa~e~,,~} f~r the' f~cmation ¢~ sewer or wa:er
!1 Wd~ ~ ~rC.~c;ed a¢5~ create a demand for ~m, :ommunkv provided Ser~ic~ [recreation. education, police.
~ .an~,e ptc~ec~ed demand? ~Yes ~No
12. WH~ :he :~oposed ~ct;or; .... ,~ ge,~ratio~ o~ tr=ffic si~P~f~c~nt{y above presen~ levels? ~Yes
O. !nfotmattonal Deta'i~
n,o.,,,a ..... ~ may ~e ~eed~d to oar,fy your project. I~ t~ere are or may be ~ny adverse
aveid them
E. Verification
I cer..f/ ~ha~,e m~r$,manon pro,,:ded aom.,e ,s :rue to ,.rte bes~. o~ my know!edae
,:,t~t a~t,aa ~ ~a tl~ Coas~aYAr~a,
ohn Holzapfel, Vice President
William G. Albertson
Mm'tin H. Gm'tell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN
TOWN OF $O1
S.E.(
NEGATIVE D'
NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT
Town Hall
-~'~ U.in Road
11971
~-1892
823
APPLICATION NO. 1000-56-4-13.3,
13.4 & 14
NAME: VINCENT GERAGHTY
DATE: February 24, 1994
Chapt.
37 - CoaS==~ __ .n
RESOLVED that pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617,
Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as Lead
Agency for the action described below, has determined that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: Type: I
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Applicant requests permit to construct a
two-story building a minimum of 17' from the edge of the existing
fill. Parking will be located south of the building_ and will be
bluestone, sanitary system will be as close to the easterly property
line as pcssible and a minimum of 100' from wetlands. The existing
upland to the west will be used only as a boat display area. Access
between the two sections of upland will be via a 4' X 85' pedestrian
bridge that will span the wetlands and the drain ditch. None of the
wetlands will be filled or otherwise developed. Al! in accordance
with revised plan dated December 21, 1993.
LOCATION: SCTM #1000-56-4-13.3, 13.4 & 14
REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
1. An on site inspection has been conducted by the Board of
Trustees.
2. An environmental assessment, submitted by the applicant and
reviewed and completed by the Board of Trustees, has indicated that
no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur
should the following mitigation measures be implemented.
cc: CAC
Building Dept.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
EN-CONSULTANTS, INC.
1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968
516-283-6360
FAX NO. 516-283-6136
January 3, 1994
Mrs. Carol Amara
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
SUNY, Building 40
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: VINCENT GERAGNTY - #10-89-1243
Dear Mrs. Amara:
After careful deliberation of the potential use of this
property, the plan has been modified to take into account
the concerns stated by the NYSDEC in previous corre-
spondence.
An irregularly-shaped two-story building will be con-
structed a minimum of 17' from the edge of the existing
fill and, thus, wetland. For this, we recognize the
necessity for a variance.
Parking associated with the structure will be located
immediately south ofthe building while the sanitary sys-
rem will be constructed as close to the easterly property
line as possible and a minimum of 100' from wetlands.
The existing upland to the west will be used only as a
boat display area. Access between the two sections of
upland will be via a 4' x 85' pedestrian bridge that will
span the wetlands and the drai~ ditch. None of the wet-
lands will be filled or otherwise developed.
The need for variance for structure to wetlands setback
is dictated by the limited amount of uplands that we~are
able to utilize. Of the total area of 64,087 sq. ft.,
approximately 33,000 are comprised of "upland."
Mrs. Carol Amara - 2 - January 3, 1994
Of this, approximately 2,500 sq. ft. is a wooded band
extending into the meadow and, therefore, unusable for
development. The irregular shape and disparate location
of these uplands made development with a variance and
impossible without it.
If we were to maintain a 75' setback, only a very small
portion of the upland in the southeast corner would be
usable. Taking into account the side and frontyard set-
backs of the Town of Southampton and the necessity for
placing the sanitary system here as well, no usable area
for construction would result.
We do not believe that the proposal as presented will
have any adverse effect uponthe adjacent wetlands. This
belief is based upon the nature of the surroundings and
the fact that the Long Island Railroad right-of-way is
located on the north, Main Road on the south, and filled
parcels to the east and west. This heavy utilization is
expected to impact upon the usage of the wetlands by
wildlife.
The capacity of the wetlands as a drainage and absorption
basin for floodwaters will be undiminished. The feasi-
bility of the site for instruction, recreation, etc., is
also minimal. There should be no change in drainage pat-
terns as the proposed structure will be fitted with dry-
wells to recharge roof runoff.
Pavement will be bluestone so that drainage can occur
through it.
The usage of the property is in keeping with local zon-
ing.
Please consider these comments in your deliberations on
the amended project.
Very truly yours,
~oy L. Haje
President
RLH:KD
Enclos~
cc: ~Town of Southold Trustees
Vincent GeraghtY
A/U't I L,'~ I L) N NO . .: ~ ~1 ¢)1 AI'F'L I CAT I ON A~).[:i] 18, 198(3
/ En-Consultants, Inc. 51~-249-6644
~UDR~:~ Or APP~lCANT (William)60 Harned Drive (Vincent)12 Cozy Lane
11964
,,-,, m',,, r~. #1000-056-4-13.3 and 13.4
^c..:~ Ro~ L. H.a_~e., En-~onsultants, Inc~, 1329 North Sea
' ' ~ h ~%~%~-: ~6~ -fEe'S- -[ 1968 ............ 51%% 283 - 6360
......................... 3~ ~T~D_ ...........................................
Ma~9_~9~d., ..Arshamomaque
6O
llarn~d DrSye_~ .Centerport,. New York 117_2.1
YAI~D!, TO O[ F I LI.I:-['J 9000+
DEPTH AT LOW TIOC N/A
^vE.^GE .,sE ,. T,OE .........
DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL N/A FT.
DISTANCE PROJECT EXTENDS BEYOND SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THE
15 THIS FOR.PRIVATE OR BUSINESS USE? Commercial
AREA ZONING M2
___~rcel has been partially filled.
AGENCY NO known Trustees permit granted. Summons lssuea
_Q~[~ work to stoR. Case pending which directs defendant
_t_o.._[~_application.
PNC,~ISES ATTO. THE WOi,K 1:. CO,.,PLCTCO INCLUDE A~ ADDITIONAL SURVEy
TltC PROJECT S"TC I,' NECL:;:;~,¢y Upgn completion of filling,
__.f~½..will be graded and planted with rye grass to stabilize.
CANT. _. _. Attached.
ARm-- TILERv_ ANY COVENANTS OR RESTR[.CTION$ IN YOUR DEED TIIAT WOULD
PROItIDIT TIIIS PROJECT? None known.
._ ~ . .'14'-16-~2 (2/87)--7c
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
SEQR
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose= The'full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or ma,/be technically e.xpert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and a~encies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The fuji EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides Objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the ahalysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likeiy to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is id;ntified as potential[y-larse, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFiCANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 ' []Part 3
Upon review of the informatio~ recorded o'n this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
[] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which Will not
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
I-I B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will ~ot be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
* A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title of ReH~onslble Drifter
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Date
1
~ N.Y. i 11721
cubic y~rd.~ ,-~uA cl~an. - fill
.... ~..~ ....... xz_~zn~ fill ~f ~o~'t
sea level ~ ,
Description
Cu~e~~ will be ~,-
~. abcve
:-~ASricultute
.: ~R > ;4~:.n or fill)
:.~vther
acres.
Rc~EN .t AFl:F, CC;'4PLET!ON
acres .... .'~c res
__ , .33 acres . acres
.... acres ...... acres
-- ,_BD acres l. 47 acres
.- ~ ~Cfe~ ._ acres
.................... s' t~n knc,,,:n
2 /
~s p~c.j~c~ ;ubsta~Lt~/ c.~n;~u~ ~o. ~r contain ~ ~uild~g, s~e, o:' d?~rict, li~ted on ~he State ~r ~he
ts pro?,:~ ~bstan~alh~ con~guo.~ ~o ~ s~te J;sted o~ ~he Register o~ N~t~onal Na~ura[ Landmarks~ ~yes ~No
Is s:te ~oc.~e~ o~.e~ a orimar~, principal, or ~cte ~urce aquifed ~Yes ~No
Cc ~:.;~ect sae cc~h: ~ml ~pec~s c,f ~{~t Or ~mrnal life ~hat is identified as {hreat~ned or endangered~
Are d~ere a~' un~qJs or ~n~s~a] ~and ~crn~i on ~he p~ject site~ (i.e. cji{ii, dunes, other teoiogictl {otmaUons)
~Ye~ ~No Describe _~
. , c~,.mu,,.y or neig~b~rhood as ar, open space or recreation ar!a~
~Yes
15. Sb'~am~ ,~-~ o~ ~cn~uo~5 ~o pro~e~t a~e~; ~./~
a '~ax':e of 5~e~m a~d name of R~ver :o which ~t is tributa~
co~tg,a~u~ :o moject area:
a ~zme unn~ _ b, Size (In acres}
17 Is ,he ~:~ ser',~ b~ ~.~;~:ng public utiHtie~ ~Ye~ ~No
a} If ~.~ ~es ~u~cie,nt capaca¥ ex~st to ados, connection? ~Yes ~No
b} ;~ YeS. ,~il~ improvemint~ be necessary ~o ~!iow connection? ~Yes ~No
~8 ~s ;~e i~le loc~led m an airiCukura( al.s., c. ¢eaJfled p~rsuant ~o Agriculture and Markets Law, Aaicle
Section 303 and 304~~Yes~
of t~e ECL, arid O NYCRR 6177 ~Yes ~No
20 Has :he s~ce e~er ~een ~sed Fo: :he dlspos~f ~ solid cr hazardous wastes? ~Yes ~NO
B. Project Description
1. PhysiCal dimensions and ~.caJe ci pre, feet {fill ;,: dimensions as appropriate)
c. Proiect acreage [o ramain undeveloped acres.
d Leng~~ ~1~ project :n mile~: n/a (If appropriate)
e. ff the p,~iec: is a~ ax~an~ion, icdica[e pe,cent of expansion ~r0poi~d zL./a %;
f. Number ~i off-sheet
8, ~;ax;m.;:~ vehicular ~ri~s ~enerated per ho~r 0 , [~pon completion of project]?
h. If re~,J=nt~ai; ~l~f~er and ty~e of ho~sin~ units;
One Family Two Family ,Multiple Family
~ ~' a r ~ ~ ,~ .et~....a,~es. p ~.~o~ad s.ruc.,~re ~ height; - width;
'1 . 4']acres.
1.47~_ acres ultim-'.te!y.
Condominium
length
ft
e~h e:cj "4U be removed
~v~! r'No ~N/A
g,
.i0.
tons/cubic yards
st.:zkpJed For ~eclamabon~ ~Yes ~No
.Ln%~n~s onZy ~o fill ~roperty new, ~t will even-
developed ~. some fashion, b~ ~here ~r~ no plans
12.
t4.
15.
16,
c .;pc: h ;t'~t9 ..c:r'~'m';Cr~ .~ Cf f;~:a~ p~ase ...... month
W~H b~astin~ occur d~r;,-~ coestr~ct~On) ~Yes ~No
~No
year, (inckMing' demolition}
'fear.
-:uffaca hqu~d ,vaste a;.,po;a~ involved~ ~Yes ~No
~ame of ~, ~te, body ;sro which effiue~
t~:bsurface liqu;d ,,~s~e d,~pO~al ~nvolved~ ~Yes ~NO Type
Will surface ~rea of an existing w~:er body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain .......
~;oject at any portm~ o~ p~ject located ;na !~ year flood plain?
W~il ti~e ;reject gen,~ra(~ solid ~aste~ ~Yes ~No
'If 'ye~, ~nat i~ the a~ount p~? ~o~h tons
!f ./~s. ,¥,~i ~n ~..~t;~G sol~d wa)to fac~i[~ be used~ ~Yes ~No
(f yes. ~;ve name ........ location
Will any wastes neiio rata a sewage d,sposa] system or into a sanite~ landfill?
If Yes ex,Ilia ........
, otter project is complete __
~Y.. ,rS1N O ;f yes,
r'Iyes
r'l, Yes ~No
~]Yes .m--No
17
13.
19
20
21
22.
23.
Wdt the proiect ir.,,oh;e :he d~spo-~ai Of solid wastel
a If yes, wha~ is th~ anticipated ,ate of d~sposa[? ..
b. If '/es, ~ha: is :he antic;pared site life?.
will projec~ use herb,c~des ,Jr pesdcides~' Fi, Yes
~.Yes ~No
tons/month.
, years.
Wdl ~;roie:t routine!'~ produce odors ~more than one hour per day)? ,~,Yes ~tNo
vV:!I project produc.? operating noise exceeding the )ocal ambient noise leYels? ~Yes
If yes . indicate ~Qe(s~ ....
If water :up,fy is ~rom we~is. ;nd,cate 2umpf;~g capacity _ n/a _ &allons/minute.
Total ~ntidDated wa:er u~ge per day , n/a ~allon~/day.
Does prof.:: i~vo~vc ~.:caL 5:ate or Federal f'~ndin&~ ~Yes ~o
If Yes, explain ~
~No
4
Type
Submittal
D ate
Ck';,, Tev. m Vdlage Bzard "'lYes ENo _ -,
C;ty, Ce. unr/ Hea!:h :'e~o~cm,.,r,t r~yes '--NO
Other '.oca:
Other ~e~iona)
State A~e~cies ~Yes
ge~ecal
__ DEC. TW ...... ___.7_/:~9
..... .. ,,on~ Wes
if ~,e-t m~ca;e dec:sion required:
_.~-" ~"~.,mg :,ma:-d-n~,r r ~zon':n~ variance ~s~ecial u~e ~e~m(~ ~ub~w)~,on~' ~s~te plan
~:~ .... ~' -.'"' ." ,--~ -;' m~t~r ~a~ ~re~Curce management plan ~o~het
u_ve,e.,,en, or .he site if developed as pe.mitted by [he proposed
~:~ ~' ~;~ :he p;~:~mi~nt ;and 'Jsets~ and =or,~j classifications w~hi~ e % rode radius ~f p~oposed action~
go~erci~t
~ ...... ~ action req;J~rP =~y ~uCnonzatlon(~} for ~he' formation cf sewer or wa:er d~suicts~ ~Yes ~No
!1 Wi(~ t~,~ pr~pc, sed aCdoc crea~e a demand for any community provided services [recreauon. education,
a. )f v~s. [s ~x)s:m[ ca,J:: iv ~Jf:c~eet tc ~andie projected demandl ~Ye~ ~No
12, W~i! the ~roposed -, ,-
ac,,~o,, r,~.:u r m the ge,~eratio~ of tr3ffic sig~ificanU-F above present levels? ~Yes
a ff yes. is ~he ~s~!n~ road r,e~,~,ork adequate to handle the addiUenal ~raHic~ ~Yes ~No
O. Informational Detaqs
,mpac:s ~ssochted wkh vau,' Oro~cs~i, ;2:ease dlscuss such ~m~acts and the measures whkh you propose to mitigate
avoid
E. Verification -'
I certify tha~/e~he//. /y'~--,--inf~:~ari°n pro¥ided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
RoY ~',. IEal~ ,
Iht actia~ ~s ~n t~ Cgas~a[Ar~a, ~n4 you are a state agency, complete ~he Coastal Ass~sment Form be[ore p,-oceed:ng
~J~h thh ~ssessment.
~) Enclosed please find~a sketch overlain on the licensed land
~urvey of Joseph Ingegno~ated July 21, 1992 and January 16,
.993 which includes a graphic representation of a possible plan
;e believe could fly. This is given with the explicit warning
~hat there are many other agencies involved for such a proposal
lnd the potential of a lengthy review pursuant to the state
~nvironmental Quality Review Act (including the need for an
impact statement) cannot be ruled out in any instance.
Since we have tried to leave your building plan intact we
~oul~ Nec~r~d you discuss it w!~~ ~~W~S. ~e Town
~ng ~B~l~ng De~tm~nts for~xr~n~ ~d
~scertain what additional approvals you will ne~.
5) The Trustees will endeavor to secure lead agency status for
:his project given the potential for wetland disturbance
~urrounding any project on"this site.
If we can be of additional assistance please do not hesitate to
:all.
Sincerely,
3ohn M. Bredemeyer III
President, Board of Trustees
Southold Planning Board
Southold Building Dept./
C.A.C.
Charles Hamilton, NYSDEC
Susan Ackerman, NYSDEC
Vincent Geraghty
Joseph Ingegno
3MB/djh
TRUSTEES
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President
Albert J. Kmpski. Jr., Vice President
Henry P. Smith
John B. Tuthill
William G. Albertson
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
7
SUPERVISOR ~t~
SCOTT L. HARRIS ~/~
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O; Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
July 6, 1993
Eh-Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Roy Haje
1329 North Sea Road
Southampton NY 11968
Dear Mr. Haje,
After a rather lengthy backlog in work due to this winters
storms, the Southold Town Trustees had an opportunity to visit
the site of Mr. Vincent Geraghty's recent development proposal
on June 17, 1993 for his commercial property at SCTM
~1.~000-56-4-132c & 13414 Main Road Southold NY.
The Trustees would like to make the following observations and
comments on this proposal:
1) The proposal to fill approx. 23,000 s.f. of wetlands in
order to donate a 20,024.24 s.f. parcel of questionable
conservation utility to the N.Y.S.D.E.C. or other not for profit
entity is viewed by this office as not practical and of
extremely questionable merit. Our past experience tells us
there would be few bona-fide conservation organizations willing
to take a donation under these circ%unstances. The Town Trustees
would not likely accept in their own name such a donation linked
to wetland destruction of greater size than preserved and would
not recommend same to the Town Board of Southold.
2) We do not entirely agree with your belief that the wetlands
on the property are diminished in value due to their isolation
from contiguous wetlands or waters since this system is not
completely isolated from the wetlands of Mill Creek which is a
major wetland system in the Town of considerable value to our
commercial shetlfishing industry.
3) We do agree with permitting reasonable use of this property
and are suggesting an alternative layout which would include a
CCA bridge, no division of land or "donation" and minimal
wetland incursions linked to a 1:1 wetland improvement program
for the existing degraded wetlands on the site.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservatim
ow~ Supervisor
3095 Main Road
~Southold, NY 11971
~A~tn: J Bredemeyer
Dear Sirs,
June 29, 1993
RE:
The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environ-
mental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR
Part 617 the following:
Suffolk Co Dept. Of Health
Suffolk County Center ~-,
R:~verhead, NY 11901
Attn'~ Walter Lindley
LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REOUEST ~ ':~: :::"
L.~.i
1. Your agency's interest in acting as lead agency;
Your agency's jurisdiction in the action described below; and
3. Issues of concern which your agency believes should be evaluated.
Enclosed is a copy of the permit application and a completed Part 1 of the
Environmental Assessment Form to assist you in responding.
Project Name: Willia~ & Vincent Geraghty
60 Harned Drive
Centerport, NY 11721
Project Location: Main Road, Arshamomaque
SCTM 1000-56-04-13.3, 13.4 & 14
fill in tidal wetlands for
the constructiq~ of a new '
commercial faciii~y (b~l~ Sales
an~ service)
DEc Project Number:
DEC Permits:
10-89-1243
Tidal Wetlands
SEQR Classification:
DEC Contact Person:
[ ] Type I
Susan Ackerman
Sr. Environmental Analyst
(5 16)444-0365
DEC Position: : : [.m ~.. : ......
~ DEC has no objectidn to your agency or another agency assuming lead agency
status for this action, but reserves the right to comment on this action if
a positive determination of significance is made.
[x~Unlisted **possible Type I action if project
is within the Town's Ars~omoaqne,
Mill Creek Critical Environmental
Area.
Fl
DEC has no objection to your agency or another agency assuming lead agency
status for this action, but we have the following concerns regarding this
project (see "comments" below).
DEC wi.shes to assume lead agency status for this action.
The proposed action has been identified by DEC as occurring wholly or
partially within or substantially contiguous to a critical environmental
area (CEA) that was designated by .
It is the position of this Department that your agency, if it has a juris-
· diction over the action, should assume the lemd agencY~role based on the
existence of'the CEA and the fact that the anticipated im~cts are
primarily of local significance.
[ ] Other. (See comments below)
· Comments (Optional):
.Please review attatched info.
£]
P1 ease feel
discussion.
Response: t
Please respond to this request within 30 days of the date of this letter.
If no response is received within 30 days~ we will assume that you have no
objection to DEC or another agency assuming the role of lead agency, and have no
comments to offer regarding the proposed action at this tinm. If neither your
agency nor any other involved agency, including DEC, has indicated a will-
ingness to serve as lead agency within 30 days of this letter:
We w~ommissioner of DEC to designate 'a lead agency
C ] for this'action. ~ '
We w~Ssioner o~DEC to aesl~J~-~d4Jc~gency as
lea ng you have jurisdiction. '
free to contact this office for further information or
Enclosures
cc: (see distribution list}
Sincerely,
Susan Ackerman
Sr. Environmental Analyst
Reflen I- BIdB. dO eUNY
"APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
[] For ~be camtmcUon r-~c~ * -
[] ARTICLE 1S, ~ lS [] WATER SUPPLy [] LONC ISLAND WELL
ARTICLE 24 [FRESHWATER WETLANDS) [] Peri.it [] Letter of Permission
I. NA.ME OF APPLICANT:
william Geraghty by En-Consultants, Inc.
2. APPLICANT IS A/AN [] Iltdlvidual [] Partnership [] Assoclatimt
3. NAME AND TITLE OF OFFICIAL SIGNING APPLICATION
1329 North Sea Road
DOST OFFICE
SouthampTM
William Geraghty
STREET ADDRESS/DOST OFFICE
60 Harned Drive
Centerport
~Main Road, Ars~amomaque
Southold
Suffolk
[] Corporation
10-89-1243
[] M~nicipaJity [] Governmental A;encv
PHONE
516-283-6360
NAME OF STREAM OR OTHER WATER BODY:
Item 5b)
Near Arshamomaque Pond
STATE ZIP CODE
N.Y. 11968
PHONE
516-249-6644
STATE
:ZIP CODE
N.'Y. 11721
6. WILL PROJECT
UTILIZE STATE.OWNED
[] Yes [] NO
b) S~ecific project site o~ area is mar~l on U.S.C.S. or e~uivalent map, attached as Exhibit Number
7. PROPOSED USE: ~ Private 8. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: 9. APPROXIMATE COMPLETION DATE: 10. FEE OF
[] Public ~] Commercial ASAP
11. PROIECTDESCRIPTION: 6 months 10.00
Eeet of r,D-rap new channel; cubic Yards of material to be removed; draining dred~inlL fillin~ and location of disposal sites; type of strUctu re to be instaNed; height
of dam; size of impoundent; capacities of propsed water sources; extent of distribution system; etc.
Place approx±mat:ely 1000 c.y. to raise eZevation of exist±ng fill to
finished elevation of +7' above HST.
areas only. - Filling will occur on non-wetland
12. THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERMITS. APPLICATIONS FOR WHICH ARE T~E RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS;
[] Dam [] Excavation/Fill [] Stream Dit, urbance [] SPDES~NPOES [] Water Supply [] ~.We~ ,C.. ,~..E~eshw, ae~.Wetland
~] Tidal Wetlands
13. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF LOCALITY WHERE PROPOSED
WORKS ARE LOCATED: ; I ~. : ~
LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, Traveler Street, Southold, New York l
14. IS ANY PORTION OF THE ACTIVITY FOR WHICH A PERMIT I~ SOUCHT NOW "ECUN OR COMPLETED, JUL 2 4 1989
[] Yes ~ No If YES. explain in add
July 5 ~ ~ n ~ .--; ns.//d ges and costs of eve-- n- - . ' ' t~e project described
RD ~
NUMBER
NEW YORK ~TATE DEP~RTMENT OF ENV~MENTAL CONSERVATION ~
I
· t~te Envlrannme~ml Oeeii~y Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL A~E~ FOi~
Fo~ UNUS~ED ACTIONS Only
PART, Project Ii~,errnatlo. (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 10' 8 9- Z 3
William Geragh~y by En-Consultan~s, Inc.
~ Main Road, Arshamomaque c~,~ Suffolk
5, ~ ~ ~IiY:
~[ace a~=ox~ma=e[y [000 c.y. %o ~se elevation DE existing ~[~ ~o
~n~shed elevation o~ +7'~ above ~S~. ~[[~n~ ~[ occ~= on non-
6 · Prec~e I~'atmn (reed inter~eet~'! ~rorn~m°vlde rna~) ~~
/ Main Road, Arshamomaque x/
/ SCTM No. 1000-56-6-11.1, 11.2 ~
7. Ama~nt of la~ afrO: ~ ~
In~liy ] . ~ IC~ Ulttml~y ~ - 3 ac~ ~ .,,; ~:-%~'
~ y~ ~ NO If NO, d~H~ briefly ~
[] Asricuitum
Southold Trustees
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST Of MY KNOWLEDGE
RQv L. Pre~i ,
·
If the a~tlon is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
TRUSTEES
John M. Bredemeyer, IlL President
Albert J. Kmpski, Jr., Vice President
Henry p. Smith
John B. TutMll
William G. Albertson
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
7'6
SUPERVISOR /~
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
July 6, 1993
Eh-Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Roy Haje
1329 North Sea Road
Southampton NY 11968
Dear Mr. Haje,
PLA, NNINa, q BOARD
After a rather lengthy backlog in work due to this winters
storms, the Southold Town Trustees had an opportunity to visit
the site of Mr. Vincent Geraghty's recent development proposal
on June 17, 1993 for his commercial property at SCTM
#1000-56-4-133, & 13414 Main Road Southold NY.
The Trustees would like to make the following observations and
comments on this proposal:
1) The proposal to fill approx. 23,000 s.f. of wetlands in
order to donate a 20,024.24 s.f. parcel of questionable
conservation utility to the N.Y.S.D.E.C. ar other not for profit
entity is viewed by this office as not practical and of
extremely questionable merit. Our past experience tells us
there would be few bona-fide conservation organizations willing
to take a donation under these circumstances. The Town Trustees
would not likely accept in their own name such a donation linked
to wetland destruction of greater size than preserved and would
not recommend same to the Town Board of Southold.
2) We do not entirely agree with your belief that the wetlands
on the property are diminished in value due to their isolation
from contiguous wetlands or waters since this system is not
completely isolated from the wetlands of Mill Creek which is a
major wetland system in the Town of considerable value to our
commercial shellfishing industry.
3) We do agree with permitting reasonable use of this property
and are suggesting an alternative layout which would include a
CCA bridge, no division of land or "donation" and minimal
wetland incursions linked to a 1:1 wetland improvement program
for the existing degraded wetlands on the site.
4 ) Enclosed please find a sketch overlain on the licensed land
survey of Joseph Ingegno da.ted J~ 2i, 1992 and January 16,
1993 Which includes a gra.phlc r~tation of a possible plan
we believe could fly. This is g~ven with the explicit warr~ing
that there are many other a~e~iU i~O1~ for such a pro~x~al
and the potential of a lengthy review pursuant to the state
Environmental Quality Review Act (incl~ng the need for an
impact statement) cannot be z-aled out in a~y instance.
5) Since we have tried to leave your building plan intact we
would recommend you discuss it with representatives of the Town
Planning and Building Departments for their comments and
ascertain what additional approvals you will need.
6) The Trustees will endeavor to secure lead agency status for
this Project given the potential for wetland disturba~ce
surrounding any project on'this site.
If we can be of additional assistance please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
John M. Bredemeyer III
President, Board of Trustees
cc. Southold Planning Board/
Southold Building Dept. ~
C.A.C.
Charles Hamilton, NYSDEC
· Susan Ackerman, NYSDEC
Vincent Geraghty
Joseph Ingegno
JMB/djh
Ient
fo~ Supervisor
3095 Main Road
9Southold, NY 11971
~tn: J Bredemeyer
Dear Sirs,
Environmental Conservaflm
June 29, 1993
RE: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST
The purpose ~f this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environ-
mental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR
Part 617 the following:
SCO _. A mS
i
Suffolk Co De~c. Of Health
Suffolk County Center
Riverhead, ~ 11901 " ~ ~ ~ ' : F-'-~
Attn: Walter Lindley
i
~ ~]~ :;::.'" .. ::.._.,.:-~_.
1. Your agency's interest in acting as lead agency;
2. Your agency's jurisdiction in the action described below; and
3. -Issues of concern which your agency believes should be evaluated.
Enclosed is a copy of the permit application and a completed Part 1 of the
Environmental Assessment Form to assist you in responding.
Project Name: William & Vincent Geraghty
Project' Location: Main Road, Arshamomaque ~ ~
SCTM ~000-56-04-13.3, 13.4 & 14
DEc Project Number: 10-89-]243
fill in tidal wetlands for
the construction of a new
commercial facility (boat ~ales
and service)
DEC Permits:
Tidal Wetlands
SOU f~
SEQR Classification:
DEC Contact Person:
DEC Position:
[ ] Type I [X~[ Unlisted **.possible Type I action if project
zs within the Town's Ar'~-~omoaque,
Susan Ackerman Mill Creek Critical Environmental
Sr. Environmental Analyst Area.
(5 ]6)444-0365
DEC has no objecti6n to your agency or another agency 'assuming lead agency
status for this action, but reserves the right to comment on this action if
a positive determination of significance is made.
r ] O~::
·
pr':'
[ ] Otl'!
'C~mmentf:!..
ResPonse
If no re~
ob~ecti c, i
comments
agenc.v
· ingness ;,
[ :]
Ple~ !: f
discuss ii ( ,
Encl osur';):~
)C(S I
m'i : : ~
~ si!; '1 1:) ~1
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, .Ir.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
February 6, 1991
SCOTY L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Vincent P. Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island NY 11964
Request for waiver of site
plan for Boat Storage Yard
SCTM# 1000-56-4-13.2,
13.3, 13.4, & 13.5
Dear Mr. Geraghty:
The Planning Board has received your letter of January 17,
1991.
A site plan will be required for this project. Enclosed is
a site plan application for your use.
If you have any questions, or require further assistance
please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector
John Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Trustees
January 17, 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski
Chairman of the Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road, Southold, N.Y.
Vincent
12 Cozy
Shelter
Island, N.Y. 11964
Dear Mr. Orlowski,
I am re¢
property loca on the Main Road in Southold. Please see
survey enclosed and highlighted to the area which I intend
to store and display boats on this vacant property.
Thank you for your coorporation.
Cordially, ~
Vincent P.~ Geraghty
~ 2 2 1991
January 17, 1991
Mr. Bennett Orlowski
Chairman of the Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road, Southold, N.Y.
Vincent P. Geraghty
12 Cozy Lane
Shelter Island, N.Y.
11964
Dear Mr. 0rlowski,
I am requesting a waiver of the required sight plan on the
property located on the Main Road in Southold. Please see
survey enclosed and highlighted to the area which I intend
to store and display boats on this vacant property.
Thank you for your coorporation.
Cordially,
Vincent P: Geraghty
L L L
· ·
- :~ ~. · --,. ~ · · . r.. , .e .~ .......n: .... ~n,~ormaqon c-::rent:' ava;i~b;e and ;~!! not involve
each
i329 ~- ~' ~.-- ~ .~
.... i,
:._ ~..~ to hana!e ~'at~--__ now dra%ned ~y ep~n ",]u:=er " .Finished grade
-.; ,,,~:.:.. aea ievei~',
.. lit~ Description
~Fo~e~t 2a~rculture ~Other .....
2. Tot~i ~,:r~e oF ~., ,,..,,. ~:~..' .... ~ ~ 47 .._ acres.
.:o~:! ~'e~: ..[~:," ~.: · .,; :,. ~er Ar:;CI~s 24. 25 of E,L; 33 acres acres
U~ -~ ~R.> ;4~n ~r f,tl} · 89 acres i. 47 acres
.... ~cfes ,, _ totes
"~ ............................... acres ....... ~c:es
.... , ......... ~et, alfa:ne. ~q % Of site
m~-. .' ," ~;a:~zd ~-- G~ -,"c .',~'
.... · o~opes %
7 ~ pro~e.:: ~u~stan:~aHv con~guou~ :~ ~ s~te ~sted o~ :he Register of National Natural L~ndmark~ ~e~ ~o
- ~,r.,.~pa~, or ~cte ~urce aqutrer~ ~Yes ~No
up~ .u , .. ~resendy exist ~n .ne project area~ ~Yes ~NO
. ~, Or amrnal (ifa chat is identifi~
~..,.~:~ ~c ~c:~d ng to--~,.~~~_n~
d,~nt ~v eac~
?Fas ~ho Describe
~ ~-- neigi:borho~d as an open space or recreation area?
, ~ ~.; ,h.- ;,r,~t Site ;~c)ude s~nic view~ k~cwn to b~ ~mportant to :he c~mmuni~
15 5h'eams ,v~'~-;n O~ ccn:iguo~ tO project area; ~./a ,. a ~me Of Stream a~d nam( of R~.~er to which ~t is tributa~
a. ~ame ~ unn~4~ b, Size (In acres)
b} ;~ Yei. '*-iJ~ improvements be ~ecessaty :o ~!iow connection~ ~Yes ~No
l& ~s :~e s~:e ,c,c~.e~. m an aar,Cb,.ura( ~s:r;Ct c~rtif~ed pursuant to Agriculture and ~4ark~t~ Law, A~icJe 2S-AA,
Sectioa 303 and 304~ ~Yes KNo
!9 is the site ~ocated in or ~u~tan:~aUy contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuan( :o Arbcle 8
of the ECL. and 5 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes ~No
20. Ha~ the sire e~er been used fo~ the disposal of solid er hazardous wastes? ~Yes ~NO
B. Project Description
1. Physical d:.menslons and scaie c~ project .rfiil i~; dimensions as appropriate)
a, Tota~ contiguous acreage owned or controi~ed by project sponsor
b Projec~ ~creage to be ~eve;op~: I _ 47 acres initial!y;
c. Pro,er: ~:reage to re~a~n u~des.~oped acre~.
d. Leng:F <.f project :n miles: n/a (~ appropriate)
e. If the m'~)ec( is an ~x~ansion. indicate ~e,cent of expansion prbpos~d
f. Number of off-st~aet p~:king ~paces exis~in~., 0 ; proposed ,
~. ~,~x mum vemcu)ar [rios ~enerated per hour 0 (u~on completion of graject)~
· ,/.e o, housing uni~:
One Family Two Fatal y Multiple Family
'~m~e.:~,oas ~ n feet) of I~r~est a~eco~ed s~,;-.,,~ k ..
'~ .~ .~'~e~ ~;.~ ~ ', '-~-"'~ ~ ,,efa~ -- width;
. ,~,:ar ~: orrronta~e ~onc a .ubhc tho, oughf~re project wd] OcCUpy is~ ~ ft
3
1.4 7acres.
I. ~'7~_ acres ult mate)y
C'ondommium
length.
] 'e/ii! ~s~urbe~ ~r~s b~ !'ec.~am~, .~ves ;~NO
~V~. ,~sg ~.. s~.:zkpJed ~ec~am~om ~Yes ~No
' ~' "b~ ' For
c ~V ,ppe~ subso, ~a,:k~.J r~.Sarn~t~on~ ~'/es ~No
4. HO., m~%~,~ .... af ve&e:~{~e,,' ;:tees.".,,'-' t,...,~- ~round c~:.ers) will be removed from s~ce~ - - ~ acres,
5 W~h ~r:y rnutur~ fo~ ' ~-
, :'~.: ~-~ ye~:,s o d) or ~ther ~ocaliy-imparcan: vegetation be removed by th~s ~rojectl ·
,~. ~,,on.,:} a~p~r~n: ,:m ~ubsequent phases? ~Yes
8. W~JI b[astJn~ occur dvrh-~ ¢~cs~ruct~on~ ~Yes ~No
9. Number.-'~ ,.,~-:- 8ene~Meo: dt;-in~ con,truer]on ~ ., a~ter projec:
12. :s ~uHa:~ ~q;:~d,~s.~'~ '~' ~;:,p,~s~ involved.; ~Yes ~Nc
~. ;~am~ al w~te, ~ ',~"~., ~n~e which ~'.,.~u....~-, wilt be dlschatged. ~_ ~ ,
.... su ..... ,.~u,~ ~a~:e d;~pc~al mvolg~d~ OYes ~No TTpe .,,
Explain _ _
15. Is ~rgje¢~ or any por~lc~ o~ject ~ocated in a !~ year flood p{ain~
16, Wzl] the ~cje.ct gen,~rat~ sal:d ~aste? ~Yes
&. 'if ~e~, ~hat i~ the amo¢~n¢ p~r month tons
..... ~.,.~ solid ~'~st~ .~cm~ be used~ ~Yes ONe
c !f Ye;. $;v~ nm~e .... location
17
Wdf the project ir, voive :he dispo-:ai of solld wastel
a if yes, wha~ is ',he amicipated ,ate of disposal? ,
b. If yes, whac is the ar, tlc;pared site Fife?,
OYes ~No
tons/month.
year~.
~;No
19 Will :;rcie:t routine!,( produce odors (mere than one hour per da.v)~ ,'~,Yes ~No
20 Will project prcduc* oparati~g noi~e exceeding the )ocal ambient ~oise tevels~ ~Yes
If yes indicate
22. I~ water :uO~ly is ~ - ~
2~. T~ta{ antic~ate~ wR:et u~ge pet day 'n~& ~allons/daV.
· .~-~,, State or Federal funding) ~Yes
4
2~. App:-',val3 Req~,;rcG.'
Other Loca: Age~:c)es ~Ye~ ~No ~~
Othe' ~eg~Ona{ A,~e~C~es ~Yes ~No
State Agencies ~Yes ~NO ~EC, ~
Fe~e,'al A~e~c~es ~)es ~NO
Submittal
Date
'//8
if ?e~. red,cz;ce d~c:~io~ required:
~.~,.. r~,.,, :~ ? m~F ~)an ~rescurce management plan ~o~her _
] 'H%a~ :~ th- ....... --.t',~ deve)oomen~ o~ th~ -" if de,eloped ~, permit:ed by the present ~onin~?
p .... ~-xe,o? .eh, or the site if developed as po-mitred by the proposed ~oning~
~ .... ~cns~tent ~,,~th the ~ec~mmend~ uses in adopted local ~n~ use pians~ ~Tes
W'.~: ~,.:; :he ~.,~:~mman~ ,gnu users) ~nd zoning c(assificafions w~hi~ a '4 mi{~ radius af proposed aclion~
Co~.~e ~ cia!
~ Is the ,~rc.~osed action ..... .a.,~Je wi=h ad~oh~:n&'surtounding I~nd uses wi:bin a % miie~ ~Yes
9 ff [h~ proposed ~c~:,~,~ ~ [~a su~d vision ~f iend~ how many tots ~re proposed~
~ ...... ~c. on reqa~r~ ~c,;. ~u.nofiZa~lo~} for ~he' formation cf sewer or wa:er d,s[rictst ~Yes
!1 Wit~ the propc~ed ac:ioc create a demand for any ¢ommu.hv provided Services (recreauon. education,
a. ~f 'le~. i~ ~x~sh~ ca~::;cv 3uff=c~e~t tc handle projected dem~nd~ ~Yes ~No
~2. WHJ :he =r~osed ~c:~On ra:u:~ ,,~ ..c gen~ra:io~ of er=flit significantly above present ;evels? ~Yes ~No
a. if yes. is :he e~i~t~p~ road ..~o,k ~dequate to handle the additional tra~fic~ ~'fes ~No
O. Informational Deta't~
~ttach a~7 ~dEitio~ai Enformat(on as may' be needed to clot;f), yOu~ project. If there are or may be any adv,-se
~mpac~ ~ssoclated wkh you: ~ro~csai. A~ease discuss tach impacts and the measures which you propose ~o mitigate
avoid them
E. Verification
I ce~if,/ [ha/~e in/f~.rn_arion pro.~ided above is true to the best of my knowledge
Si~natvre ' ~'~'~/~" Title P~'esiclenl;
Roy ~[~. Hai~ ,
the actiaq ;s ~A ~ C~(aFAr~a, ~n4 you
~ith thlz ~s~essment.
Date __ 8/23/89
are d state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before p,'oceed:ng
., STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATJ N '"
~~m Geraghty by En-Consultants, Inc.
Co~.~ Near Arshamomaque Pond
Suffolk
PROIECT DE, ~0. 0 0 Enclos~
Place approximately 1000 c.y. to raise elevation of existing fill to
finished elevation of +7' above MSL
areas only. - Filling will occur on non-wetland
eet, Southold, New York 1~71
DIVISION OF RECULATORy AFFAIRS
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
William Gerac by En-Con__sultan~s, linc.
M.,,ci..li~ Main Road, Arshamomaque
[] N,,, [] Ex.a.s~o. [] Modificat'o.lalteration
Place approximately 1000 c.y. to raise
finished elevation of +7'+ above MSL.
wetland areas only. --
10-89-1243
Co..tv SuffOlk
elevation of existing fill to
Filling will occur on non-
Main Road, Arshamomaque
SCTM No. 1000-56-6-11.1, 11.2
1000-56-4-3,12,13,14
Will acte~
[] Yes [] 'No If No. describe briefly
[] Residential [] tndusti'ial [] Commercial
Describe: .
] Agricu~t ul'e
arklandlol~q sl~ace [] Other
Southold Trustees
If the action Is in the Coastal Areal and you nrc a :t
Coastal Assessment Form bolere procoe~lnO W,Ih ' ' Omplete the
, ,__ ,*hi= assessment
FOP~/~ER OWNER
RES.
LAND
Tillable
Woodland
Mealdowland
SEAS.
IMP.
STREET
N
TOTAL
FARM
DATE
/
VILLAGE
E
W
ACR. J
TYPE OF BUILDING
COMM.. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value
REMARKS
,,,~ /
FRONTAGE ON WATER
FRONTAGE ON ROAD
DEPTH
BULKHEAD
House Plot '
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PROPERTY RECORD CARD
-~OWNER STREET (=:~,.~/ ~,~ VILLAGE DIST. SUB...._.~ LOT
FOYER OWNER , ' ~ N E ~Ri/~ J
I
S ~ W ~PE OF BUILDING
RES. S~S. VL. -~{~ FARM CO~. CB. MI~. Mkt. Value
~ND IMP. TOTAL DATE R~RKS ~,~,~p ~ ~ ~p~,~ Z.~
/ , '/ / / / ·
Tillable FR
Meadow ~nd DEPTH ~6 /
House Plot
Total
/oo~-.s'~'-fz-//TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD
~ ~ ~ ~i,P)" VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT
STREET
" . <.... ~.o 0.80
. . . S/ /~,~ i~A ;;~ ¢72 ~PEOFBUILDING/~
R~. S~S. VL.~/~ FARM CO~. CD. MI~. Mkt. Value
~ND ~. IMP. TOTAL DATE R~RKS
/ /' , '/
.
, ~/~
....
AGE BUILDING CONDITION
N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE
FARM Acre Velue Per Velue
Acre
Tilleble FRONTAGE ON WATER
W~l~nd FRONTAGE ON ROAD
M'ead~l~nd DEPTH
Hou~ Pier BULKH~D
Total ~K
~) COUNTY OF
~ ~*~'z neol rroper~y Tax Service Agency
LOI',~
ESO,~
i zs.ooo 5.P.
250,0
5.[,9'o.4' 2o'v,z
I, LDT MO5, IZEFE',",! T~ '1 ~,P OF C,k 5ANFOr).g B,gi,,' V.. CO ; '-~'"
0
200.00'
PARCEL
MEADOW
IRON Pi~E 153.91
.R=1954.61'
L=139.71'
(D
?~ ~ ~ Real ProDe~y [ox Service Agency ?.L~C*~' / 056
~:: ~ .......... ,,-..,.-~, .......... , I: ...... /,.o ........
LEGEND
POLITICAL BOUNDARIES:
State
County
Town or City
incorporated Village
Park or Reservation
WETLANDS CATEGORIES :'
IM
HM
FM
SM
FC
ds
LZ
Intertidal Marsh
High Marsh or Salt Meadow
Coastal Fresh Marsh
Coastal Shoals, Bars and Madflats
Formerly Connected Tidal Wetlands
Dredge Spoil
Littoral Zone
Areas adjacent to tidal wetlands
Landward extent of tidal wetlar
Wetlands category bound
250°O
s,6,¢o4' ao",v.
15LAND
~,ILI2OAD
F
/
/ :'IZF MOt%UMENT
(~:- PIPE
4/¢7
LONG ISLAND NAILROAD
(M,'r,A,) L=139.71'
N 69'04'20" E 412.64' R=1954.61'
M~DOW
OVERH b.~D WIRES
./-PROPOSED
~r
U~Lmf POLE
133.91' R=1964.86'
S 69°04'20" W
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
FOR VINCENT GERAGHTY
SITUA TED A T
ARSHAMOMAQUE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
S.C: TAX No. 1000-56-04-1.5.5
,1 000-56,-04- 1 ,5.4
1000-56-04-'-.14
'SCALE 1"=20'
JULY 2t, 1992
JANUARY 16 1993 (PROPOSED BUILDING)
.MAY SO 1993 (REVISED PROPOSED DRAINAGE PIPE)
SEPTEMBER 2, igD$ '(FILL AREA) ,
NOVEMBER ,17, 1993 (REVISED PROPOSED BUILDINO)
DECEMBER 21, 1995 (ADDED s, EPTIc X-SECTION AND WETLANDS O/S)
MARCH 28, 1994 (REVISIONS AS.PER D.E.C. 'NOTICE DATED MARCH 10, 1994)
JULY, 1'2; 3994 (REVISE? MAP SCALE)
FEBRUARY 17,' 1997 (REVISED SITE pLAN)
JoSeph A. ingegn:o
Title Surveys -- SubdFvi$ions - Site Plan$ --
r
' PHONE (516)727-2090 '
' OFRCES LOCATED AT , '
: One ) U,n, ion Square
Aqueb~§ue, New Yo~ 1~31 , ; ,,
Cohstruction Loyout
Fox (516)722-5095
MAIUNG ADD~£SS'
APPLICANT:
VINCENT GERAGHTY
WILLIAM GERAGHTY
P,O. BOX 768
SHELTER ISLAND, NEW
YORK 11964
LOT AREAS
44,062.81 sq. fi.
PARCEL 1 1.0115 ac.
20,024.24 sq. fl,
PARCEL 2 0.4597 oc.
64,087.05 sq. fl,
TOTAL 1.4712 Dc.
TEST HOLE DATA
11,
17'
1. FRONT YARD SETBACK: 55' (MIN.)
REAR YARD SETBACK: 25' (MIN.)
SIDE YARD SETBACK: 25' (MIN.)
2. LOT NUMSERS REFER TO MAP OF'
ROAD
OLD
8.1'
PROPOSED
DETAIL A
SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL
Di~TRIBbTION pOOL OF
5 pOOL ~'TEM
LE~CHING
POOL
EL B.7'
-- I.
N 69'04'20" E
DETAIL D
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
LEACHING
DETAIL B
SHRUB BARRIER DETAIL
(NOT TO ~LE)
LINE OF
DETAIL C
HAY BALE & SNOW FENCE
OETAIL
(NOT TO S~LE)
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
412.64'
APPLICANT;
VINCINT GERAGHTY
WILLIAM GERAGHTY
P.O. BOX 768
SHELTER ISLAND, NEW
YORK
R=1934.61'
L=l $9.7 1' i
200.00'
M~ADOW
)F fill.
PARC Ep~-.F i~°'
SHRUB
11964
S 69'04'20"
Joseph A.
Land Su
Ingegno
rveyor
Sile Plans -- Construction Layout
Fax (516)722-5093
MAILING ADDRESS
P,O, Box 1931
R~verhead, New York 11901
N,Y,S, Lic. No. 49666
OLD
L~-'454.05, >,$ ~'~.~- ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
ROAD
FOR
PROPOSED SITE PI,AN
VINCENT GRRAGHTY
SITUA TED A T
ARSHAMOMAQUE
IOWH OF SO
SUFFOLK
S.C TAX
UTHOLD
COUNTY, NEW YORK
No. 1000-56-04-13 5
1000-56-04-15.4
1000-56-04-14
SCALE 1" =30'
JULY 21, 1992
JANUARY 16, 1995 (PROPOSED BUILDING)
MAY 50, 1995 (REVISED PROPOSED DRAINAGE PIPE)
SEPTEMBER 2, 1995 (FILL AREA)
NOVEMBER 17, 1993 (REVISED PROPOSED BUILDING)
DECEMBER 21, 199,5 (ADDED SEPTIC X-SECTION AND WETLANDS O/S)
MARCH 28, 1994 (REVISIONS AS PER D.E.C. NOTICE DATED MARCH 10, 1994)
LOT AREAS
44,062.81 sq. ff.
PARCEL 1 1.0115 ac.
20,024.24 sq. ff.
PARCEL 2 0.4597 oc.
TOTAL 64,087.05 sq. ff.
1.47t2 oo.
NOTES:
1. FRONT YARD SETBACK: 35' (MIN.)
REAR YARD SETBACK: 25' (MIN.)
SIDE YARD SETBACK: 25' (MIN.)
PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 1 SPACE
REQUIRED: 4,800 sq. ff. + 250 =
PROVIDED: 15 SPACES
FOR EVERY 250
19 SPACES
sq, fl. OF BLDG. AREA
LEGEND:
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED LIGHT POST
DRAINAGE PITCH ARROW
TEST HOLE DATA
17,
NOTES:
1. LOT NUMOERS REFER TO MAP OF
C.L. SANFORD BRICK COMPANY, INC.
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK COUNTY
ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1951 AS FILE No. 559
2. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERANCED TO N.G.V,D.
98-161B3
FOR
,~PARCEL 2~
S 69'04'20" W 153.91' R=1964.86' ~. .... '" '" '"'
Joseph A. Ingegno
Lond Surveyor
P.O. Box 1931
Riverheod, New York 11901
(516)727-2090
Fax # (516)722-5093
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
OLD MAIN RoAD
SUI:'FOLK
S.C. TAX
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
VINCENT CRRAGHT, Y
SITUA TED A T
ARSHAMOMAQUE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY, NEW YORK
No. 1000-,56-04- 13.3
1000-,56-04-13.4
1000-,56-04-1 4
BUILDING)-
SCALE 1" =30'
JULY 21, 1992
JANUARY 16, 199*..% (PROPOSED
MAY 30, 199,3 (REVISED PROPOSED DRAINAGE
LOT AREAS
PARCEL 1 1.0115
20,024.24 mq. ff.
PARCEL 2 0.4597
TOTAL ,, 64,087.05 .q. ft.
TEST HOLE DATA
NOTES: 1,i PABCEL 2 TO BE DEDICATED TO THE D.E.c. OR
2.' AREA DE W£T/ANDS TO BE El/lED: 25,000 sq. fi.
PIPE) ,
SOUTHOLD ' TO~N. . ~.,
r?'
NOTES:
I, LOT NUMBERS REFER TO MAP OF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ' ' '
ON SEPTEMBER 2~ 1951 AS FILE No. 559
2. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERANCED TO N.GoV.D.