The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-57.-1-38.3 (2) l TO: Albert J . Krupski Jr . , President , Trustees FROM: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan reviewer SUBJECT: Brick Cove Marina SCTM# 1000-57-1 -38. 3 Zoning District : Marine I (M- 1 ) DATE: November 23 , 1994 Mr. Howard Zehner has given us revised plans with Health Department Approval on the above referenced project . We would appreciate your review of the status of the Trustee Permit in order for this Board to finalize the site plan . Have all twenty two (22) conditions on the permit been met? cc : Laury Dowd, Town Attorney y �� 0: BOB SOUTH Bob Kassner's profile FROM: LAURYD SOUTH Laury Dowd's user profile DATE: October 17, 1994 / SUBJECT: Brick Cove The Trustees adopted an EIS and issued a wetlands permit to Brick Cove (I think it was very similar to what had been approved before). The recent court decision says that the Trustees acted properly and threw Frank Flynn out of court. You should check that the approved site plan is still in sync with the Trustee approval and what's in the ground. IF that is OK, you can go ahead and finalize your approval . to = LAURY L. DOWD Town Attorney Town Pa110. Box11s79 Road Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: TRUSTEES TOWN BOARD PLANNING BOARD FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY/AO) RE: FLYNN V. SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1994 The court has rendered its decision in the above-titled case in favor of the Town. This was an action brought by Mr. Flynn to challenge the SEQRA determination of the Trustees in issuing a wetland permit for an expansion of Brick Cove Marina. In a prior action the court had required the Trustees to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the environmental effects of expansion. The Trustees prepared a lengthy EIS. Mr. Flynn challenged that EIS in this action, saying that it failed to adequately address the environmental issues. The court held that the relevant areas of environmental concern were identified and discussed. The Town had imposed conditions which lessened any possible adverse consequences. The court concluded that there had been no showing that the development is incompatible with the purposes of the Tidal Wetlands Act, and upheld the Trustee action. A full copy of the decision is available from my office upon request. 1 will advise you if an appeal of the decision any questions. is filed. Please call me if you have cc: Town Clerk Bruce Anderson o d , Lj S0 1 iN010 TIP,7f�l'.-J illQKO 'kl Jr t :........ .n 'Oeorge Ritchie Latham. Jr. '. ��// Richard G. Ward fawn Hall, 531NS Main Road Mark S. McDonald 1'.0. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 i Howard Zehner November, 19 , 199 (((( r R 10 T R (� ! D 1 Lr Brick Cove Marina i 140 Sage Boulevard P.O. Box 250 Greenport, New York 11944 SOUiwiw PLNI('1 G BOARD Re: Site plan application for Brick Cove Marina Sage Road, Southold Dear Mr. Zehner: SCTM # 1000-57-1-38. 3 The Planning Board adopted the following resolution at its meeting on November 18, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED That the Planning Board confirm and acknowledge for the record that it participated as an involved agency during the environmental review of this proposal in which the Southold Board of Town Trustees was the lead agency; and that the Board of Trustees issued a Negative Declaration on September 26, 1991, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board conditionally approves the site plan dated November 4, 1991 subject to receipt of the November 4, 1991 site plan bearing the approval stamp of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and all conditions required by the Town Board of Trustees. If you have any questions, please call this office for assistance. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jx✓ rn's Chairman CC: John Bredemeyer, III , President, Board of Trustees Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector �r A' Board Of Southold Town T + rustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK k x_38.3 PERMIT NO. 4268 DATE: ..12/21/93 ISSUED TO ... COVE MARINA Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of A e State of New York, 1893; and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the {; $tate of New York 1952; and the Southold Town Ordinance en t;4 titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS . s� IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM !� LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;" and in accordance with the 141 ' Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on _ .12./21/.93 l / a 19 _93, consideration of the sum of and in conidti $- 150.00paid by , HOWARD _ZEHNER of Brick Cove. Marina. , ' 'f of Gi21ENPORT N. Y. and subject to the ¢ Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse side hereof, of Southold Town Trustee ,autho izes dd�� er it the {{oll `I fl: & improve opera ions from 9r $oatm slips to 4 �� 3 anc j ��jslips incl. fuel dock, work boat slip & serv. slip p parkin ;� improve g .'areas, landscape, install & maintain marina head pump-out fac in paved washdown platform with sediment & oil separation system, A� Minstalt o �7,�, �� .` 2111 xacar�3e M� t" tem r arkin are �e ai specs Ica ons as$resen edre�ocate j the originating application. & improve exist. on-site sanitary sys ;4dredge 2900 cy, 350 cy of slope sredging, approx. 550 cy at bas" ientrance tolN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees here- J by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to 1 ' be subscribed by a malorify oft said Board as of this date. marina inside in, SUBJECT to tt he n itio S. FF IL Ln r 4 -�Rraetees ... ...... r 5 n. <f ' W C TRUSTEES `- John M. Bredemeyer, III, President ��\iJ�11fF0(' SUPERVISOR Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President SCOTT L. HARRIS Henry P. Smith o y< John B. Tuthill W x Town Hall ` tl William G. Albertson 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 l ?� Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 22, 1993 Mr. Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates 1 Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport NY 11944 Re: SCTM #57-1-38. 3 ;0 Dear. Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees at their Special Meeting of December 21, 1993 : WHEREAS, the owner of Brick Cove Marina ( "Applicant" ) has proposed to modernize and improve marina operations from 91 previous boat slips to 138 boat slips and three ancillary boat slips including fuel dock, work boat slip and service slip on a site formally known as Young's Marina, 12. 5 acres in size of which 4.2 acres are owned underwater lands, improve parking areas, landscape, install and maintain a marina head pump-out facility, install a paved washdown platform with sediment and oil separation system, install a storm drain interception system for parking area, relocate and improve an existing on-site sanitary system, and dredge 2900 cubic yards 350 cubic yards of slope dredging, .and approximately 550 cubic yards at the basin entrance to the marina inside the basin ( "Action") ; AND WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees as an operating entity was created over 315 years ago to help manage the Town' s common natural resources and has been empowered to regulate wetlands pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code; AND WHEREAS, THE Board of Trustees has assumed Lead Agency pursuant to the provisions in the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( "SEQRA" ) and are familiar with the Action, site conditions and the surrounding environment; AND WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees received a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS") for the Action and deemed it complete on September 30, 1993; AND WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees held a public hearing on October 28, 1993 and accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS" ) on December 6, 1993 which addressed all comments raised in connection with the Action and the DEIS; AND WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees have considered the Environmental Impact Statement and the required Findings Statement; NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees find that the requirements set forth in SEQRA and Chapter 44 of the Town Code have been satisfied; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of trustees find the Action to be consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives in minimizing or avoiding adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustee find the adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision, those mitigation measures which were identified as practicable, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Action is consistent with the standards of Chapter 97 of the Town Code, and will not substantially affect the wetlands of the Town, substantially and adversely effect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitats thereof and otherwise not substantially and adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the Finding Statement prepared for the Action and file such Finding Statement with the Commissioner of the NYSDEC for publication in the Environmental New Bulletin; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Action is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Lateral movement of residual spoil shall be controlled by the placement of hay bales placed end to end and firmly staked into place along the boundaries of the "Temporary Spoil Disposal and Dewatering Location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. , last amended August 10, 1993 ("Survey" ) . Such hay bales shall remain in place until landscaping is completed. 2. A row of hay bales placed end to end and staked into place shall be placed along the seaward boundary of the proposed storm drain interception system water except where it crosses the asphalt ramp and washdown platform. The hay bales shall remain in place until the parking areas, storm drain r interception system are constructed and the landscaping is completed. 3. The stormwater interception system and washdown platform shall be constructed in accordance with the Survey. 4 . All power washing of boat bottoms shall be limited to the washdown platform as depicted on the Survey. 5. The washdown collection system shall be periodically maintained and accumulated materials shall be disposed at a suitable upland location. 6. All septic leaching systems within 75 feet of wetlands as identified on the survey shall be relocated outside of 75 feet from same. 7. All proposed landscaping except turf with 75 feet of mean high water shall be of species native or near-native to Long Island as to preclude the need for regular fertilizer or biocide application. All turf shall be of fescue or similar low maintenance variety. 8. The marina shall continue to provide clean restrooms available 24 hours a day for the use of marina patrons. 9 . A boat pump-out facility shall be maintained for the collection of boat wastes for the use of all boaters docked at Brick Cove Marina and vessels coming to same. The marina may charge a fee for the use of the pump-out facility as to cover its costs of purchase and operation. 10. All boats docked at the marina having fixed installed toilets shall also be equipped with holding tanks which permit the collection and pump-out of boater wastes. 11. All seacocks of sanitary system "Y" valves shall be in closed position and sealed by means of suitable tag or device. 12. Logs shall be maintained of use of the pump-out facility and shall indicate for each boat and owner having been serviced: the date of pump-out, name of employee servicing PumP-out, the vessel registration number, the volume of S PumP-out, and "Y" valve seal date. 13. Logs shall be made available to the Board of Trustees, Bay Constable and any federal, state or local public health, environmental or building code enforcement official requesting same on any unannounced inspection. 14. Collected boat wastes shall be disposed at the scavenger treatment plant, or in the septic system on site. The marina shall maintain records including receipts from treatment plants is appropriace' or date and volume of pump-out if disposed in an on-site septic system. 15. The Applicant shall install an osprey nesting platform at the 9. 0 foot spot elevation at the southwest terminus of the peninsula adjacent to the channel entrance to the marina (designated as 9. 0 on the Survey) in accordance with the attached plans and specifications. 16. Specific language in the leases of prospective marina Patrons shall include provisions to control engine noise with mufflers and secure all loose halyards with proper tie offs or face loss of marina privileges. 17. Docks proposed as the innovative floating design shall be maintained with the same functional attributes as described in the Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed project. 18. There shall not be more than 138 boats on the site excluding the temporary docking of a boat at a service slip or fuel slip, work boats, prams, dinghies or unmotorized row boats. 19. Only "non-toxic" anti-freeze shall be used on site. 20. Inspections pursuant to Chapter 97 and this permit shall be performed by the Board of Trustees or Bay Constable upon 24-48 hours notice at a -cost not to exceed $280. 00 for: a. Installation of hay bales as Permit Condition #1 and #2 ( 2 inspections) . b. Installation or construction of stormwater interception system and washdown platform ( 1 inspection) . C. Removal of septic system within 75 feet of wetlands and construction of septic system beyond 75 feet from wetlands (2 inspections) . d. Inspection of Logs (2 inspections) . e. Construction of the Osprey Nesting Platform (1 inspection) . 21. The Board of Trustees at its discretion may annually charge the Marina for one inspection at the prevailing inspection fee rate in order to offset ongoing expenses to the Town in monitoring the pump-out compliance requirement of this permit. 22. A copy of these permit conditions shall be posted on site. Vote of the Board, ALL AYES. r - - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, ` -- `� '2.hn M. Br idIII President, Board of Trustees 'tip ra[ r PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �s 1 Richard G. Ward, Chairman :, :? � ✓ v� George Ritchie Latham, Jr. , = p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road �� P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. a" '__'•' Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonaldv� . t �'�-•J -� -;v�r;S` Fax (516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Albert J . Krupski Jr . , President , Trustees FROM: Robert G. Kassner , Site Plan reviewer SUBJECT: Brick Cove Marina SCTM# 1000-57-1 -38 . 3 Zoning District : Marine I (M- 1 ) r DATE : November 23 , 1994 Mr. Howard Zehner has given us revised plans with Health Department Approval on the above referenced project . We would appreciate your review of the status of the Trustee Permit in order for this Board to finalize the site plan . Have all twenty two (22) conditions on the permit been met? cc: Laury Dowd , Town Attorney SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER " I DATE: �I6'T-� SENDER: NQI,UCwt. Zehner' t SUBJECT: SCTM!= : COMMENTS: ocr 7 � L s J • , F o�OSOFFOC,f-�D �,B CD s C* 2 LAU O Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Townwn Attorney y � P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 Telephone(516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: TRUSTEES TOWN BOARD PLANNING BOARD FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY//0 RE: FLYNN V. SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1994 The court has rendered its decision in the above-titled case in favor of the Town. This was an action brought by Mr. Flynn to challenge the SEQRA determination of the Trustees in issuing a wetland permit for an expansion of Brick Cove Marina. In a prior action the court had required the Trustees to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the environmental effects of expansion. The Trustees prepared a lengthy EIS. Mr. Flynn challenged that EIS in this action, saying that it failed to adequately address the environmental issues. The court held that the relevant areas of environmental concern were identified and discussed. The Town had imposed conditions which lessened any possible adverse consequences. The court concluded that there had been no showing that the development is incompatible with the purposes of the Tidal Wetlands Act, and upheld the Trustee action. A full copy of the decision is available from my office upon request. I will advise you if an appeal of the decision is filed. Please call me if you have any questions. cc: Town Clerk Bruce Anderson r � � A 1 T'1994 1 0 i Ifi1 D Tl71'-,( "j iNG • Rr; SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER DATE: SENDER: HbwaAd, zemer- (� 1 SUBJECT: SCTM# : COMMENTS: PB IpkS t pn-n b: OCT :1994 i t � _ 3 SOUiF1JL,, ['Wd J PLAN%6?G 80AP0 0 �gOFFOI ��0� COGy cz PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS co x SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Dy �� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. ?J O Richard G. Ward �� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (5 16) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 19, 199 Howard Zehner Br' Cove Marina 16'40 Sage Boulevard OC1 7 a ' P.O. Box 2501 Greenport, New York 11944 SOUTHULD TUM PLANNING BOAPI) Re: Site plan application for Brick Cove Marina Sage Road, Southold Dear Mr. Zehner: SCTM # 1000-57-1-38 . 3 The Planning Board adopted the following resolution at its meeting on November 18, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED That the Planning Board confirm and acknowledge for the record that it participated as an involved agency during the environmental review of this proposal in which the Southold Board of Town Trustees was the lead agency; and that the Board of Trustees issued a Negative Declaration on September 26, 1991, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board conditionally approves the site plan dated November 4, 1991 subject to receipt of the November 4, 1991 site plan bearing the approval stamp of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and all conditions required by the Town Board of Trustees. If you have any questions, please call this office for assistance. siincerely, /� ® / L1� Mzv—C/�(,19wg.GLi Bennett Orlowski, J . ""S Chairman cc: John Bredemeyer, III , President, Board of Trustees Victor Lessard, Principal. Building Inspector F . M. Flynn P . 0. Box 144 , Southold , N . Y. 11971 LAS(516 ) 477 - 0698 Hq.e.4E November 15 , 1993 Superintendent Ray Jacobs Southold Highway Department Peconic Lane Peconic , N. Y. 11958 Re; Brick Cove DEIS Dear Superintendent Jacobs : As you are no doubt aware , the Brick Cove marina is engaged in the delivery of substantial cubic yardage of dredged spoil to the Southold landfill. This is in addition to the large quantities of this material previously delivered. Presumably, it is intended to use this spoil as a cap for the landfill. You may not have been informed of comments pertinent to this matter contained in Cramer, Voorhis & Associates review of Brick Cove' s DEIS, prepared for Southold' s Planning Board and dated November 2 , 1993 . On page four, under the heading "Impact on Land" Cramer Voorhis states : "Page V-3 indicates negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important . Other parts of the Draft EIS have characterized the spoil as silty and Appendix 6 indicates a presence of heavy metals in marina sediments. What is the suitability of this material for positive drainage on site or landfill cover off site in view of thesequalities. " (emphasis supplied. This section also states : "It is noted that page VI-3 in the Mitigation Section indicates +: that all spoil will be removed from the site. This conflicts with statements on page V-2 which indicates that spoil may stay on site. If spoil is removed , the number of truck trips , hours of operation, impact on the right of way , traffic , and wear and tear on the right of way and town roads should be discussed. It is recognized that much of the spoil bas already been removed from the site; however these impacts should be considered in the context of: 1 ) visible or recorded impacts of spoil already removed ; and, 2 ) potential impact involving further spoil removal.1i In view of the State of New York' s obvious concern for ground water resources in the area, the use of fill which may well be contaminated by heavy metals is a matter of no little import. Very(/ truly yours ,.;;;kY F. M yn cc: DEC Efl L I AON Southold Planning Board Southold Trustees [ - � PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS a # SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Ward,Chairman mJ ,111, "y„ Supervisor a -. �- George Ritchie latha ,Jr. � Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - ; Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald '-�rcz---_ P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold,New York 11971 Telephone(5 16)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: John M. Bredemeyer III, President, Board of Trustees FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman AAA, SUBJECT: Draft EIS Brick Cove Marina DATE: November 5, 1993 Attached are the Planning Board' s comments on the above referenced EIS, as prepared by its consultants in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 8 (C) . Please incorporate these comments into the public record for this project. Further, it is our recommendation that the applicant be asked to supply the missing information, ( that which was requested in the scoping session, but not provided in this document) , in a supplemental DEIS. Please do not hesitate to call this office if you have any questions. r J" G PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS a" SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Ward,Chairman w George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Supervisor 4> '1` d .�� Bennett Orlowski,Jr. _ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald 's z,-��-}�- P.O.Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516) 765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: John M. Bredemeyer, President Board of Trustees FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman SUBJECT: Draft EIS Brick Cove Marina DATE: October 29,1993 The Planning Board will have comments on the above project and will send them to you before the close of the comment period of November 8, 1993 . E F . i4. Flynn P . n. Rox 144 Southold , N . Y . 11971 2 7 ( r, 16 ) 477 - 0598 Be : Comments on Briet Cove Marina DEIS General The subject property is spot zoned , nonconforming, inaccessible , represents a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community and has adverse impacts on both the environment and the values of surounding properties , The Sa,e Estuary has been trated by the Trustees as if it were the exclusive , private preserve of the marina and a series of expansion permits have been issued reardless of the impact:: on the 0;° +/- of residentially zoned undererater land owned by others or on the vastly lar,;er tract of surrounding , low density , residentially zoned upland . Historically , the Tr•unt.ee^ have displayed a palpable bias in favor of the appl.icnnt and n cavalier disrer;ard of SEGRA re,ulations . THe Trustees , with full knowledge and deliberately , have permitted the marina to expand and operate for at. least the last two years without a permit from the Suffolk County Department of Health , a prerequisite for any type of construction . The onsite drainage indicated on the site plan has not been installed nor has has the wash-down platform etc . Nither has the parkin,; area been surfaced in accordance with the site plan. Indicative of the Trustees ' cooperation , if not to say collusion , with the marina onerator la that , with their knowledge , he has , among other things , twice violated court orders , illegally commenced the widening of Sage Blvd .and , in so doing deposited debris in the freshwater wetlands . He has also dredged on the property of others , outside the perimeter of his property. In these latter instances , the Rav Constable isued summonses which have beenignored . Most recently , the owner has again conducted extensive dredrinr- onerati.ons outside his property lines and on underwater lanvi owned by others. There was not even public notice of this intent nor was the owner of the underwater land notified . The Trustees issued supplementary permits regardless of Judge Luciano ' s decision . Glhen the Bay Constable investigated this latest outrageous action , he was instructed to ignore it by the Town Attorney. Subsequent to the Supreme Court rlecini-on requiring the DEIS , the Trustees have continued to cooperate in the implementation of the owner' s expansion . This expansion has been permitted by the Trustees without either demolition or building permits . Not only do the Trustees admit. they have exersi_ed no supervision over the construction , but they admit, they have neither the time nor the expertise to do so. Further the town has been deprived of the revenue the permits would have produced . The biased actions of the Trustees coincide with Chairman Rredemeyer ' s stated intention to remove the moorings from other town creeks and concentrate them in Sage estuary as a public mooring. All in all , this DEIS is what one could anticipate from a preparer who also served as the engineering consultant to the owner in the preparation of the expansion plan. On their part , the Trustees intend to have the DEIS reviewed by a person whose impartiality is suspcot as a virtual "in house" employee of the Trustees . (See Code Sec . 100-23 , 100-235 , 100-241A) AM Zoning Even a cursory look at Southold ' s Zoning Plop indicates that that the supject property represents a prima facie case Of spot zoning. Litle else can be expected of a so called Master Plan which , based on political considerations legitimized previously nonconforming properties by placing them in districts regadless of their ability to conform to the requiremants of said districts . The subject propperty consists of an isolated , interior parcel rezoned by the Plaster Plan into a commercial district permitting intensive and incompatible uses and located in the midst of approximately 150 acres or more of low density residential zoning. The New York State Court of Appeals has held that spot zoning singles out such a parcel for a use classification totally different from the surrounding area and for the benefit of the parcels owner to the detriment of other owners. The Court went on to state : "Spot, zoning is the very antithesis of planned zoning. " So much for Southold ' s vaunted Plaster Plan and any claims made on its behalf as representative of professional and impartial_ planning. Approving a site plan for a use which violates all principles of proper planning and zoning and for the benefit of the applicant and at the expense of surrounding owners whose properties far exceed that of the applicant in both area and value . Such ,approval would contiue the mockery already made of the high- flown principles expressed ( but not observed ) in the Southold Town Zoning Code . (See Sec . 100- 10 ) Access The sole overland access to the subject property is via a N-07,-16 feet in total width and extending approximately 740 LP from Rte . 25 to the northwesterly vicinity of the subject property . Fee title to the ROW is vested in the Sage estate and the prieipal function of what .serves the marina as a POW is to provide the sole means of penes for the approximately 35 acres of low density, residntially zoned land , including the valuable bay frontage , which constitutes the Sage property. Since the primary purpose of the POW is to serve the Sage property, it is obvious that the approximate doubling of the demand originatin in the marina expansion over burdens a ROW that is already inadoqunte and conforms with neither town nor state standards. ( 2 ) A review of the site plan and survey submitted by the applicant reveals that not only does the property not have frontage on a state , town or plotted highway , but that it does not have frontage on the aforementioned ROM. While a traffic study would most certainly be required in more conventional circumstances , prior to any such studt the basic questions regarding this property are ; 1 ) whether it has any legal access at all and 2 ) if it has , whether such access is adequate for the proposed uses and for .the protection of the community ' s health , safety and welfare . New York State highway law permits permits vehicles 81 ft : in width 'without requirement for a permit . It is obvious that vehicles of the permitted width cannot pass on the ROW nor can vehicles of even lesser width pass safely within the bounds of the ROW. The implications of this state of affairs should should be obvious to any impartial observer concerned with the public ' s safety and welfare . The distance from Rte . 2.5 to the northwesterly area of the subject property is an uninteruptec 740 +/- ft . ; a stretch without; intersection or turn-out. Again , the primary purpose of the recess road , which serves the marina as a RON, is toserve the fee owner ' s property the most valuable portion of which is the bay frontage located beyond the marina . With respect, to overburdening the ROW, the marina has grown in size since its inception from approximately 14 small boats to a stated capacity of 138 boats of far greater size. The portion of the ROW under consideration is scarcely more than a driveway some 740 ft . in length . As such , even were it otherwise conforming, it would not he adequate to serve even a minor subdivision . Such a subdivision , by LILCO standards , would t 12 to 15 occupants a concomitant increase in traffic. For purposes of comparison , the Department of Health computes sanitary disposal requirements based on 2 persons per boat. In the subject instance , this calculation is probably conservative due to the size and capacity of the boats accommodated . Nevertheless at even the 138 boat Capacity claimed by the owner, the result would be 06 persons . Using LIL.CO' s ratio this would approximate the equivalent of some ?0 houses . Added to this would have to be the potential yield of the Sage property. All in all we would have the analagous requirement for 100 hoses or more. Whils this is admittedly not, a precise basis for comparison , it provides some insight into the scope of the burden to be placed on the ROW and its implications for the public ' s health , safety and welfare . To maintain that a single ROY, bordered on both sides by wetlands and without provision for alternative means of ingress and egress , is adequate and safe to serve anything even approaching this intensity of use is nothing short of preposterous. (See Sec . 100-235 , 100-251 , 10n-252 . 100=252 A , D , H, I , 100-2547 . ) ( 3) Public Uealth , Safety and Welfare Anyone the least bit familiar with marina operations realizes that theyre°resent among the highest risks for catostrophic fires and `explosions . Insurance companies are well aware of these hazards . To permit such usage in the midst of residentially zoned areas represents public policy that falls little short of insanity. To compound the public ' s risk by permitting marinas to operate in the same distrias places of public assembly such as motels and restaurants demonstrates a callous disregard for the pub ; ic ' s safety . The disastrous potential of marinas is due in large part ,to the volatility of the materials present and to the carelessness and incompetence of large numbers of the boating public . The dockage and storage of boats , largely fueled by gasoline , subject to leakage and the accumulationof gases in the bilges and often improperly ventilated by careless owners constitutes an invitation to disaster . The fires which result from the burning of fuel , fiberglass , paints and treated wood permeate the neighborhood with toxic oases . Again , the expansion of such a potentially catostrophic use in an overwhelmingly residential environment borders on insanity and one is moved to question the motivation of those who would permit it . This is all the more ..so since what was originally a nonconforming marina of some 14 boats capacity has been permitted to expand to its present , still noneconforming size , without consideration of the effect of such expansion on the environment and the utility and value of surrounding properties . The subject property was , and is , nonconforming. Its 066ssificatic into an MII district whenit cannot meet the Code requirements for such a district , was the work of the Master Plan Marina Committ chaired , as one might expect , by one George Penny. I have discussed the inadequacies of access for emergency vehicles . Under the circumstances , for the fire and police departments to state that the marina project confronts them with no difficulties smacks of ignorance of the true situation or , as is so frquently the case in Southold , subservience to political considerations . Carefully bypassed in the DrIS in an attempt to conceal the . applicant ' s true intentions , is discussion of the fact that he has received approval from the Trustees to locate a fueling dock at the and of a pier extending some 315 feet into the Sage estuary , This pier is wood surfaced and only 6 ft. in width. Between the bulkhead and the fueling dock it is planned to dock some 30 boats. ( 4 ) Fires and explosions at the fueling point are not infrequent in marinas , flow is it proposed to foght such fast spreading fires under the circumstances , particularly when boats dockedb between the bulkhead and the fuel dock would likely become involved? Would this not present, a problem that the emergency forces should not so casually dismiss? A fire on a far shorter dock at this marina several years back revealed that the Greenport Fire Department had Great difficulty in reaching the site . While also to bne considered in the context of the impact on the environment of probable leaks and spillage resulting from the extension of fuel lines some 315 ft . into the estuary raises the spectre of water-borne fires . The DEIS craftily states that the applicant is uncertain whether or not he will install the fueling facilities , Nevertheless , he has applied to , and received from , the Trustees an amendment permitting such an installation . This is a transparent , cynical ruse desi7ned to avoid discussion of this critical aspect of impacts on the environment a.nd the communities health, safety and welfare . Another aspect of public safety which has been ignoreded is is the width of the 20 ft. . access channel . The applicant ' s docking plan provides for boats up to 55 Ft . in length . The planned average length is some 40 ft . Typical beams for such boats dictates that they cannot pass within the channel . Further , the ?farina Criteria employed bythe New York Department of State recommends at least two access channels as well as other design criteria ignored in the project ' s expansion program. Impact on the Environment The DIMS skirts the issue of overall impact on the environment by restricting its observations to the confines of the marina property . It fives short shrift to the fact that the Sage Estuary is a Critical Environmental Area as decreed by Judge Luciano and Federal enactment. The DEIS purports , among other misleading statements . that there are no shellfish in the Sage Estuary . This conclusion is based upon a so-called survey conducted within the confines of the marina property . Tt casts further doubt on its veracity by including observations by the marina owner , hardly a disinterest€ party . The fact is that 30% of the underwater land in the Sage estuary is owned by other than the marina operator , is residentially zoned , and has been a prolific source of clams and . in the recent past , of oysters and scallops as well as other forms of aqua4 life . In previous years , prior to the closing of the estuary' s waters to shellfishing coincident with the marina ' s operational season , I have observed five or six boats at a time harvestin.r shellfish in the estuary . The area outside the marina is conspicuous ignored in the DFIS . l r The fact that, the marina area proper is devoid of shellfish need come as no suprize . It merely confirms the contention that marina operations are antipathetic to the growth of shellfish there and elsewhere throughout the Sage estuary . Correspondence from the DTC , included in the DEIS , indicates that marina operations are hardly conducive to the growth of shellfish , or to their health and that of any aquatic life . This constitutes the department ' s reason for the closing of the entire :,are estuary to shellfishinS withits concomitant effects on the property of other, and to the livlihood ofbaymen. Only a fool would expect to find shellfish within a marina area where the bottom had been thoroughly scoured by extensive dredging. While it may be true that that aquatic life within the Sage estuary as it once was , this is a temporary condition that prevails throughout the the Peconir. Rstuary . The fact is that the brackish quality of the water in the Sage estuary , attributable to its underwater freshwater ,prinrts , and its formerly protected nature prior to the applicants extensive dredging, provide an almost ideal cl.i.mate for fostering the growth of an abundant shellfish crop . To deprive the owners of the bulk of the underwater land , as well as other residents of the town , of these benefits for the benefit and profit of one minority owner hardly constitutes environmental conservation. Basic to the entire question of impact on the environment is the question of whetherthe town is prepared to sacrifice its environment for the profit of marina operators who are often nonresidents and for the accommodation of boat owners , 75% of whom do not reside in Southold acording to the marina operators own figures . Does the limited increase in seasonal employment justify the wholesale destruction of the environment? Approval. of such an expansion project when there is no shortage of dockage in the town , and more aporopiately in the Village of Greenport violates any concept of environmental protection . As their rationale for deniCrating the Saa,e estuary , debasing its environment and refusing to declare it a Critical Environmental Area , the Trustees maintain that it is "not a natural creek. " The fact is that the law make, no distinction between natural wetlands and other wetlands . Further, natural is defined as beinC created by an act of nature . The Sage estuary was created by such an act in 1933 , some 55 years ago. Its natural condition has ben disturbed by the actions of the marina. Despite the Trustees consistent refusal to do no , the Sage estuary has been defined as a Critical Environmental Area by the New York State .Supreme Court and by Federal enactment (r ) 0 • Related to the above , one has to question just how disinterested and impartial the conclu^ion^ of the DPIS actually are . Its cavalier attitude toward the facts is revealed , among other things , by the repeated statement that the Sage estuary is 14' acres in area , whereas , by its own exhibits , the actual area is 19! +/- acres , a difference of 34? . A recent survey of the surrounding environment by Harborview Realty ( owners of the entire Sarre property at that time) came to conclusions diametrically opposed to those of the subject DT:IS . The Harborview survey found their property which surrounds the marina and includes both the freshwater ponds and wetlands as well as some '0^' of the Sage estuary , found the property to be ceolomically fragile and the habitat of threatened and endangered species . Mote that the Sage estuary itself , constitutes such a habitat . As a result of its survey , Harborview offered to declare the bulk of their property as forever wild , retaining only the bay frontage for development. . The actions of llarborview are. in Sharp contrast to those of the marina owner . Harborview, to its credit and to its financial disadvantage , recognized the true nature of the environment surrounding the marina, a natural state that is hardly cognizant of property lines . Impact on Surrounding Property Owners As previously stated , the marina property is spot zoned and acessiile only over a 16ft R01'1 owned , in fe(, , by the Sane estate ; owners of by far the bulk of the surrounding property . The impacts on the surrounding property owners fall into three categories : 1 ) environmental , 2) public safety and welfare and 3 ) financial . All three are valid considerations in site plan analysis . (See 100-251 , 100-252) The selective nature of the DEIS' s analysis of environmental factors has already been discussed . The clangers to the environment and to the public ' s health , safety and welfare have ben expanded upon , supra , in the context of expanding what was , and still is , a nonconforming^ marina in the midst, of low density residential zoning. To permit. the expansion of such a marina in this environment is an open invitation to disaster and contrary not only to sound planning principles , but to basic common sense. Any instance of fire or other form of disaster on the marina propertywould effectively nut-off and isolate the Sage bay frontage, and any improvements to he erected thereon , from its sole means of access. This. detr�fr,dwf,all erPec4- Pn The vaDue or Jhe Saye Prmpertr mrcvrr derplt&L I*e VaeI LAAt° Rah efape eAt3f0 is k-Jhe Pre owned of' XA1- i?XVGea%d ,r,hayAcr be jfr" pPM;r_ beg eFlGc/a,e'Y•. 4 �7) The detrimental effect of the expansion of a nonconforming marina on the value and utility of surrounding properties should be obvious to any impartial observer. In the first place, it demonstrates that no confidence can be placed in the Code's pledge to gradually eliminate nonconforming properties. Secondly , the surrounding owners' "bundle of rights" includes their inherent right to the "quiet enjoyment" of their respective properties. I defy anyone to drive down Sage Boulevard, the grandiose name for the ROW, and view the residences in proximity to the marina and claim that they have not been adversely effected by the marina expansion. The vacuous statement of the assesor cited in the DEIS, to the effect that the assessments of these properties would not be effected is such a transparent evasion as to raise questions as to his competence. I have never known an assessor to voluntarily reduce his assessment voluntarily . He certainly knows, or should know, that market value is not assessed value. To compare assessed value with an market value anywhere , and especialluhavedherenisitutes economic oxymoron. In technical terminology, what we obsolesence, and its concomitant reduction in market value, resulting from the expansion of an inharmonious use. From a monetary and aeshetic standpoint, the bay frontage of the Sage estate has been even more adversely effected. Its Row access has become more congested and overburdened. In addition, conditions surrounding the access to a property frequently have a more detrimental effect on the value of a property than its physical characteristics. The value of the Sage property has deteriorated over the years due to town policies which permitted the expansion of the nonconforming marina from its original capacity of 14 small boats to its present capacity of 138 , or more, of far larger boats. A former, interim owner of the Sage property , who had purchased the property from the Sages , resold it because of the adverse influence of the marina on the value of the bayfront property and his inability to achieve an alternative means of access which would bypass the marina influence. In current attempts to to market the Sage property , along the access to what would ordinarily be a valuable parcel of bay frontage serves to substantially inhibit its market value. While, as has been stated , assessments are no t a probative indication of individual market values. Nevertheless , they provide a rough indication of relative valuesand of the cosequentia damages they will suffer as the result of the marina expansion project. (8) Asessed valuationsof the residential properties surrounding the marina total $141 , 865- . The total AV of the marina, all 12+ acres , is $28 , 000-. Thus the residential properties adversely eff-I assessed at five times the assessment of the marina. The asessments of the three residenc es in Southold Shores facing the marina total $33 ,800-Thus , they alone are assessed at 21% more than the entire marina property. My modest residence , alone , is assessed at 40% of the marinas total assessment including its acreage , buildings and docks . To claim that these properties , whose collective assessments far exceed that of the marina , will not be cosequentially damaged by the marina expansion displays complete ignorance of real property valuation. To increase the value of the marina to the detriment of the far higher value of suurounding substantiates the allegation of deliberate spot zoning. With further reference to the assessorr ' s self-serving statement, it should be noted that he excludes comment on the Sage property or any of the other properties effected. Site Dredging and Flushing Observation From the onset , the Sage estuary has been treated as if it were the private preserve of the marina owner without consideration for the rightsof the other owners of approximately 80% of its area. The original entrance channel was closed and shifted to the southwest in proximity to the map of Southold Shores . Interveneing unterwater land was filled and riprapped . A barge was sunk and filled and a bulkhead built at the southerly entrance to the channel disrupting the natural littoral flow. Over the years the marina site has been dredged , Recently , the Trustees have permitted major dredging whch runs counter to the recommendations of the Department of States Marina Criteria. The latest outrage is that the Trustees , subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, amended the original application to permit extensive dredging on the property of others without that owner' s permission , let alone public notice. Believe it or not , this dredging was authorized because of "a newly discovered shoal . " This by an owner who has owned and operated the property for some 23 years . Typical of the misleading data and statements in the DEIS, is its disingenuous reliance observation study , only a portion of which was incorporated as Appendix 11 . Obviously , a flushing study is required to measure the effects of the marina project on the balance of the Sage Estuary and its surrounding properties . ( 9 ) The submission of only Section 6 of an outmoded 1986 study represents a calculated effort to avoid the necessity for, and the implicationsof , an updated and comprehensive study. The referenced Flushing Observation Study was conducted by Express Dredging Systems , Inc . at Young' s Marina on June 9 and 10 , 1986 . The DEIS, for obvious reasons , incorporates only Section 6 concerning the entrance throat conditions . I submit the exclusion of the full report was done with reason. The complete study virtually ignored the northerly shallow area of the estuary where flushing would be least effective due to interveneing sand bars and islands . The wind directions on the days the tests were conducted indicated either winds from the north or northwest or no detectable winds . Thus , they are not indicative of the effects of the generally prevailing southwesterly winds during the marina' s operational season. The Qualatative Evaluation incorporated in the study states that flushing would likely be improved predicated upon the removal of the spit . This removal has not been done. Further, it is my opinion that flushing throughout the Sage estuary can hardly be improved by doubling the length of the marina piers and increasing the number of floating docks . At any rate the Express Dredging' s conclusion was : "qualified due to the relatively limited duration of the study. " (emphasis supplied) Removal of the spit was presumed to reduce and possibly eliminate formation of secondary flows makink the flow more uniform and improving the flushing characteristics "within the improved marina system. " Obviously this improvement was predicated upon removal of the spit, which has not ben accomplished . Further, the purported improvement would take place only within the "marina system" ignores the effects on the 80% of the embayment owned by others. The study states : "during the two day observation study , winds from the north and northwest were noted to dominate the tidal induced flows , " It was noted that the Brookhaven National Laboratory reported a predominate southwesterly wind field during May through September. If this condition were to predominate at the marina site : "there could be further significant wind effects upon the flushing characteristics of the study site. " ( 10 ) The study recommends : of that a meteorological station, monitoring wind speed and direction , be establishes adroguet the dstudiesenof the site. Further hydrodynamic studies , J . embayment circulation should be correlated with the real time studies . " In other words , the study upon which theDEIS depends is outdated and incomplete. By electing to submit only Section 6 , the DEIS attempts to conceal this fact . ( 11 ) • l PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 8 ' vo •r ^ SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Ward,Chairman �, •� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - _ ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S.McDonald �` -lr.-�"' P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516) 765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 22 , 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Review of Draft EIS for Brick Cove Marina SCTM# 1000-57-1-38. 3 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Draft EIS for Brick Cove Marina, (previously sent) , for review. The Planning Board will pay for the $850. 00 cost of this review. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If you have any questions, please contact me at the planning V r y Kassner Site Plan Reviewer A.CC6"ES CRAMER, V C„ CONSULTANTSENVIRONMENI. October 20, 1993 Mr. Richard'Ward, Chairman Southold Plaluiin Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Brick Cove Marina Draft EIS Proposal for Services Dear Mr. Wasd: cAspertheonnectionequ the f the ening Board projthis ect. letter provides a proposal for services in %vith CVA pro os,-,s to conduct a review of the above referenced document, with particular concern for issues which may present an impediment to orderly site plan review and Planning Board SEQR implementation relating to environmental concerns. Tic review would provide a letter that could be directed to the Town Trustees by the Planning Board as an involved agency. It is expected that we could conduct a responsible review based on an investment of ten (10) hours of time. Based on our agreed hourly rate for principles of the firm ($85.00), we would conduct this review for a fee of$850.00. Pleaseine Date for 1 8 93, therefore,a will need authorization to proceed wiit is noted that the thinsleveral days if we axe to is 9 meet this deadline. Please call if you have any questions. Very trul you > ries J. V chis, CZP,A3CP OCT 2 11993 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 =.� o o = , s s , V - o o n ' a a.!u n a O .H g o i. R 3 M. z 5 — 0 Z — -L O O S • . F/cC TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President 1' 54% gN FF0440,9 SUPERVISOR Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President SCOTT L. HARRIS Henry P Smith = �� Jahn B. Tuthill ``" �x Town Hall ,,. ��=t.. William G. Albertsono` 53095 Main Road n�Y a�4� P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 1, 1993 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D. Peconic Associates P.O. Box 672 One Bootleg Alley Greenport NY 11944 Re: Brick Cove Marina SCTM #57-1-38. 3 Dear Mr. Wiggon: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees at their regular meeting of September 30, 1993 : WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS") was received for Brick Cove Marina ( "Action") , AND WHEREAS, the DEIS contains extensive analysis pertaining to the Action particularly concerning the environmental impacts and mitigation associated therewith and is adequate for public review, NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees deem the DEIS complete; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Notice of Completion of Draft EIS be filed in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 44 of the Town Code; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of the DEIS will be sent to all Involved Agencies and maintained for public inspection at the office of the Town Trustees and the Southold Town Library; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees will conduct a public hearing on the DEIS on October 28, 1993 . OUT 819M Page 1 of 2 _,_ Oji...w........r3..VY. ..:...x.n..,.,�-,1 • • e 2 - Brick Cove Marina l If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call our office. Yours truly, 6kJohn M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB/djh SEQRA Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and Notice of Hearing Lead Agency: Southold Board of Town Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: September 30, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law, Chapter 44) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until November 8, 1993. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on October 28, 1993 at 7:30 pm at Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the Draft EIS and particularly on the Environmental Impact issues identified below. Title of Action: Brick Cove Marina Description of Action: Applicant proposes to modernize and improve marina operations from 91 previous boat slips to 138 boat slips on a site formally known as Young's Marina, 12.5 acres in size of which 4.2 acres are owned underwater land. Also, the action includes improvement of parking areas, landscaping, marina head pump-out facilities, installation of a paved washdown platform with sediment and oil separation system, a storm drain interception system for the parking area, and relocation and improvement of the existing on-site sanitary system. The improvements to the marina also include dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards, 350 cubic yards of slope dredging, and approximately 550 cubic yards at the basin entrance to the marina inside the basin. Location: 1670 Sage Boulevard Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Potential Environmental Impacts: (1) Impacts to land (beaches, uplands and tidal wetlands); (2) marina construction/operation and associated activities; (3) groundwater impacts; (4) erosion impacts; (5) incompatibility with existing drainage patterns; (6) rare species impacts; (7) fish, shellfish and wildlife impacts; (8) compatibility with surrounding land use; (9) recreational opportunities; (10) traffic; (11) increase in energy usage; (12) public health impacts. Page 1 of 2 Notice of Completion of Draft EIS/Notice of Hearing Page 2 Brick Cove Marina Copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained by: Contact Person: John M. Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Copies of the DEIS are maintained at: Office of the Town Trustees Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Southold Library Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Copies of this Notice Sent to: *Commissioner -Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 /Environmental News Bulletin - DEC, 50 Wolf Road, Room 509, Albany, New York 12233-0001 *Raymond Cowan, Regional Director, DEC - Region 1, SUNY- Building 40, Stony Brook, New York, 11790 *Scott Harris, Supervisor, Town of Southold; P. O. Box 1179, Southold, New York, 11971 *Richard Ward, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board, P. O. Box 1179, Southold, New York, 11791 *Ms. Sophie Ettinger, US Army Corps of Engineers, 12 Federal Plaza, Rm 1937, New York, New York, 10278-0090 *George R. Stafford, Director, NYS Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York, 12231-0001 *Joseph H. Baier, P. E., Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Suffolk County Center, Riverhead, New York, 11901 Patricia Wood, Editor, Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Traveler Street, Southold, New York, 11971 Southold Town Hall Bulletin Board, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. *1 copy of the Draft EIS sent. Sf/ I /3Rr112/ R)c TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY VS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O.BOX 396 THOMAS A.TWOMEY, JR. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 9 NORTH MAIN STREET STEPHEN B.LATHAM EAST HAMPTON, N.V.11937 JOHN F. SHEA, III 516-324.1200 CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY LAWRENCE M. STORM- ._ 616-727.2180 MAUREEN T. LICCIONE TELEFAX: 516-727-1767(MAIN) 400 TOWNUNE ROAD DAVID M. DUBINO HAUPPAUGE, N.Y.11766.2830 P.EDWARD REALE _ .- 576.727-7775(ANNEX) PETER M.MOTTt _ 510-2615-1414 JOAN C.HATFIELD 0 November 8, 1993 AMY B.TURNER MARY C.CRONIN DENNIS J.HAYES TERRY Z.LUCAS- ADAM S.GROSSMAN OF COUNSEL NY C {FL 8MB O NY{U BARB 7 NY l U0 BM8 NY{ BMe -NY{MABMB John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Town Trustees NOV 91993 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Draft Environmental Impact Statement Application of Howard H. Zehner Brick Cove Marina Dear President Bredemeyer: The following are submitted as comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the above . These comments are submitted on behalf of Frank Flynn a neighbor of the subject premises . Annexed hereto and incorporated herein by reference are the comments prepared by Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, consultants to the Southold Planning Board, and Larry Penny, environmental consultant for the intervenor Frank Flynn . In addition to the comments submitted herewith, we would make the following additional points : I . The DEIS totally fails to address the zoning and planning implications of expanding a commercial use within a residential neighborhood on an environmentally significant estuary. This should be addressed and the zoning and planning impacts on the neighborhood and the Peconic Bay Estuary and methods for mitigating them should be discussed in the DEIS . Also to be discussed is the consistency of the project with the numerous existing relevant land use plans . II . Access - The DEIS and application fail to address the severe access constraints presented by the project . First, the project John M. BredemeyeZ! III • Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold November 8, 1993 Page 2 site does not have frontage on a public road as required by Section 280-a 'of Town Law. Although access is claimed to be by right of way;- the narrow driveway to the property ironically called Sage "Boulevard" of 740 feet in length does not touch the subject premises and it is not clear that access is available to this right of way . Furthermore, because of the width of the right-of-way it will not accommodate more than one car at a time or emergency vehicles . This presents a serious health and safety hazard which is not discussed in the DEIS . The DEIS further does not address the attempts at widening the right-of-way which have been done without the required permits and in violation of state and local wetlands laws . The right-of-way is bordered by protected wetlands . III . Dredging - The DEIS does not address actual dredging done and does not indicate that the dredging was done off premises as well and how that illegally dredged material will be redeposited on areas outside of the applicant ' s property that were dredged. It is our understanding that summonses were issued to the applicant for this illegal dredging but have yet to be disposed of. . This should be addressed in the DEIS . IV. A traffic study is not included in the DEIS . Presumably, the 55% increase in the number of boat slips will have a concomitant increase in traffic all entering from and exiting out onto a major thoroughfare, Route 25 . This should be addressed. V. Safety - The location of a 141-boat (138 + 3) slip marina with the servicing of boats and the sale of gasoline and oil by- products has not been addressed in terms of the potential for fire and/or spills of gasoline, oil by-products and hazardous chemicals which are used in the marina industry. That should be addressed. Vi . Failure to assess off-site impacts . The thrust of the DEIS appears to be an assessment of impacts solely within the confines of the marina site . This fails to take into account the off-site impacts the project will have particularly on rare and endangered species and commercially harvestable shellfish. The drafters of the DEIS demonstrate their narrow view in this regard at page 11 of the summary where they argue that since the bottom of the marina basin is not productive of shellfish the project will have no adverse impact on shellfish. This approach totally ignores the impact the 55% expansion of the number of boats at the marina will have on the quality of the waters throughout the cove and the shellfish population throughout the cove . An appendix to a long form EIS submitted to the Southold Planning Board for the Harborview Landing Subdivision application in August of 1991 indicates, at pages 27 through 34 , the presence of certain John M. Bredemeyef, IIZ • Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold November 8, 1993 Page 3 threatened and endangered species on the neighboring site which could be impacted by expansion of construction on the marina site . To simply ignore.- significant habitat immediately abutting the site and on Conking Point determined to be an area of significant wildlife habitat is to approach the SEQRA review process with "tunnel vision. The impacts of the project on the piping plover, common tern, least tern and osprey, all of which maintain significant habitat near to the project site cannot be ignored. These species were specifically referenced in the court determination invalidating the prior SEQRA review of the project . The potential impacts on these shore birds are not discussed, nor is any mitigation proposed that would address the impacts on these species . VII . Financial impacts on neighborhood. The analysis of the financial impact of the project in terms of property values of neighboring properties is woefully inadequate and should be rewritten . No supporting data is given and a one sentence reference to a statement made by the Town Assessor cannot substitute for real analysis . VIII . The flushing characteristics of Sage Cove . The flushing characteristics of Sage Cove and its ability to handle an increase in pollutants is not adequately addressed in the DEIS . Out of date information from 1986 about the flushing characteristics of the cove cannot be used to justify the project . Appendix it is only the partial submission of a flushing observation study. For obvious reasons, the full study was not submitted because it shows the relatively poor flushing capacity and shallow nature of parts of the cove . It is also questionable how it can be argued that the flushing capacity of the cove will be increased by the additional obstructions provided by the proposed new docks and priers . IX. Adverse environmental affects . Perhaps the most inadequate section of the DEIS deals with adverse environmental affects . Only two sentences are listed and the approach taken by the drafters is that since construction is already essentially complete and no adverse environmental impacts are apparent, the project will not have any . This approach to the DEIS turns the SEQRA process upside down and more importantly, it ignores what potential adverse environmental effects will result from the additional construction proposed. No basis for the conclusion that there have been no recognizable adverse environmental effects has been listed, nor has it been shown in the DEIS that the marina has been operated at full capacity (i .e . 141 boats) . Clearly the full environmental damage from this proposal has not really been felt in the cove for any single season, at least it is not John M. Bredemeye III • Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold November S, 1993 Page 4 apparent from the DEIS . This statement of adverse environmental effects is therefore inadequate . X. Alternatives - The Alternative section is inadequate because it approaches the project from the prospective that since most work is already complete the alternative proposed is the only alternative that can be considered. This is not what SEQRA requires . SEQRA requires a review of alternatives of a lesser scope and size to reduce environmental impacts . Furthermore, no factual support is given for the conclusion in the alternative section that removing pilings or piers already installed would be impossible . Alternatives of a different size and scope should be considered within the DEIS in order to meet the regulatory and case law mandated requirements of SEQRA. XI . Conclusion - So many of the DEIS sections are inadequate that the document itself must be sent back to the drafters for additional work or alternatively for a supplemental DEIS . The defects in the document are so significant that merely responding to comments or submitting new data to respond to the comments without the public scrutiny accorded a DEIS after its original submission will not be a legally cognizable solution for completing the SEQRA process . el CSGinh ,p Kelley CK: js cc: Frank Flynn cc: Southold Planning Board LARRY PKNNY CONSULTING 1453 NOYAC ROAD SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK 11963 CObTMENTS ON BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS The DEIS for the Brick Cove Marina project has been reviewed by this office. It contains numerous deficiencies and failures to fully analyze issues or provide mitigation. The areas discussed below are so deficient that they require a supplmental DEIS to address them. Simply responding to comments made, for instance on the alternative section where there are no alternate sizes discussed, with failure then to have comments on such new information, would be contrary to the purpose of the SEQRA regulations . Specific comments on the DEIS are set forth below: III . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 . LOCATION . The access to the marina is clouded by the fact that, judging from available site maps, it appears to be off the subject property . Consequently any expansion, improvement, and/or other adjustment or maintenance of that access should be subject to the consent in recordable form of that other property holder and extra-site planning considerations and activities . This further complicates the assessment of "transportation" impacts for both the access road, Sage Boulevard, and N . Y . State Route 25 . Impacts to the State highway by the proposed project and possible neighborhood expansion are already potentially extremely severe . BRICK COVE MARIN*EIS COMMENTS • Page 2 2 . DESIGN AND LAYOUT. This section should take into consideration any future expansion. For example, it should allow for the expansion of the subsurface wastewater system. This is particularly significant inasmuch as the marina site is troubled by a chronically high perched water table, unsuitable leaching substrates, the double duty use of the system for both conventional waste waters and boater waste waters, and the immediate proximity of the system to SA shellfish growout surface waters . Septic failures in such situations are frequent . The relation of the subject site and it ' s access to future developments on neighboring properties should also be given attention here insofar as on-site and off-site activities might synergize and potentiate impacts . IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. 3 . SITE SUBSTRATES . Site topography and stratigraphy should be better characterized in terms of the vertical boring data available . A cross-section for the site should be drawn which indicates thicknesses and levels of the different soil and subsoil strata . The relevance of these strata and their spatial distribution in terms of groundwater percolation, vector flow, contaminant loading and other hydrology should be presented as such relates to storm water and subsurface wastewater management . BRICK COVE MARINAREIS COMMENTS • Page 3 4 . WATER RESOURCES . The importation of public water from the Greenport Water District in 'terms of contribution to the site ' s groundwater regime needs to be thoroughly addressed, particularly as the groundwater compartment relates to the immediately adjacent surface water compartment and there is the potential for serious contamination to that compartment . As for surface waters, their continued 5A classification is contingent upon maintaining high water quality over a measurably long time . Preliminary coliform results (NYS DEC and 1992 consultant results) indicate the potential for further coliform level buildup in the cove, particularly so when the potential for shoreside development is realized and boat buildup in the cove is maximized. Furthermore, the calculations pursuant to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines for assessing risk regarding microbial loading of shellfish growout waters have to be based on the State DEC ' s current methodology . The potential risk should include the cove ' s other measurable sources of microbial contaminants, in so far as data is available . (See the 1992 coliform sampling station results in this regard. ) 5 . TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY. The flora and fauna on the subject site and neighboring sites should be examined in terms of the New York State Heritage Program. The program provides lists of species and BRICK COVE MARINAEIS COMMENTS • Page 4 their State and global rarity and is, in part, the basis for designating _endangered and threatened species in New York State . We already know that the federally threatened piping plover, State -endangered least tern, and State threatened common tern, northern harrier and osprey are in the area, what about other species? The spotfin killifish, for example, was found in numerous recent cove samplings; it is rare on Long Island and in the State, what is it ' s special status if any? What about the eastern mud turtle and the southern leopard frog? The habitat around the cove should be ideal for them, as well? The Heritage plant list is extensive and the site may contain species that are on it . The economically and recreationally valuable shellfish populations and their distributions within the cove and basin have never been properly assayed. For years commercial shellfishers have used the cove to harvest economically important shellfish. No mention of these historical records is made, even though most of the shellfishermen who made the harvests are still living and, conveniently, residing in Southold Town . A thoroughgoing sampling of the cove according to an acceptable method should be undertaken by competent collectors in order to provide this baseline information, once and for all . Testing only of the marina basin bottom begs the question of whether significant shellfish resources exist in the cove . Such testing is so biased it can 't possibly meet basic scientific testing standards . BRICK COVE MARINAEIS COMMENTS • Page 5 6 . TRANSPORTATION . As stated above, the transportation impacts associated with this proposal have never been properly analyzed . Improvements . -will have to be made to Sage Boulevard associated with the instant plan as well as future neighborhood plans . Impacts to the State highway should be assessed in terms of standard loading, safety, peak flow, and other traffic criteria based on empirical and projected data sets . 7 . ZONING AND PLANNING. The agreement, or disagreement, between the subject proposal and land-use and associated plans and regional plans and studies should be elucidated. For example, the Brown Tide Study (BT CAMP) recommends no net nitrogen increase in the Peconic Estuary system. How is the current plan consistent with that recommendation? How does the plan fit with the Southold Master Plan, regional plans, transportation plans, and the like? How is it consistent with the Critical Environmental Area ' s contingencies, e . g . , the Peconic Estuary, the Significant Coastal Fish And Wildlife Habitat, and so on? How will it relate to developmental plans for adjacent properties including plans proposed for the Harborview Landing Subdivision? 8 . CONNUNITY SERVICES . The tenuous nature of the access from Route 25 to the marina calls into question the ability of emergency services BRICK COVE MARINAIS COMMENTS • Page 6 (fire, police, ambulance) to effectively respond to emergencies . . This should be discussed in the DEIS . V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9 . IMPACTS ON LAND, WATER AND WILDLIFE As outlined above, several impacts need to be further addressed. There is a genuine threat of closure to the entire cove because of "perceived" or actual microbial contamination . The tests conducted thus far do not indicate that coliform levels are dropping in the cove . What are the potential long-term impacts associated with the project when maximally utilized to shellfish and fish stocks, subaquatic vegetation, marine birds, and threatened and endangered species of plants and wildlife? How will it contribute to the further degradation of water quality and shellfish and finfish stocks in the Peconic Estuary system? Will there be a net increase of nutrients (and contaminants) to the system. Can these impacts be mitigated? If so how? Some of the specific impacts that have to be assessed are : the future need for dredging and bottom disruption; the influence of peak boater usage on turbidity, chemical water quality, SAV ( by way of shading, prop swash, filming and the Like) , endangered and threatened species (direct or secondary, as, for example, by diminishing food supply) ; the impacts translated off-site, i . e . , to neighboring areas in cove waters or on land; what is the impact from groundwater feed to the cove (for example, what is the nitrate level of BRICK COVE MARINOEIS COMMENTS • Page 7 the groundwater feed from the site) ? What are nuisance noise and electric light impacts to the rest of the cove community associated with marina maintenance and marina activity? VII , ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 10 . ADVERSE EFFECTS . This section has to take serious stock of all of those potentially deleterious impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. It is only by summation of these impacts that the overall negative impacts to the system, both short- and long- term, can be assessed. The two sentences that comprise this section underscore the fact that the authors of the DEIS have not taken their role seriously. VIII . ALTERNATIVES 11 . ALTERNATIVE SIZE AND OPERATION. Consideration has to be given to scale here . It is conceivable that by diminishing the size of the project, certain damaging impacts which can not otherwise be mitigated under the maximally developed project, could be mitigated. Project changes can also mitigate potential impacts . For example, if all of the boats in the marina were to be sailboats, the impact of motors on surface water quality, on bottom properties by way of swash, and ambient noise levels would be reduced dramatically ! Parenthetically, the writer notes that several points raised above were brought up in previous reviews of projects for the subject site by him in previous submissions . In most cases the questions raised in BRICK COVE MARINAIS COMMENTS • Pace S the points were never satisfactorily answered by the applicant and his consultants . 7 CRAMER, VC \ N CIATES EENVIRONMENTJ G CONSULTANTS November 2, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman 1 Southold Pluming Board - - Town of Southold � f P.O. Box 1179 I Southold, NY n971 RE: Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( e".: , ' . : i� Brick Cove Marina Sage Boulevard s o Route 25 Town of Southold,NY Dear Mr. Ward: As per your request, we have completed a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (.EIS) for the above referenced project. The Planning Board is an agency involved in the for of portions of the subject apppplication and, therefore, has the ability to comment on the Draft EIS in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (C). The Draft Ely was reviewed for overall content and accuracy as well as specific considerations that may apply during; the site plan review phase of this project. The Draft ETS under review was prepared by Peconic Associates and submitted to the Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees on August 27, 1993. The document Indicates that the date of g.cceptance of the document-was September 30, 1993 and the deadline date for comments is November 8, 1993. The comments provided herein are sp�ecific to page numbers of the Draft EIS where possible. The review follows the format of t}le Draft EIS and includes reference to appropriate sections and subsections. Comments are provided as follows: I1I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION B. LOCATION 2. Description of Site Access (page III-50) Page III-50 states that the subject property has an easement of"right of way to pass and repass for all purposes over the 16' :vide roadway hereinbefore mentioned running from wherever said roadway contacts the premises hereinbefore described in a general westerly direction to state road (the main highway)". In review of Exhibits A and C it appears as though Sagge Boulevard does not contact the subject premises. The implications of this with regard to the easement of right of way should be considered. C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT(page III-82) The sanitary calculations included on page M-82 should be related to upland area and allowable sewage flow to determine conformance of the proposed sanitary system PAr1of7 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (5f6) 33.1-1455 Brick Ce" Marina Draft EIS Ravlew expansion with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. This section should indicate if there are any improvements planned in connection with site acv.ss along the 1,740 foot stretch of Sage Boulevard. This would include potential widening, drainage improvements,tree trimming or removal, widening of intersection radius', resurfacing or other possible planned activities now or in the future. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Sub-Surface (page IV-2) Page IV-2 indicates that most of the site is underlain with 60-70' of clay. While it is true that at depth beneath the site there is 60-70' of clay, this section should summarize information included in Appendix 8 which shows sand and topsoil overlying clay at various depths based on test hole information. 3. Topography(page IV-7) Page IV-7 indicates that "the site is basically level with contours ranging from 6-10'." The site plans contained in Exhibit A.and C indicate that the site slopes to sea level with contours in the 2-4' range near the shoreline and in the southern portions of the site. This should be clarified in order to accurately characterize the topographic features of the subject property. B. WATER RESOURCES 2. Surface Waters (page IV-10) The tQttom of page IV-10 indicates "no aspect of the proposed activity is expected to result in any change in these surface water classifications"retemng to the NYSDEC classification of Sage Basin as "SA"waters. "SA"waters are suitable for sbellfishing for market purposes and for primary and secondary contact recreation. The statement in the Draft EIS is presumptive and does not contain sufficient substantiation to include in this section of the document. c) Bacteriological Water Quality (page IV-21) Page IV-21 males reference to calculations in Appendix 10 that determine the acreage of closed shelifishing waters based on FDA shellfish sanitation$.uidelines. It should be noted that these calculations prepared by Peconic Associates on Apel 19, 1991 do not consider the minimum 10% loading factor used by the NYSDEC in implementing the FDA guidelines. Since NYSDEC is the agency implementing shellfish sanitation standards, their methodology should be utilized. In addition, since public health is involved conservatism should also be exercised. It is also noted that both the FDA and the NYSDEC utilize a density of two persons per boat which differs from the density used in the Peconie Associates calculations. Furthermore, the FDA guidelines state the following: CRAMER, VC SA `S CIATES FAV2 of 7 ENVIRONMENT AlJ 11 \\ G CONSULTANTS i - Brick Cove Marina VMrt fits Bsvtew In view of the fact that many marina facilities are adjacent to shellCishing areas,and that waste discharges are not uniformly diatrbuted in the water column,detection of low levels of coliforms from waste discharges by current pollution monitoring methods may not provide sufficient information to properly classify the waters in or adjacent to marina. The high public health risk associated with my discharge of untreated waste,requires that each marina and mooring area closure be considered separately.' The pidelines further indicate that the dilution volume necessary to reduce bacteriologuml loading to a safe level shall be determined without regard to levels observed by monitoring. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Draft EIS accurately reflect the FDA and the NYSDEC shellfish sanitation guidelines. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation (page IV-33) The Draft EIS should recognize that the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists report from 1986 included in Appendix 12 indicates that removal or destruction of vegetation along Sage Boulevard could have an adverse environmental impact. b) Tidal Wetlands (page IV-35) Page IV-35 refers to NYSDEC wetlands classifications. This section should mention the presence of SM wetlands in Sage Basin and should outline the functions, benefits and impact of projected conditions on these wetlands characteristics and benefits. 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife (page IV-63) The Draft EIS includes a number of studies which discuss fish, shellfish and wildlife resources on and in the near vicinity of the subject site. It is noted that benthic surveys are concentrated in the marina area and expectedly found little evidence of hard clam and other shellfish due to marina activities, historic brick manufacture causing unsuitable bottom characteristics, and siltation of the basin. Since the project will increase the closure area due to FDA guidelines as implemented by NYSDEC, the impact of this closure should be acknowledged. This is particularly important in the absence of more conclusive information on hard clans abundance to the remaining portions of Sage Basin. HUMAN RESOURCES A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation Services (page IV-69) The impact of the proposed project on transportation systems should relate trip generation to the current gaps to traffic flow or traffic increase since the study prepared approximately 7 years ago for a different project. On page IV-69 there is reference to 50% occupancy of the marina on the busiest 8 hour day of die summer. The basis for this percentage occupancy should be noted. With regard to Sage Boulevard consideration of additional present and future uses of this right of should be Included in this discussion. CRAMER, V .,. ` jj'j 111%rfOCIATES paYe3ot7 ENVIRONMENT '�;.AI u G CONSULTANTS //i Brick Core Marlex Drait EIS Renew Page IVV 70 indicates that certain improvements to Sage Boulevard v ere proposed in connection with the Southport Development project. What improvements, if any, are proposed in connection with the current project and what impacts are expected to occur as a result of these improvements. B. LAND USE AND ZONING 2. Land Use Plans (page IV-73) There is no discussion of any of the land use plans which pertain to uses and planning on the subjectproperty. Relevant land use plans should be examined in order to support the conclusions included on page IV-73. C. COM:MUNTTY SERVICES 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection (page IV-74) Given the isolated marine use of the subject site, 1,740 feet from the main road, some discussion of police and fire emergency response times and the adequacy of Sage Boulevard to handle emerpnry traffic is warranted. This discussion should also consider existing and proposed additional use along Sage Boulevard, V. SIGNII:ICANT ENVIRONMENTAL I,MPAC.S (page V-1) Section V Is not consistent with the Trustee's Scoping Outline dated hfay 6, 1993 (revised). The outline requires the applicant to "identify and discuss those aspects of the environments! setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action". Section V of the Draft 0S only addresses those impacts to Land, Water, and Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife. The majority of the analysis is taken verbatim from the EA.F Part H addendum prepared by the Trustees. A broader treatment of impacts is warranted and was requested by the Trustees in the scoping outline. A. IMPACT ON LAND (page V-2) It is tasted that page VI-3 in the Mitigation Section indicates that all s it will be removed from the site. This conflicts with statements on pa ;e V-2 which indicates the;spoil may stay on site. If spoil is removed, the number of truck trips, hours of operatioq impact on the right of way, traffic, and wear and tear on the right of way and town roads shoed be discussed. It is recognized that much of the spoil has already been removed from the site; however, these impacts should be considered in the context of: 1)visible or recorded impacts of spoil already removed; and, 2) potential impact involving further spoil removal. Page 11-3 indicates "negative Impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important". Other parts of the Draft i9IS have characterized the spoil as silty and A endix 6 indicates a presence of heavy metals in marina sediments. What is the suitability of this material for positive drainage on site or landfill cover off site in view of these qualities. CRAMER, V 111 lftROCIATES Payelor7 ENVIRONMENT ,ASt \\ JG CONSULTANTS Z�.. . Brick Cove Merles DnR ITIS Revk+► B. IMPACT ON WATER (page V-6) This section does not comprehensively address the impact of marina expansion on water, based on the reference included in Appendix 6 of the Draft EIS. Marinas are documented to have other adverse effects beyond boat toilets, dredging and stormwater. The Draft EIS downplays the expansion to a change from 91 to 138 boats and implies that imppacts have already occurred based on a 91 boat marina. However, the EAF Pict H addendum in Appendix 4 indicates dockage of 38 boats in 1991 indicating that the actual expansion is greater than the increase from 91 to 138 boats. Pa a 'V-11 of the Draft EIS indicates with respect to boaters toilets, "there are no regional �egative aonsequences) of this impact and there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals resulting from this impact. Therefore, the potentially small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive". This statement is not supported by documentation in the Draft EIS. Page V-9 indicates a potential for closure of all of Sade Basin to shellfishing ty application of the FDA standards. Page V•9 further indicates that more boats will ancxease the closure area accordingly. There is no effort to determine the extent or significance of closure area or to assess the impact of the closure area on the Town's water resour,.es,with or possibly beyond Sage Basin. The minimum 10%load and a density of 2 persons per boat should be used in accordance with NYSDEC methodolo$y. The Impact on th.e continued viability of Sage Basin for classification as SA waters is not addressed. Reference to dredging of the channel made on page V-12 should indicate the ownership of Sage Basin bottoanlands in relation to proposed dredging areas. i Page 'V-13 discusses impacts to shellfish resulting from dredg�'ng. Sage Basin is in fact a basin wher•a sediment suspension will have an effect beyond the dredged area. The document dces not supply sufficient information to conclude that all of Sage Basin is devoid of significant shellfish populations. C. IMPACT'S ON FISH, SHELLI°ISH, AND WILDLIFE (page V-17) In view of the legal judgement dated May 18, 1990, it is sug*ested that this section directly address the impact of the project regarding turbidity, siltation and erosion, and potential deleterious effect on fish, shellfish and wildlife. Though this is alluded to in many parts of the Draft EIS, a compilation of facts in this section is appropiiate. Pages V-18 and 19 discuss wildlife species associated with the site. The biological needs of rare species identified should be discussed in greater detail in order to support the conclusion t1 at no impact will occur. In addition, the legal judgement dated January 15, 1993 indicates a need to discuss potential deleterious effects to osprey, piping clover least tern and corrmon tern. The judgement clearly finds that a "hard look" is needed wil re and to these species yet little additional information beyond what was considered in prior S QR documents has been provided. The scoping outline requires consideration of the proposed project in view of the Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management Plan ( T CAN1P) summary document,yet little reference to this document is included In the Draft EIS. / 7a�pe S o17 CRVIRONM VT SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT '' :At G CONSULTANTS Erkk Cove Ma iia Draft EIS Review D. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES (page V-25) The document indicates that "the Town Assessor has stated that the site project, as approved,wall not effect the property values in the area surrounding the site." The source of tfiiis information and the context in which it was provided should be included. Review of page IV-78 finds a table of assessed valuation andproperty value based on the most recent assessments from years-ranging between 1970 and 1992. A quotation on that page indicates that the Town Assessor's office has advised that the assessed valuations of four properties approximate to the Brick Cove Marina should not be effected by the proposed project site. The relation between assessed valuation and property value should be stated and a more accurate reference to the input from the Town Assessor's office with regard to impact on actual property values should be provided. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(page VI-1) The seasonal restrictions on dredging activities should be mentioned in this section as an important, mitigation measure. Appendix G indicates that beneficial effects of marina's can be enhanced if fouling substrate a provided. Will floating piers be painted with antifouling paint or will they be allowed to foul. What periodic maintenance of stormwater disposal systems and the boat wash water containment structure are proposed in order to insure proper functioning. VIL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT I:> IMPLEMENTED (page VII-1) Thi tnescould list the adverse nacy be avoided.two sentences nludedinthis ection d t knowledge atal effectsnadverse effect efect nd base this on observation of activities completed to date. The actual occupancy of the marina will be subject to further significant change resulting in impacts not currently!mown. The shellfish closure area based on the FDA shellfish sanitation program will be effected as a result of the project. An objective list of impacts is clearly warranted for inclusion in this section. VIII. ALTIE.RNATIVES C: ALTERNATIVE SIZE (page VIII-3) This section provides support for a 138 slip marina based on planning information from a reference that indicates the site could accommodate a&rcater number of boats. The size of the marina should be based on the ability of natural and human resources to accommodate the planned facilities on a site specific basis. This is particularly important in view of the sites location within a Critical Environmental Area as well as other potential adverse environmental effects of the proposed project, ibis should be clearly acknowledged CRAMER, Vt 1. V,��CIATES Par 6ot7 ENVIRONMENT At_ G CONSULTANTS i � Brick Can Minna Draft KIS Rcvkw in the alterm►tive size discussion in the document. E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE (page VIII-5) The first alternative land use listed is one family dwellings. The sections states that "sanitary systems would be potential problems", as a basis for discounting this alternative land use. The document should note that any new sanitary facilities would besubject to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for density and the SCDHS design requirements for thorough project review prior to installation and operation of these systems. These existing regulations would certainty minimize or eliminatey environmental impacts associated with sanitary disposal from one fainly dwellings. In addition, a comparison of the distributed nature of one family dwelling sanitary systems as compared to the large communal systemroposed in connection with the Brick Cove Marina project would result in a conclusion that the communal system may indeed have a more significant ermironmental impact with regard to nitrogen,bacteria and viruses in groundwater and surface water. ADDMONA,L COMMENTS A list of references used in preparing the Draft EIS is required. 'Phis is consistent with the SEQRA Scoping Checklist included in Part 61721 as well as the Town Trustee's Scoping Outline. The above comments pertain to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Brick Cove Marina. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this input and would be pleased to discuss any aspect of this review at your convenience. Please: do not hesitate to call if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Aarle-slhis, CEP,AICP 7 CRAMER, VC OCIATES 7°r ENVIRONMENTAL`,At� G CONSULTANTS ` 0 CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS November 2, 1993 Mr.Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 NOV 3 1993 RE: Review of the Draft Environmental Impact statement - Brick Cove Marina [ Sage Boulevard s/o Route 25 Town of Southold,NY Dear Mr. Ward: As per your request,we have completed a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the above referenced project The Planning Board is an agency involved in the approval of portions of the subject application and, therefore,has the ability to comment on the Draft EIS in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (C). The Draft EIS was reviewed for overall content and accuracy as well as specific considerations that may apply during the site plan review phase of this project The Draft EIS under review was prepared by Peconic Associates and submitted to the Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees on August 27, 1993. The document indicates that the date of acceptance of the document was September 30, 1993 and the deadline date for comments is November 8, 1993. The commentsrovided herein are specific to a numbers of the Draft EIS where possible. The review follows the format of the Draft EIS and includes reference to appropriate sections and subsections. Comments are provided as follows: III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACPION B. LOCATION 2. Description of Site Access (page III-50) Page III-50 states that the subject property has an easement of"right of way to pass and repass for all purposes over the subject roadway hereinbefore mentioned running from wherever said roadway contacts the premises hereinbefore described in a general westerly direction to state road (the main highway)". In review of Exhibits A and C it appears as though Sage Boulevard does not contact the subject premises. The implications of this with regard to the easement of right of way should be considered. C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT(page M-82) The sanitary calculations included on page IH-82 should be related to upland area and allowable sewage flow to determine conformance of the proposed sanitary system Pale 1 of 7 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Brick cove MWIM Draft EIS Review expansion with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. This section should indicate if there are any improvements planned in connection with site access along the 1,740 foot stretch of Sage Boulevard. This would include potential widening, drainage improvements,tree trimming or removal,widening of intersection radius', resurfacing or other possible planned activities now or in the future. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Sub-Surface (page IV 2) Page TV-2 indicates that most of the site is underlain with 60-70' of clay. While it is true that at depth beneath the site there is 60-70' of clay,this section should summarize information included in Appendix g which shows sand and topsoil overlying clay at various depths based on test hole information. 3. Topography(Page IV-7) Page IV-7 indicates that"the site is basically level with contours ranging from 6-10'." The site plans contained in Exhibit A and C indicate that the site slopes to sea level with contours in the 2-4' range near the shoreline and in the southern portions of the site. This should be clarified in order to accurately characterize the topographic features of the subject property. B. WATER RESOURCES 2. Surface Waters (page TV-10) The bottom of page TV-10 indicates"no aspect of the proposed activity is expected to result in any change in these surface water classifications"refer=to the NYSDEC classification of Sage Basin as"SA"waters. "SA"waters are suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and for primary and secondary contact recreation. The statement in the Draft EIS is presumptive and does not contain sufficient substantiation to include in this section of the document. c) Bacteriological Water Quality(page TV-21) Page IV-21 makes reference to calculations in Ammndix 10 that determine the acreage of closed shellfishing waters based on FDA shellfish sanitation guidelines. It should be noted that these calculations prepared by Peconic Associates on April 19, 1991 do not consider the minimum 10%loading factor used by the NYSDEC in implementing the FDA guidelines. Since NYSDEC is the agency implementtng shellfish sanitation standards, their methodology should be utilized. In addition, since public health is involved conservatism should also be exercised. It is also noted that both the FDA and the NYSDEC utilize a density of two persons per boat which differs from the density used in the Peconic Associates calculations.furthermore, the FDA guidelines state the following: CRAMER, V OCIATES rale z of 7 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Brkk Cove Marina Draft EIS Review "in view of the fad that many marina facilities are adjacent to she116ahiog areas,and that waste discharges are not uniformly distributed in the water column,detedaa of low levels of coliforms from waste discharges by current pollution monitoring methods may not provide sufficient information to properly classify the waters in or adjacent to marina The high public health risk associated with epy discharge of untreated waste,requires that each marina and mooring area closure be considered separately." The.guidelines further indicate that the dilution volume necessary to reduce bacteriological 1 to a safe level shall be determined without regard to levels observed by monitoring. Accor ,it is recommended that the Draft EIS accurately reflect the F'DA and the NYS�llfish sanitation guidelines. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation(page IV-33) The Draft EIS should recognize that the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists report from 1986 included in Appendix 12 indicates that removal or destruction of vegetation along Sage Boulevard could have an adverse environmental impact. b) Tidal Wetlands (page IV-35) Page IV-35 refers to NYSDEC wetlands classifications. This section should mention the presence of SM wetlands in Saxe Basin and should outline the functions,benefits and impact of projected conditions on hese wetlands characteristics and benefits. 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife (page IV-63) The Draft EIS includes a number of studies which discuss fish, shellfish and wildlife resources on and in the near vicinity of the subject site. It is noted that benthic surveys are concentrated in the marina area and expectedly found little evidence of hard clam and other shellfish due to marina activities, historic brick manufacture causing unsuitable bottom characteristics, and siltation of the basin. Since the project will increase the closure area due to FDA guidelines as implemented by NYSDEC,the impact of this closure should be acknowledged This is particularly important in the absence of more conclusive information on hard clam abundance in the remaining portions of Sage Basin. HUMAN RESOURCES A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation Services (page IV-69) The impact of the proposed project on tri�on systems should relate trip generation to the current gaps=traffic flow or =crease stncx the study prepared approximately 7 years ago for a different project On a IV-69 there is reference to 50% occupancy of the marina on the busiest 8 hour day of the summer. The basis for this percentage occupancy should be noted With regard to Sap Boulevard consideration of additional present and future uses of this right of way should be included in this discussion. CRAMER, Vevk OCIATES PaV3ef7 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS - Brick Cove M.rim Dealt EIS Berkw Page IV-70 indicates that certain improvements to Sage Boulevard were proposed in connection with the Southport Development project What improvements, if any, are proposed in connection with the current project and what impacts are expected to occur as a result of these improvements. B. LAND USE AND ZONING 2. Land Use Plans (page IV 73) There is no discussion of any of the land use plans which pertain to uses and planning on the subject. rty. Relit land use plans should be examined in order to support the conclusions included on page IV-73. C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection (page IV-74) Given the isolated marine use of the subject site, 1,740 feet from the main road, some discussion of police and fire emergency response times and the adequacy of Sage Boulevard to handle emergency traffic is warranted. This discussion should also consider existing and proposed additional use along Sage Boulevard. V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(page V-1) Section V is not consistent with the Trustee's Scoping Outline dated May 6, 1993 (revised). The outline requires the applicant to"identify and discuss those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action". Section V of the Draft EIS only addresses those impacts to Land,Water, N Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife. The ma ority of the analysis is taken verbatim from the EAF Part II addendum prepared by the Trustees. A broader treatment of impacts is warranted and was requested by the Trustees in the scoping outline. A. IMPACT ON LAND (page V-2) It is noted that page VI-3 in the Mitigation Section indicates that all spoil will be removed from the site. This conflicts with statements on page V-2 which indicates that spoil may stay on site. If spoil is removed,the number of truck taps, hours of operation,impact on the right of way, traffic, and wear and tear on the right of way and town roads should be discussed. It is recognized that much of the spoil has already been removed from the site; however, these impacts should be considered in the context of: 1 visible or recorded impacts of spoil already removed; and,2)potential impact involving further spoil removal. Page V-3 indicates"negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important". Other parts of the Draft EIS have characterized the spoil as silty and AAppppeendix 6 indicates a presence of heavy metals in marina sediments. What is the suitability of this material for positive drainage on site or landfill cover off site in view of these qualities. CRAMER, V OCIATES Pulp 4of7 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Brkk Cove Marim Draft ELS Review B. IMPACT ON WATER(page V-6) This section does not eo rehensively address the ppaacctt of marina expansion on water,based on the reference included in Appendix 6 of the�Draft EIS. Marinas are documented to have other adverse effects beyond boat toilets, dredging and stormwater. The Draft EIS downplays the expansion to a change from 91 to 138 boats and implies that impacts have already occurred based on a 91 boat marina. However, the EAF Part II addendum in Appendix 4 indicates dockage of 38 boats in 1991 indicating that the actual expansion is greater than the increase from 91 to 138 boats. Pe V-11 of the Draft EIS indicates with respect to boaters toilets, "there are no regional negative consequences)of this impact and there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals resulting from this impact Therefore, the potentially small adverse impact is ultimate viewed as five". This statement is not su rted lZ documentation in the Draft EIS. age V-9 indicates a potential for closure of of Sade asin to she by application of the FDA standards Page V-9 further indicates that more boawill crease the closure area accordingly. There is no effort to determine the extent or significance of closure area or to assess the impact of the closure area on the Town's water resources,with or possibly beyond Sage Basin The minimum 109:0 load and a density of 2 persons per boat should be used in accordance with NYSDEC methodology. The impact on the continued viability of Sage Basin for classification as SA waters is not addressed. Reference to dredging of the channel made on page V-12 should indicate the ownership of Sage Basin bottomlands in relation to proposed dredging areas. Page V-13 discusses impacts to shellfish resulting from drSage Basin is in fact a basin where sediment suspension will have an effect beyond theed area. The document does not supply sufficient information to conclude that all o Sage Basin is devoid of significant shellfish populations. C. IMPACTS ON FISH, SHELLFISH, AND WILDLIFE(page V-17) In view of the legal judgement dated May 18, 1990,it is suggested that this section directly address the i of the project regarding turbidii , siltation and erosion, and potential deleterious a ect on fish,shellfish and wildlife. Though this is alluded to in many parts of the Draft EIS, a compilation of facts in this section is appropriate. Pages V-18 and 19 discuss wildlife s es associated with the site. The biological needs of rare species identified should be in greater detail in order to support the conclusion that no impact will occur. In addition,the leo judgement dated January 15, 1993 indicates a need to discuss potential deleterious effects to osprey,piping clover,least tem and common tern The judgement clearly finds that a"hard look" is needed with regard to these species yet little additional information beyond what was considered in prior SEAR documents has been provided. The scoping outline requires consideration of the pro project in view of the Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management Plan(BT1 ) summary document,yet little reference to this document is included in the Draft EIS. CRAMER, VOCIATES Paoe69r7 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Bekk Can h1 ioa Draft EIS Review D. im?ACI ON PROPERTY VALUES(page V-25) The document indicates that"the Town Assessor has stated that the site project, as approved,will not effect the property values in the area surrounding the site." The source of this information and the context in which it was provided should be included. Review of page IV-78 finds a table of assessed valuation and propsrty value based on the most recent assessments from years ranging between 1970 and 1992. Aq otation on that page indicates that the T7sce has advised that the assessedvaluations of four properties approotbe Brick Cove Marina should not be effected by the propsed project site.The relatietween assessed valuation and property value should be stated and a more accurate reference to the input from the Town Assessor's office with regard to impact on actual property values should be provided. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(page VI-1) The seasonal restrictions on dredging activities should be mentioned in this section as an important mitigation measure. Appendix 6 indicates that beneficial effects of marina's can be enhanced if fouling substrate isrovided. Will floating piers be painted with antifouling paint or will they be allowed to foul . What periodic maintenance of stormwater disposal systems and the boat wash water containment structure are proposed in order to insure proper functioning. VIL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED (page VII-1) This section should list the adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided The two sentences included in this section do not acknowledge any adverse effect and base this on observation of activities completed to date. The actual occupancy of the marina will be subject to further significant change resulting in impacts not currently known. The shellfish closure area based on the FDA shellfish sanitation program will be effected as a result of the project. An objective list of impacts is clearly warranted for inclusion in this section. VIII. ALTERNATIVES C: ALTERNATIVE SIZE(page VIII-3) This section provides support for a 138 slip marina based on planning information from a reference that indicates the site could accommodate a eater number of boats. The size of the marina should be based on the ability of natural and human resources to accommodate the planned facilities on a site specific basis. This is particularly important in view of the sites location within a Critical Environmental Area as well as other potential adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. This should be clearly acknowledged CRAMER, V OCIATES Pap6ot7 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS • � i Brick Cera Mario. Draft EIS Review in the alternative size discussion in the document. E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE(page VIII-5) The first alternative land use listed is one family dwelliggs The sections states that "sanitary systems would be potential problems", as a basis for discoun ''ng this alternative land use. The document should note that any new sanitary facilities would be subject to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for density and the SCDHS design requirements for thorough project review prior to installation and operation of these systems. These existing regulations would certainly mmi nize or eliminatey environmental impacts associated with sanitary disvosal from one family dwellings. In addition, a comparison of the distributed nature ofone family dwelling sanitary systems as compared to the large communal system proposed in connection with the Brick Cove Marina project would result in a conclusion that the communal system may indeed have a more significant environmental impact with regard to nitrogen,bacteria and viruses in groundwater and surface water. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS A list of references used in preparing the Draft EIS is required. This is consistent with the SEQRA Scoping Checklist included in Part 617.21 as well as the Town Trustee's Scoping Outline. r • • The above comments pertain to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Brick Cove Marina. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this input and would be pleased to discuss any aspect of this review at your convenience. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, X,kI tg-ules L Npg ,his, CEP,AICD CRAMER, VOAOCIATES Pav747 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS i I SEQR TIME FRAMES FILE NOTICE FILE NOTICE FILE NOTICE FF-of� all Positive Declarations of Completion of nd all Conditioned and of Completion of Draft EIS and SEOR Hearing Final EIS Type I Negative Declarations I BEGIN i SEQR WITHOUT SEQR HEARING END PROCESS - SEQR 60 days (Unless PROCESS extended or hearing involved) 30 days' (plus _ 30 days 20 days 30 days No time additional 30 days 10 days Variable' Propose (maximum) (maximum) (maximum) frame 30 da s Action Y ) (minimum) (minimum) FINAL Submit —� ----i AGE%CY Part 1 Establish Determine Sco in Determine Public Findings by DECISION p g' Prepare Completeness/ Review FEIS Each EAF Lead Agency Significance DEIS Adquacy of and Involved DEIS Comment Agency I I I I FOOTNOTES: I I ' The formal scoping procedure is optional; it may IF SEQR HEARING IS HELD: be initiated either by lead agency or applicant. ' The additional 30 days are obtained by notifying 15 days' applicant in writing. (minimum) No Time 45 days ' Publish hearing notice in newspaper of general 60 days Frame maximum) circulation at least 14 days before a public maximum) hearing. The hearing may commence on 15th day. ' Public comment period must remain open until Hearing Prepare 10 days after the close of hearing. FEIS ' When applicant is involved, lead agency findings and decision must be made within 30 days of filing the FEIS; otherwise, findings not required until an agency must make a decision on final action. Public Comment Period' _e _ Rk F. M. Flynn US P. O. nox 144 Southold , N. Y. 11971 (516) 477 - 0698 May 17, 1993 The Editor The Traveler - Watchman Traveler Street Southold , N. Y. 11971 Dear Sir: The statements of Town Trusters President John V nredemeyer, III , quoted in your RAay F, 1993 article concerning the Trustees' actions relative to the Brick Cove Marina expansion demand a response. Nothing could be better calculated to underscore the Trustees' ineompotence, bins and prodigal waste of taxpayer's money. He is quoted as saying that the Trustees will ask the Town Board to authorize an appeal of Supreme Court Justice Daniel F. Luciano's January 15, 1993 decision in the action I filed against the town contesting the marina expansion. The fudge held that , contrary to SEQRA regulations, the Trustees, as lead _ agency , both failed to conduct the environmental review dictated by the circumstances and issued a conditional negative declaration . I have brought five successful actions versus the town with respect to the pronosed expansion of the Brick Cove Marina. Three of these actions were directed specifically at the Trustees in their role as lead agency. Taxpayers should have already been concerned about the obvious waste of their funds by the town in defence of actions the court has found indefensible. Now the Trustees propose an appeal of fudge Luciano's well supported and ' reasoned decision. Most readers are unlikely to be acquainted with the enormous costs which would be incurred by the town in the course of the appellate process. These costs derive from the mutiple duplication of the entire record in court specified format, the retention of attornies qualified in appeals work, eto. What ,justification can there be for such an appeal? The court has spoken not once, but five times. Does - this represent an attempt by the Trustees to ref^bish their dismal record at taxpayer's expense? Equally to the point, is the proposed appeal by the Trustees O i 2 0 IM soul�io�t � , intended to divert attention from the fact that, while ostensibly under the Trustees' supervision, the applicant has,- among other of things, arogantly defied court orders, cleared land belonging to others, dredged ouside his property boundaries and is being investigated for dredging cubic yardage in excess of the quantity permitted. The applicant has expended' no funds in the defence of these actions. Are taxpayer funds being expended on his behalf? Perhaps most indicative of the aTrusteesI biased attitude i4 Fw►sro, tswer,& the applicant is the fact that while Mr. Bredemeyer is an employee of the Suufolk County Department of Health, during his tenure as president of the Trustees the marina has been permitted to operate last season, and this , without the installation of the expanded and relocated septic system which the department requires to accommodate the marina expansion. As of toda 's date not even the deli n and location of the se tie a stem hasbeen approved y the department, muc ass is insta atm ion. The entire aT�ekaround off` this matter is under investigation by the Department of Health. Mr. Bredemeyer is also quoted as saying thatno work has been done at the marina site since January. How would he know? Fie has stated to me that neither he, nor any member of the board has been on the marina property in the interim between January and the date of his interview. I have twice reported xo the Trustees, and other town agencies, recent activity involving . heavy construction equipment on the applicant's property. I am prepared to repeat my statement under oath. Mr. Bredemeyer is further quoted as saying that the board wuld be glad to recuse Itself and relinguish lead agency status to the Planning, Board were it possible to do so. My attorney, Christopher D, Kelley, in his May 109 1993 letter to the Trustees provided them with a statutory provision which would permit them to withdraw from lead agency status had they a mind to. In view of their sorry record as determined by the court, the Trustees have demonstrated a strange persistence in retaining* lead agency status. It is all the more strange since Mr. Bredemeyer concedes that due to the press of more urgent matters and lack of personnel, the board cannot supervise projects such as the subject. On the other hand, the professionally staffed Planning Board has expressed a willingness to undertake lead agency status. The Trustees must have sought lead agency status avidly since the regulations state that the commissioner, in designating a- lead agency should consider, among other criteria : "which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental' assessment of the proposed action. " (2) All of the above and , particularly, the boartd 's tenaoityin retalnln lead agency status and a demonstrated reluotanee' to conform to SEQRA regulations , give rise to an obvious question. Could it be that the board's acctions, and the arrogance of the applicant's conduct, arise from assurances given the applicant by town officials? The marina is now completed and operational despite the court's decisions and despite the obvious disregard of SEQRA regulatios on the part of the Trustees. They now propose a "voluntary" DEIS prepared on an "ex post facto" basis. The Trustees capability for providing " the most thorough (and equitable) environmental assessment for the proposed action" is highly questionable. It is all the more so since they have signified their intntions. A The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to be prepared by the same firm which serveddas consultants to the applicant throughout the process and pl.pned the marina expansion. The Trustees have also retairred a consultant whom the court ctiticiaed in its January decision as purporting to undertake a proper environmental assessment and of preparing an articulation which did not address the specific allegations of adverse environmental significance. Should the Trustees pursue their indicated course, protracted litigation will endoubtedly ensue, Very truly yours, F. M. Flynn cc: Suffolk County Deoartment of tlealth Southold Town Roard Southold Planning Board Borth Fork Environmental Council (ti ct h [�tnn,pw� THURSDAY MAv fi� Marina bill for defending someone who hast M i broken every law in the book;' said s Flynn. Town Bay Constable Donald F Decision DZenkowski confirmed that the is marina had been cited twice last year; once for allegedly exceeding the dred aermit, and another time for On Appeal allegedly conducting dredging opera- SOUTHOLD cases in nondesignated area. Both ra The eight-year pending in Town Justice s battle waged by Frank Flynn against Court. Brick Cove Marina's expansion plans Flynn has become so frustrated at appears headed back to court. what he perceives as the Ttustees un- Town Trustee President Jay willingness to conduct athorough SE- r Bredemeyer said the Trustees will ask QRA review that last week he asked the Town Board to appeal a January the board to relinquish lead agency Supreme Court ruling that said the status and turn it over to the Plann- t board failed to conduct a proper en- ing Board. vironmental review of the planned But Bredemeyer said the stµtute expansion. The January decision was the third court victory for Flynn and the se- cond time die State Supreme Court ° has ordered the Trustees to conduct a eyersaid workdo�t �n the a review of the project under the State marina was completed Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). _191111111 me But despite the court victories, Flynn said much of the work has because they are 'ow dohappeal convinthey already been completed during the properly followed the SEQRA period while the court was requirements. deliberating "I look out my window "We are trying to work with Mr. and see a completed, expanded and Flynn; said Bredemeyer. "We even operational marina," said Flynn. offered to appoint an ombudsman, As for an appeal, Flynn said the (7iustee) BillAlbertson, to keep the courts have twice told the town it lines of communication open;' said erred and to pursue the matter would Bredemeyer,pointing out that the new be nothing more than a delaying tac- trustee was not part of the board's tic to allow the marina to complete its past decisions and could hopefully expansion, serve as a middle ground in the 'The taxpayers will be footing the dispute. — lb'dia Torlora TIVODIFY, LATItANi, 9. 11FA & KELLFY ATTORNEVS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. Sox 396 THOMAS A.TWOMEY. JR. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 0 NORTH MAIN STREET STEPHEN S.LATHAM PAST HAMPTON, N.V. 11937 JOHN F. SHEA. IE -- 816.324-1900 CHRISTOPHER O. KELLEY 516-727.2150 LAWRENC! M. STORM' MAUREEN T. LICCIONE TELEFAX: 515427-1767(MAIN) 400 TOWNLINE ROAD DAVID M. OU9IN9 Sts-727-1175(ANNEX) HAUPPAUGE. N.V.It766-2630 P.EDWARD REALE SIS-"6.1.1+ PETER M.MOTT1 JOAN C.HATFIOLDD May 10, 1993 —� AMY B.TURNF_R MARY C.CRONIN DENNIS J.HAVES MICHAEL A.SIRIONANO OF COUNSEL NY, CT a TL 90016 a NY a IA 4"11 t NY a 49 9M/ ORY a CT 9"a John M. Bredemeyer, III Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Brink rnyp Marina , Dear Chairman Bredemeyer : I was advised by my client that a question has been raised by the Trustees as to whether they can relinquish lead agency status to the Planning Board. Please be advised that pursuant to 6 N .Y .C .R.R. 5617 . 6 (f) , a new lead agency can be established by agreement of the agencies and the applicant prior to the acceptance of a draft EIS . As you know, the Trustees have been defeated twice in litigation based on their analysis of this project . We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone that this application be handled by an agency with more objectivity and better staffing. Sinrdyelye i i Pistopher Kelley ! CK: js cc: Mr. Frank Flynn i a TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 396 THOMAS A.TWOMEY. JR. RIVERREAD, NENV YORK 11901 9 NORTH MAIN STREET STEPHEN S.LATHAM EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11437 JOHN F. SHEA, III 516-324-1200 CHRISTOPHER O. KELLEY 516-727-2180 LAWRENCE M. STORM' MAUREEN T. LICCIONE TELEFAX: 518-727-1767(MAIN) 400 TOWNLINE ROAD DAVID M. DUSINO 516-727-1775(ANNEX) HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11]98-2600 P.EDWARD REALE 516-265-1414 PETER M.MOTT1 May 10, 1993 JOAN O.HATFIELDD -- AMY B. TURNEFI MARY C.CRONIN DENNIS J.HAVE:: MICHAEL A.SIRIONANO OF COUNS EI. Y. CT i FL 6AR6 0 NY\LA MMS NY\MO 6M3 ONY\Ci MM6 John M. Bredemeyer, III Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Brick Cove Marina Dear Chairman Bredemeyer : I was advised by my client that a question has been raised by the Trustees as to whether they can relinquish lead agency status to the Planning Board. Please be advised that pursuant to 6 N .Y .C .R .R. §617 . 6 (f) , a new lead agency can be established by agreement of the agencies and the applicant prior to the acceptance of a draft EIS . As you know, the Trustees have been defeated twice in litigation based on their analysis of this project . We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone that this application be handled by an agency with more objectivity and better staffing . SincB e/ly, deV itopher Kelley CK: js cc : Mr . Frank Flynn µµ�� TRUSTEES �6 �rFQ� SUPERVISORt/� John Albert JeI Krupski, Jr., Vice. Bredemeyer, 111, residentPresident SCOTT L. HARRIS President = � �� sZ Henry P. Smith g Town Hall John B. Tuthill t " �� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson1t �'' �� ' P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 �= Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 14 , 1993 Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates P.O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Brick Cove Marina Scoping outline SCTM #1000-57-1-38. 3 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at the regular meeting of Thursday, April 29, 1993 ; RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees adopt the revised scoping outline dated April 29, 1993 , of consultant Bruce Anderson. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. V y truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB: jmd cc: Bruce Anderson Planning Board Town Attorney uY ; MAY 1419M - • • S4��E P6 To : Southold Board of Town Trustees �S From: F . M. Flynn Re : Comments on revised proposed Scoping Outline - Brick Cove Marina Date : Tiay 12 , 1993 Pare 1 Trustees ' consultant proposes to use his judgerritfint to ,ti�ify : " the relevant areas of environmental concern , de-empha.si.7wta noti-si;,nificant issues and eliminate non-relevant issues. 5;e do not propose to have the consultant exercise his judgement as to what is , or is not , relevant to the exclusion of areas which we deem relevant and , particularly, those that are included in the full 'FORA Scoping Checklist and eliminated from your consultant ' s nroposwed Scoping Outline. The consultant states that his proposed Scoping Outline : " relies on the wealth of existing environmental information generated in previous environmental assessments . " The existi.na environmental information supplied by the applicant is no longer pertinent due to the passage of time , its limited scope and the changed conditions resulting from the com legted expansion . This previously generated information contritted in large part to the court' s previous rejections of they Trustees ' actions . The basic problem of preparing a DEIS under the existing circumstance; results from the Trusters permitting the expansion program to be conducted based on what the court has ruled to be improper. There is no preveious DEIS reflecting the original conditions and , hence, no basis for comparison and as a valid measure of the project' s impact . Impact is measured before and after. It is not possible to produce a valid DEIS after the fact . Consultant states : "Applicant is encouraged to include all previous relevant environmental analysis in the DFISby intergratioQ of such existing analyses in the DEIS narrative . It ,epe a//l'Ca4f The arropga.nce of this statement is to presume is the judge of what is relevant . These analyses have been largely repudiated by the court. It also presumes that no analyses we introduce haW4fany relevance . Inmy opinion, what is proposed constitutes a cut and paste , quick and dirty, DEIS incorporating already discredited data which has no pertinence under the present conditions . I believe the obvious intent is to accelerate the process to the applicant ' s advantage. MAY 1'4 1993 I am convinced that a "spin" has been placed on this proposed Scoping Outline which favors the applicant . Under these conditions impartiality is impossible since the Trustees are motivated to approve a DEIS to justify their previous actions which have twice beon rejected by the courts and have resulted in the fruitless expenditure of taxpayer' s money. The Trustees , by their lack of supervision as lead aggency, have acted in a manner whichr redounded so strongly in the applicant ' s favor as to raise logical questions as to demonstrable bias . Personal animosity toward the writer has been displayed by members of the Board . As to the reviewer chosen by the Trustees , his previous perfunctory eff w4i characterized by the court as a purported review. `lith a DEI" prepared by the same consultant as prepared the Environmental Assessment and desimned the marina expansion plan , a reviver whose previous effort has been rejected by the court and a Board of Trustees which has displayed either an ignorance of , or contempt of SEQRA regulations as well as a demonstrated inability or unwillingness to supervise the applicant ' s actions , it is indicated that future litigation will almost certainly result. Reference to previous permits , proposals" is anattempt at obfuscation . The present status of the property is the matter before the Board . Previous permits have been abrogated by the court' s action . Critical building and demolition permits were never issued , nor was septic system approval . The present problem is that of a marina expansion which was completed in a Critical Environmental area without the DEIS which the court has deemed necessary. Page 2 "The Description should address ( 1 ) the original proposal ; ( ?_ the present facilities and improvements ; and ( 3 ) the ultimate Proposed plan . " I;,That is under considerationis is not any previous proposal, it is the nature and impact of the present project . If the 'Trustees and other town agencies have acted on , and held public hearings on an incomplete application , they havesegmented the property. " The applicant may determine the public needs related to marinas . " Need is the result of market demand which the DEIS must demonstrate . Consultants may provide opinions which are taken for what {hey are worth , but it is the courts which determine Page 3 "Description of access to site ( include water access and road access . " Scoping should discuss adequacy of access. (2 ) " Further it may prove useful to include a brief description of the previous use of this site as a brick yard as some structure:; may date back to this use. " This is a obvious attempt to denigrate the present characteristics of the cove and its surrouninf area . The It's has not been a brickyard for some sixty years . Its interim use was as a small nonconformin.- marina . DEIS should provide : " drawinr-s of the proposed dock (sic ) . . . " The docks aren e. Dr t� ings should bbke o pqal�l doc s an es pe A e s Aga �g � �r `e -Oil bIaH FKvi �dbr odocked s be DEIS should provide : " Map including depth soundings of underwater lands . " Soundings should depict depths before and after dredging as well a areas actually dredged. Calculations of the excess yardage dredged should be provided and verified . DEIS should locate : " under_ roud structures and piping ( septic and/or drainage structures . " Since facility is in its second season of expanded operations , the degree of completion of the systems should be stated. Related above ground structures should be described. Fuel storage and piping, above and underground , should be described and located . Septic facilities should be described and located and their current status explained. Pie 4 " Sc6edule of construction ( describe when structures were erected within the context of regulatory decisions in force at that time . " Previous regulatory decisions have been abrogated by the court . Expansion took place per a negative declaration issued by the Trustees which the court rejected . My attorney advises me that thes these newly constructed marina structures should be demolished . "Future potential devlonment on site. " The obvious implication is that the planned future development of the site has been concealed from the public and , at the least , this represnts segmentation. ( 3) "APPROVALS List and describe all previous approvals. . . " This is an obvious effort to put a slant on the DEIS. The previous approvals have no validity in the present circumstances . They have bA invalidated by the court and the DEIS should be prepared starting afresh . Pace 5 "WATFR RESOURCES" discuss recent water quality information . . . " lecent is a vague and imprecise term . Sampling and analysis should be done in connection with the preparation of the DEIS. Iny adverse findings will reflect the marina expansion. "Discuss other water quality issues pertaining to marinas relying on existin.- studies and reports" . Reliance on generic studies relating to marinas are not probative. Any data should be site specific . Proposed Scopinr, omits Air Resources and sources of pollution . Proposed Scoping omits discussion of wetlands . Page 7 TRANSPORTATION " . . preparer should reference marina traffic and parking need with existing published or circulated narratives addressing this issue:' This is a clear attempt to circumvent probative , site specific studies. Generic publications , often concerning remote locations and prepared for marina operators , have no pertinence. Analysis should be conducted with reference to the specific site and in the context of the existing regulations and recommendations of relevant government agencies . Proposed : eo ping omits DL'1iOGRAP11Y Population influences demand Discuss .Spercentage of marina customers who are Southold residents . Proposed Scoping omits Cultural Resources . Archaeological remains have been located on abuttinZ property. Page 8 . "List property values ( assessed values of all properties f ront%g Sage T3asin. ) Provide assessments of all surrounding residential property within which the subject is spot zoned. i . e. Harborview Landin-s now or formerly Sage. "Finally , the DEIS should state an opinion from the Town Asessor as to whether property values have been or will be significantly affected as a result of the project . " There is no Town Assessor. None of the assessors is a qualified appraiser and such opinions have no probative value. Asessors make mass value estimates based on the discredited Cost Approach . The wide discrepancies in property assessments in Southold and the sucess of tax certioraries filed against the town are indicative of the assessor' s competence . A persuasive estimate of the effect on value requires individual , before and after, appraisals based on acceptable appraisal practices. ( 4 ) Page 11 Scoping Outline omits discusion of reasonably foreseeable catasthophic impacts . APPENDICES Refer to effect on project of incorporation of Sage Cove into the Peconic National Estuary. Conform to regulations and recommendations of relevant government agencies including, but not limited to : Federal Coastal Zone Mana^ement Act Federal Clean !later Act Federal EPA NYS Coastal Management Program NYS Narina Criteria Peconic Estuary CAC Best Marina Practices . ( 5 ) State Environmental Quality Review Act Scoping Outline Application of Brick Cove Marina March 25 , 1993 Revised: April 29 , 1993 The Scoping Outline presented herein is based on the Scoping Checklist which appears as Appendix D in SEQRA Part 617 . 21 . The intention of the Scoping Outline presented herein is to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern , de-emphasize non-significant issues and eliminate non-relevant issues , identify the extent and quality of necessary information , identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed project , and identify and discuss mitigation measures designed to eliminate or reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. 'Phis Scoping Outline and any amendments thereto relies on the wealth of existing environmental information generated in previous environmental assessments of the proposed project , previous comments submitted on the application and any and all reasonable comments received from Involved Agencies and the General Public resulting from the circulation of this document . The resulting Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") should concisely address all topics raised in this Scoping Outline. Further, the Applicant is encouraged to include all previous relevant environmental analyses in the DEIS by integration of such existing analyses into the DEIS narrative, appropriate reference and/or inclusion as Appendices . The proposed Brick Cove Marina expansion has previously applied for and received several permits from several involved agencies and thus has already completed various improvements . For the purposes of preparing a DEIS that is clear , its is necessary to place the proposals previously set forth in prior applications , the degree to which improvements have been implemented and the ultimate or complete project proposed. Accordingly , separate reference and discussion in the DEIS should be afforded with respect to the original proposed project , the present status of the project (including improvements already in place) and the proposed complete project . 1' . Cover Sheet All EIS ' s (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes : A . Whether it is a draft or final statement B . Name or other descriptive title of the project C . Location (County and Town) of the project D . Name and address of the lead agency and the telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information 1 . E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information F. Date of acceptance of the DEIS G . In the case of a DEIS , the deadline date be which comments are due should be indicated ]:I . Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS ' s . The Table of Contents and Summary should be organized to include ( 1) the original proposal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. The summary should include: A . Brief description of the action B . Significant , beneficial and adverse impacts , ( issues of controversy must be specified) C . Mitigation measures proposed D . Alternatives considered E. Matters to be decided (permits approvals , funding) III . Description of the Proposed Action. The Description should address (1) the original pro osal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3� the ultimate proposed plan. A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND .BENEFITS 1 . Background and history. A detailed account of the proposed project is warranted. The preparer is encouraged to discuss the previous proposals for the use of the project site , the previous description of the project submitted to the Southold Trustees , all previous approvals for the project and any new modifications to the proposed project. 2 . Public need for the project , and municipality objective based on adopted community development plans . Here , the applicant may determine the public needs related to marinas as well as ,whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the Town ' s adopted Master Plan and Zoning Code. 3 . Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a . ) social b. ) economic c. ) environmental (aspects of the proposal which may improve the environment) B . LOCATION 1 . Establish geographic boundaries of the project 2 . 0 0 (use of regional or local scale maps is recommended) 2 . Description of access to site ( include water access and road access) . The DEIS should include information (ie. deed) guaranteeing road access . 3 . Description of existing zoning of proposed site 4 . Description of Sage Basin and its relationship to Southold Bay and the Peconic Bay Estuhry C . DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1 . Total site area (include underwater land) a. ) proposed impervious surface b. ) amount of land which has been or is proposed to be cleared and/or graded C. ) open space ( lands which will preserved such as vegetated tidal wetlands and beaches , ect. ) d. ) provide acreage of land that will be revegetated or allowed to revert to its natural state. e. ) describe proposed landscaping. f . ) describe fuel dock and compliance with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining thereto 2 . Structures a. ) provide a narrative which describes all structures found on subject parcel. (Structures include buildings , tennis courts , bulkheads , septic , docks , ect . ) It is advisable discuss all structures within the historical and regulatory context of this project. Further, it may be useful to include a brief description of the previous use of this site as a brick yard as some structures may date back to this use. b. ) site plan showing layout of all existing and proposed structures C. ) engingering drawings of the proposed dock depicting 1 . width and length 2 . number of pilings 3 . utilities 4. cross-sectional composition d. ) Map including depth soundings of underwater lands . e. ) drainage plans f. ) underground structures and piping (septic and/or drainage structures) 3 . g. ) describe proposed extension of potable water to the docks h. ) staging area for material handling (dredge spoil) 3 . Parking a. ) parking area (reference and include site plan) b. ) number of parking spaces and layout (reference site plan) D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1 . Construction a. ) discuss previous construction activities on site in the context of previous regulatory decisions . b. ) schedule of construction (describe when structures were erected within the context of regulatory decisions in force at that time) C. ) future potential development on site (Include previous development scenario provided as part of the previously issued wetlands permit . Later , such scenario can be presented in Part VIII . Alternatives 2 . Operation a. ) describe operational aspects of marinas (ie. service, boat storage, maintenance) b. ) describe operational aspects which may be unique to Brick Cove Marina such as collection of boat wastes , material recycling, ect . F. APPROVALS a. ) List and describe all previous approvals granted in connection with the expansion of the marina. List all other activities pending agency approval . Append a copy of the approvals (permits) already granted. IV. Environmental Settipg: Where appropriate , reasonable and practical, separgte the analysis and discussion into (1) the original proposal; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1 . Subsurface a. ) describe the composition of subsurface conditions based upon historical information and test hole information 4 . 2 . Surface a . ) List of soil types and discuss their distribution on site b. ) Discussion of soil characteristics . (physical properties including hydrological ( infiltration) capabilities , and engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) ) Reference Suffolk County Soil Survey . 3 . Toography a.pdescribe the topographical conditions of the site (ei. slopes and unique features) B . WATER RESOURCES 1 . Groundwater a. ) describe groundwater conditions beneath the site. b. ) identify present uses and level of use of groundwater ( if any) . 2 . Surface Waters a. ) location and description of surface waters located on project site or adjacent thereto (ie. Sa a Basin, Hashomack Pond and Peconic Bay b. ) list the present NYSDEC Surface water classification and discuss what effects , if any , that the existing marina has had on surface water classification c. ) discuss recent water quality information (coliform data) in connection with the existing marina and other surrounding land uses . Also, discuss the potential sources of coliform loadings to surface waters . d. ) discuss other water quality issues pertaining to marinas relying on existing studies and reports . Include discussion of pump-out station and methods adopted to enforce its use. e. ) discuss existing drainage patterns in connection with stormwater runoff impacts f. ) discuss potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication resulting from the project as originally proposed, existing and ultimately proposed g. ) description of channel and shoaling locations 5 . C . TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1 . Vegetation a. ) list vegetation types found on site particularly vegetative wetlands beach grass communities or other natural areas . Also , describe wetlands found adjacent to the unimproved road which Provides access to the site. Assess qualitatively the following: 1 • species presence and abundance a . ) age b. ) size C. ) distribution d. ) dominance e. ) community types f. ) unique , rare , and endangered species b. ) Relate values listed in Article 25 of the ECL in connection with existing wetlands c. ) Disclose the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (for example, eel grass) and the presence of any unique and rare plant species d. ) Discuss values to wildlife which other vegetation types (natural areas) may offer 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a. ) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on project site and within surrounding area including migratory and resident species b. ) disclose the presence of any species designated of special concern , threatened or endangered ("Rare Species") . Preparer should include a list of any Rare Species found in nearby habitats such as Sage Basin, Hamoshomack Pond, Peconic Bay and Conkling ' s Point and what potential exists for these species- to be using or relying upon habitats found at Brick Cove Marina. (Quote directly from: Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Conklings Point : Location and Description of Habitat, Fish and Wildlife Values, Impact Assessment prepared by NYSDOS) c. ) discussion of fish, shellfish and wildlife population characteristics including abundance, distribution , dominance, productivity . (relate shellfish abundance to dredging 6 . activities already undertaken) d. ) present and analyze FDA Guideline Calculation for required shellfish closure based upon number of slips existing prior to expansion. Human Resources A . TRANSPORTATION 1 . Tr @nsportation Services a. ) description of size, capacity and conditions of services including roads , navigational channels , parking facility and traffic control . b. ) description of current levels of use of roads and channels with regards to existing marina use ; also, preparer should reference marina traffic and parking needs with existing published or circulated narratives addressing this issue B . LAND USE AND ZONING 1 . Existing land use and zoning a. ) description of existing land use of project site and the surrounding area (within 1/4 mile or beyond) including commercial (marina) , residential, and vacant . b. ) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area within 1/4 mile or beyond; preparer should refer to Town of Southold Zoning Map 2 . Land use plans a. ) describe the proposed project in relation to the Town' s existing Master Plan , US/UK Stewardship Program (if any) , BTCAMP Study (if any) . Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ( if sufficiently developed) C . COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of us$hge and projected future needs) 1 . Police protection 2 . Fire protection 3 . Utilities 4 . Public water supply 5 . Solid waste disposal 6 . Disposal of pump-out wastes collected 7 . Disposal of materials accumulated in washdown D. CULTURALection RESOURCESucture. 1 . Visual resources 7 . a• description of the physical character of the community within 1/4 mile of project site. (ex. vacant , residential , commercial b. description of natural areas of significant scenic value within 1/4 mile (ex. Sage Basin , its shoreline , Peconic Bay (Southold Bay) and its shoreline) C. list property values (assessed values of all properties fronting Sage Basin) V. Significant Environmental Impacts Identify and discuss those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action. Additionally, the range of Potential environmental impacts relating to this proposal were previously categorized into (1) the construction and Bredging proposed; (2) overland runoff into surface waters ; and (3) The activities associated with the marina operation and use . The previously prepared Environmental Assessment Form identified potentially large IMPACTS TO LAND including (1 ) the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil ; (2) the construction of a washdown platform and associated drainage; (3) landscaping and (4) relocation of an existing septic system; IMPACTS ON WATER including (1) discharge of boater sewage wastes including its impact to shellfishing; (2) dredging (including circulation) ; (3) stormwater runoff impacts . These impacts should be discussed in connection with development that has already taken place as well as that which has yet to be undertaken. This section of the DE:ES should be organized to include (1) the original proposal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. Additionally, the DEIS should relate data that has shown environmental impacts , or lack of (where they can be identified) regarding actions already undertaken. Finally, the DEIS should state an opinion from the Town Assessor as to whether property values have been or will be significantly affected as a result of the project. Emphasize significant environmental impacts with respect to commercial shellfishing (regulatory: closure; abundance ect. ) , commercial finfishing and impacts to wildlife usage. Also, relate (1) the original proposal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and ( 3) the ultimate proposed plan to Impact Assessment contained in the NYSDOS Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat , Impact Assessment for Conklings Point and the Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management Plan ("BTCAMP") Summary Document. VI . Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse 8 . impacts identified in Section V. In the previous application much of the mitigation measures were proposed by the applicant and have since been implemented. Those measures already implemented should be disclosed. The DEIS should evaluate the effectiveness of these previously implemented mitigation measures . Additionally , the preparer should address mitigation measures previously proposed but not as yet implemented. Finally , the DEIS should examine any further mitigations measures that area appropriate. VII . Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented. Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VIII . Alternatives . This section contains categories of alternatives with examples . Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs , benefits and environmental risk for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is not feasible. The DEIS should aropriarisns (1) the oriina proposalat(2� presentel draw mfacilitieseand eimprovements ; gandl(3) the ultimate proposed plan. Finally , The DEIS should examine the alternative of restoring the site to its original condition before applications were filed to improve , enlarge and modernize the marina . A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1 . Site layout a. ) density and location of structures. Previous comments concerning the proposed expansion suggested that docks be located on Peconic Bay to reduce impacts to Sage Basin. This alternative should be evaluated. b• ) lgcation of parking 2 . Orientation a• ) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b. ) site size and setback requirements. (septic system) 3 . Technology a• ) pollution control equipment 4 . Mix of activities a. ) addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility. 9 . B . ALTERNATIVE SITES 1 . Limiting factors a. ) availability of land b. ) suitability of alternative site to accommodate design requirement C. ) compatibility with local zoning and master plan C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE I . Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2 . Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs . D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING 1 . Commence construction at a different time. Discuss the timing of dredging activities both completed and proposed. Discuss construction scheduling, part which has been completed and part of which has yet to be completed. E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE 1 . Suitability of site for other uses. Discuss the full range of uses permitted by Zoning and evaluate the range of impacts associated with those uses . F. NO ACTION (No action in this case refers to the environmental setting and operation of the marina prior to the last expansion proposal) 1 . Impacts of no action a. ) effect on public need b. ) effect on private developers ' need c. ) . beneficial or adverse environmental impacts . IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. Identify resources that have already been committed as well as including those resources projected . X. Growth Inducing Aspects Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have . A . POPULATION 1 . increases in resident population (by virtue of employment) and transient population (by virtue of providing boat slip for non-residents) . 10 . B . SUPPORT FACILITIES 1 . Service industries created to supply new facility C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1 . Introduction or improvement of infrastructure 2 . Creation ofvfurtheragrowthnpotential by construction of improved infrastructure XI . Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources Identify energy sources to be used , anticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption.. A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES B. ANTICIPATED SHORT TERM/LONG TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1 . Increased levels of traffic due to the proposed project 2 . Increased boating activity by virtue of marina expansion C. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Discuss methods of reducing energy usage that may reasonably be incorporated into the proposed project. XII . Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS : A . List of underlying studies , reports and information considered and relied upon in preparing statement B . List of all federal , state, regional, or local agencies , organizations , consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Relevant correspondence regarding the project. 11. S�BFi� * F . T1 . Flynn Ye(( P . 0 . Box 144 5 Southold , Il . Y . 11971 l4ay 10 , 1993 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town 11-3.11 Plain Road Southold , 11 . Y. 11971 Re : Application Brick Cove Purina ",lemberes of the Board : At the Board ' s April 29th work session it was stated that , in accordance with Judge Daniel F . Luchiano' s decision of January 15 , 1993 , a DEIS was required for the referenced property . The judge' s decision also had the effect of abrognt.in� all permits issued in conjunction with the applicant' s expansion project . The specious claim was that the DEIS which wound result would be conducted on a "voluntary" basis . The very next day the applicant , flouting the judge ' s decision, brou-.ht in two pieces of hea.vy contracting equipment which propeeeded to work on the property all day . A complaint to the Building Department elicited no responce. A similar complaint to the Planning Board was relayed to the Town Attorney . Bay Constable Dezenkowski , dispatched by the Trustees , made a belated appearance on the property. Ile reported that only some gradin,; a.nd landscaping was in process . While either activity would have been prevented by the cancellation of permits , the fact, is that the applicant was actually engaged in construction work pertaining to new electrical service installed inboard of the bulkhead line . Either the constable arrived late or was hood !linked by the applicant . On April 9th the appliant employed the same , or similar , equpment, on the property for the entire, day. It oras also being employed in connection .with the installation of electrical service . I informed your president , John . 14. Bredemeyer , III , of this violation on April 10th . As collateral support for my contention , am I really supposed to believe that LILCO' s installation of new power lines along the length of Sage Boulevard at this time was mere coincidence? Your president is quoted in the press as maintaininr, that no work has been done at the marina since January . This is not so and I am willing to so testify under oath . In any event , how would your president know? Ile has stated to me that he had not inspected the property over that period of time . Is he relying on information supplier? by the applicant and his consultants? R R M 15 LS 4 � MAY 1 2 19M SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD The plain fact is that this expansion project has been unsupervised from the onset , despite the Trustee ' s responsibilities as lead agency . The applicant has been left to his own devices . Some of his transgressions have been : 1 ) Twice violating stop work order of the court . 2 ) Dredging outside his permitted area . 3 ) Clearing and widening Sage Boulevard on land owned by others and depositing, the debris in wetland areas . 4 ) Exceeding the cubic yardage of dredging allowed by his permit . 5 ) Ignoring most of the conditions imposed by the Trustees in their conditional negative declaration . 6 ) The two recent incidents described supra. It can only be concluded that either the Trustees are unwilling , or incapable of exercising their supervisory duties as lead agency , or that they condone the actions of the applicant . The irregular actions of town authorities toward this project is further evidenced by the fact that it has ben permitted to progress with neither demolition nor building permits from the Puilding Department. As further evidence of the detcri.orati.on of standards in Southold , and its anarchic , "laissez faire" political climate , the town has dismissed its enforcement officer and the Puildinr department maintains that it is too shorthanded to serve an enforcement role . These conditions are an open invitation to the rapacious among us . Perhaps the most egregious example of the Trustees strange permisiveness in this matter is the fact that the marina , along with its pool and tennis club, were permitted to operate last season , and have commenced operation this season , without instal.li.nr the expanded and relocated septic system specified in the a_ ppli.cant ' s plan . As a matter of fact , the Department Of llealth 's hearing, on the acceptability of this plan was only conducte on April 22nd of this year. It is obvious that no town ameriny has exercised any supervision over this matter and the applicant has been permitted to flout the law with impunity. In the instance of the Trustees , tor . Predemeyer explains the admitted lack of supervision and enforcement by citing the press of other , more pressing , matters . This may well be so when one considers the disputes involving the Andros Patent , contro14 over Southold ' s groulAwater , conflicts with the Suffolk County tdater Authority and with the State regarding the ownership (2 ) N of underwater land in Hallock ' s tray etc . A more recent controversey involves the County ' s plans for Robbin ' s Island . As a result , the Trustee' s clearly have neither the time nor the personnel to supervise a project such as this , and they have certainly not demonstated a will to do so. In view of the above , any impartial observer , cognizant of the facts , would be moved to question the motivation behind the Trustees obdurate reluctance to surrender lead agency status ; a posistion at which they have proven to be woefully inadequate . This questioahlc reluctance is even more starkly underlined by the obvious ability of the professionally staffed Planning Board to serve this function in all its aspects and from an impartial perspective . Apparently , rir . Rredemeyer is proposing that Judge L,uciano ' s latest decision be appealed . This serves to emphasizetorry_ Ile to record in this matter and their willingness to further burden Southold ' s taxpayers with legal expenses arising from their ignorance of s7nRA regulations , an unwillingness to conform to them, or an apparent intent to interpret them in the applicant ' , favor . I have been a principal in seven actions brought against the town in this matter. Five have been decided in my favor and judgement witheld on two as beinf prematurely filed . Three of these actions were taken directly against the Trustees . in all , the town has defended these seven actions at the expense of the taxpayers and has not prevailed in any . Does this not demonstrate a prodigal waste of taxpayer' s money as well as degrees of incompetence and intransigence which gives rise to questions regarding the Trustee ' s entire role In this matter? Appeals are not undertaken lightly. Even if victorious they are extremely expenive ; as I well know. In this case the appeal would be at taxpayer ' s expense to defend the actions , not only of the Trustees , but also those of the applicant who has cdVistently violated even the Trusteeslconditions . As a result of the Tru.stees' lack of action and of action by the applicant , them nov exists a fully expanded and operational marina without a legal basis for its existence , While the Trustees consider the question o an appeal as a form of counter suit , I quote from .Judge Luciano ' s earlier decision in response town action brought amainst the Trustees by Henry C . Weismann , nsq . and myself pertaining to the same matter . The judge stated : " . : . there would be irreparable injury if such permanent expansion were permitted in the absence of environmental or wetland review. " Such expansion has been permitted and it is the evident intent of the Trustees to perpetuate it , despite the court ' s ruling. Even were illegally erected improve- ments removedithe nature of some of the work undertaken is permanent and the permisiveness of the Trustees in allowing it in the adjudicated absence of adequate review has resulted ( 3 ) in irreversible dnma.ge to Henry Weismann and myself ; injury which is measured in terms of compensatory and punitive damages . In conclusion , your president has been quoted in the local press as having stated , in response to my acquiesence to a suggestion that lead agency status be relinguished to the Planning Board , that : "M cannot recuse ourselves . Believe me if it were our choice , we . d gladly do it . " I have been reliably informed that it is possible for the Trustees to withdraw from lead agency status . Indeed/due to the entire history of this matter , this would be the only course to avoid the probability of further litigation . Considering the Trustees pressing work load and its lack of professional personell , one is inclined to question the motivation behind their tenacious retention of this status . For your information I enclose a copy of my letter of May 5 , 1993 to the Suffolk County Deoarment of Health reporting on the marina ' s operation without approved septic facilities and requesting that: the department cause the marina to cease operations . Awaiting your compliance with the court ' s order, I remain , F . 1. Flynn cc : Building Department Planning Board (5 ) F . M. Flynn p , n. nox 144 Southold , t1 , Y . 11971 ( 516 ) 477 - 0696 May 5 , 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT Dnu"Inn Feldman , 11snt . FnCiIneer pep:,rt.ment of 1lealth Ronin Riverhead County Center Riverhead , ti . Y . 11901 Dear Sir : Re : Prick Covc Marina , Sa e noulevard , Southold , N . Y. ( pint . 1000 - sec . 57 - nll< . 1 - Lot 38 . 3) nn .January 15 , 1993 , Judme Daniel F . Luciano of the ticw 'fork. 'tate 'upreme Court , ni-nod a decision which simultaneously regnired that a TWIT be prennred in connection with the subject property ' s operation and revoked all.' previous permits pertaining to the marina ' s expansion project . The .^,nuthold Hoard oC Town Truntncs has permitted the fully expanded marina , alon;• with a pool. and tennis club , to operate Lint. seaenn without the expanded and rnl.ocated septic system it Karl manriatcd as a con,lition for npnration. THIP mar ina nporatinn liar conl—tic l for thin season in a Critical Environmental. Area and ^till. without the required innt.nllntion and , at Ina^L until April 22nd of this yens , without approval from your depar•tnient . With respect to the role of your department , I am well. aware that evnn a newly built , single Pami.ly res.tdence cannot I)'-- occupied without your approval . It, is inconceivable that a project or this marmittwie ono he operated without your analysis , approval and nuhs-%lues .. inspection . I hereby requer,,t. that you apply the same standards to the eapttoned prnpert,y and i.nolce Your powers to cause the marina to cease And riesint: operation until. , when , and if the department ' s criteria are met . Very truly yours , F . Ji. Flynn To : Southold Board of Town Trustees From: F . M. Flynn Re : Statement - Scoping Session - Brick Cove Marina Date : April 27 , 1993 I am making this statement because I have decided it would prove fruitless to# have my consultants appear at this time . The expertise of my planners , environmentalist , and atfArney has been consistently disregarded by this board . It has only ben the courts which have paid attention to , and given weight to their conclusions . Accordingly , I am holding these experts in abeyance at this time . As the public should know, I have brought seven legal actions against the town pertaining to this matter. The courts have ruled in my favor in five of these proceedings and witheld judgement on two as premature . Despite this demonstration of the court ' s disapproval of the town ' s actions , I look out my window and see a completed , expanded and operational marina . Lest it be thought that I brought these actions as the result of some e%�. individual aberrant behaviour , I would call to your attention the following : The Suffolk Conty Planning Department opposed the expansion of the marina . Tpe Southold Town Board stated It couldn ' t be convinced that the project would not inflict suhstantial damage on the environment . The Southold Baymen ' s Association opposed the expansion as being harmful to Sage Cove as a very productive source of shellfish . Various civic groups , including the NFGC, opposed the project . The posistions taken by the CAC are inconsistent , to say the least . The first time around , the CAC voted unanimously against the marina expansion. In fact , the council ' s chairman , Dr. Carrell , as well as Jeanne Marriner opposed the project so strongly that , as a result , the town board dismissed them from the council . So much for independence and impartiality . The second time around , it was reported at a trustee ' s hearing that the vote was close . I checked and the vote was actually five opposed to the project , one inlfavor and one �4a,c, eg This constitutes a close vote? Surprise ! nn the occasion of the next vote , the CAC reportedly voted unanimously in favor of the project . What transpired in the interim to bring about such a 'complete reversal,? • The trustees have consistently refused to classify Sage Cove as a Critical Environmental Area . This despite the fact that the marina is located within 500 ft . ,of Peconic Bay. It is of no little interest that the trustees declared that prtion of Ashamomaque Pond bordering on Rte . 25 , and proximate to Sage Cove , to be a Critical Environmental Area , but excluded Sage Cove from this classification . The actions of the trustees aside , the inclusion. of the bay and all its tributaries and estuaries as Critical Environmental Areas of the Peconic Bay National Estuary defines the ground rules this time around . When the trustees isued their latest negative declaration , they had knowledge of an environmental report by %Ow consultants in connection with the proposed map of Elarborview Landingss owned by the Frendolph Corporation . The Ilarborview property includes the bulk of the underwater land in Sage Cove as well as the largest portion of its perimeter. The owners of Ilarborview Landings , acting ethically and to their own detriment , conceeded that the cove and its surrounding upland was ecologically franile and were the habitat of endangered and threatened species . They proposed to leave their underwater land and its abutting uplands "forever wild" . As a matter of fact , Mr. Rudolph , one of the principles in Harborview Landings , stated to me , at a meeting held in my atorney's office , his concerns for the effects of the expansion of the marina on the environment and on the value of his property. In spite of this background , and the testimony of other experts , the courts have found that the trustees have ignored the provisions of .^,EARA . The requirements of the Coastal Management Program, the New York Department of State ' s Marina Criteria and the marina best management practices recommended by the Peconic NEP CAC must now he considered . The question arises , En have ^EI)RA regulations been i ;nored? Perhaps the reason lies in the chairman ' s disparaging description of the cove as an old clay pit . Does he not know that it has not been a clay pit for some sixty years? The change of name from Young's Marina to Brick Cove Marina is yet another attempt at denigrating the area , The chairman has also disparaged Sage Cove as not being a natural body of water. The definitionvof natural is - "created by an act or force of nature" . Sage Cove has been a natural body for close to sixty years . If it isn ' t , neither are Fire Island Inlet , Moriches Inlet or any other of the inumerable storm created water bodies. ( 2 ) In any event , should the cairman not -know, SEQRA draws no distinction between natural and artificial wetlands . In view of the above , the actions of the Board of Trustees may well be explained in the light of the chairman' s agenda , as stated to me , in the course of which he planned tor4move d� the moorings from other town creeks and concentrate them in Sage Oove . The trustees have consistently viewed Sage Cove as being the private domain of the marina owner to be used as he sees fit . The various reports submitted to , and approved by , the trustees have ignored the effects of this expansion on the property and property rights of the owners of the majority of Sage Cove ' s y underwater land as well as the surrounding upland . The marina owner has title to only approximately 22% of the cove ' s underwater land . [{e owns only a small fraction of the t :surrounding upland which is , except for the marina' s spot zoning, also zoned for low density residential use . c � F �ti As a measure of the detrimental impact of the marina expansion "for the benefit of the owner of such property and the detriment t of other owners" , ;(hie relative values of all properties surroundin- the cove can be deduced from their assessments. k� Phe marina assessment of 42.3 , 000- is only 16% of that of the 0 ,assessments of all the property around the cove . t Q As a matter of fact , the assessments of my residnce , combined 0 with that of only two neighbors facing the marina across the cove , exceed the marina assessment by 20% . IZI ,\ L As evidence of further inequity in the treatment afforded the U � marina owner, all his piers and docks are , and have been unassessed . 6� Not only have the trustees permitged the expansion of the piers by approximately 100% , but they have permitted extensive dredging which will certainly have adverse effects on the cove 's environment , ® now and in the future , 4W the changes in water flow and increased exposure to southl`ly tidal forces and storms will inflict consequential damages on the neighboring residential properties . U4der date of May 13 , 1990 , Judge Daniel F. Luciano granted Henry Weismann and I a preliginary injunction against the respondent. Board of Trustees , Board of Appeals and Planning Board , as well as Howard Zehner and Dorothy Zehner as intervenors which restricted the marina to install floating and removable docks , with no alditional installation of permanent fixtures , which will accommodate the sama_numbe_r-.9 as were accommodated prior to any work in furtherance of the proposed expansion, for boats of the same size as were previously accommodated., The Judge concluded that : It there would be i repacahl�in�_ury_ if such permanent expansion were permitted in the absence of adequate environmental or wetland review. " ( 3 ) The court , by its decision of January 15 , 1993 , has concluded that there has been no such adequaut review to date. It follows that the judge has concluded that the actions of the trustees and others have , by action op inaction , inflicted irreperable injury on Henry Weismann and myself . Ile are confronted with' �. fully expanded marina accomodating .. boats up Tft. in length , fak larger than previously accommodated , and an extensively dredged basin . All this was done , as the judge has ruled in his consecutive decisions , without compliance by the trustees with the provisions of SEQRA . The judge has ruled that the whole review process must start anew. flow do the trustees propose to rectify their previous errors? While the supervision of this project was. purportedly the responsibility of the trustees , the ownetOBamong other things , : Twice violated the judges stop work order . Demolished docks and installed new docks and related improvements without premits from the buildin-- department . Dredged outside his property ' s boundaries and on the property of others , as confirmed by Bay Constable Dezenkowski . Attempted to widen and grade Sage Boulevard on the property of others and to dispose of debris in freshwater wetlands . Again confirmed by Constable Dezenkowski . As recently as April 9th , (Good Friday) the owner brought in three units of construction equipment and worked all day. This was almost three months after Jud--e Luciano' s most recent decision. Constable Dezenkowski brought these operations to a halt on April 10 . Judging by the duration of his dredging operations , and my estimates of daily yardage , I believe he has far exceeded the cubic yardage his permit allowed . As evidence of his disregard for his site plan permit , and of his presumption that the trustees will once more give him carte blanche to continue his operations , the owner has kept a hopper barge used in his dredging operations moored to the outside of his most northerly dock. The barges beam far s�xceeds the; 15 ft , setback to the pierhead and , as a result , not only is commercial dredging eqipment stored in the marina , but the storage is , in part , on residentially zoned property. By these actions , the owner has indicated his contempt for regulations• and the trustees , for whatever reasons , an inability or unwillingness to enforce them. ( if ) The trustees issued a "de facto,, conditioned negative declaration on September 26 , 1991 . There were thirty plus conditions attached . Such a conditional declaration is contrary to SEQRA regulations for Type I actions so stated in his January 15, 1993 decision . m The effect of this decision is to nullify all existing and to require a proper Environmental Impact Statement which ts would examine and take a hard look at all the areas which could have potential negative impact on the environment . As a result of the trustees action , the marina was expanded and operated for the 1992 season without valid permits . Even had the declaration been proper, many of the conditions Still have not been met . The trustees hv�e improperly permited the operation during the 1992 season, bZZ the owner has started use of the expanded facility for the 1993 season . Certain of the stipulated site improvements have not been made even as of this late date. It is apparent that the trustees exercised no supervision over the owner and his actions . Particularly egregious is the fact that the marina operated throughout the 1992 season , and has started the 1993 season without Health Department a Droval for its sewage disposal system. A conference regarding this installation was held at the department only as recently as last Thursda April 22 1993 . 1 am told by the deparment that no permit has been for the pump-out facility to date .for Despite the fact that any kowledgeable board woul have known that conditional declarations are illegal , and with knowledge that proceedings challenging their action had been initiated on February 10 , 1992, the board arrogantly issued a permit on „June 30 , 1992 for the construction of additional piers and 350 cubic yars of additionhl dredging. The January 15 , 1993 decision of Judge Luciano held that the marina is located in a "Critical Environmental Area of the Peconic Ray Estuary" a fact that the trustees had heretofore never been willing to concede . He also held : " while the environmental assessment purporting to support the negative declarationin this case gives the a para___ of Navinreviewed all areas of environmental emphasis supplied . The decision also stated " . . the Court oncluded that a reasoned articulation in support of a negative declaration which does riot address the specific allegations of- adverse environmental significance cannot ,be deemed sufficient. " The trustees have been effectively been put on notice by the court that the casual broad brush treatment provided by the trustee 's reviewer will not bh tolerated the next time around . The court expects a reasoned elaboration reflecting a "hard look" at matters of environmental concern to be parFt of the record . (5) Evidence- of the chairman 's prejudice in this matter is provided in his letter to the Suffolk Times dated February 18 , 1993, He has displayed his antipathy to me tp an extent that constitutes extreme prejudice and skirts the bou'ds of libel . His reply to Ruth Oliva and Freddie Wachsberger' s Equal Time comments incorporates an attack on me that is disingenuous to say the least. The trustees may not have ignored the rulings of Judge Luciano, but despite his previous rulings , his decision .of January 15 , 1993 'indicates that they have not complied with SEQRA regulations. I am not the only person to have sued the trustees in the last five years . I dare say many more would have done so were it not for the expense and the frustration resulting from seeing taxpayer 's money used to defend the often ilylegal actions of applicants . In my case , in two of the three actions brought* A94ins the trustees in the last three years , Henry C. Weismann , Esq. was my co-petitioner. Actions were decided in our favor in all these instances . The implied full support of the CAC over the period is also deceptive. The CAC has voted on the marina on three seperate occasions . The CAC"s first vote was unanimously opposed. Its chairman , Dr, Garrell , and Mrs . Mariner were dismissed from the council because of their outspoken opposistion. At a later hearing before the trustees , the results of a second vote were discussed and the impresion left that the vote was close . I checked and the fact is thatof the seven members , five were opposed to the project , one in favor and one abstaining. Hardly a close vote. While it is maintained that the last vote was unanimously in favor of the marina expansion , the complete reversal of opinion raises questions as to motivation and influence. I stand accused of having brought the chairman ' s secretary to tears . Ile was not there to witness the circumstances . At mV attorney ' s request I had marked and requested copies of certain documents required for trial purposes . Despite the fact that I was a known litigant , I was told I would have to wait five days for the copies . I deliberately waited till the sixth day and requested my copies . T was told they were not available and I could not be assured when they would be . It was not denied that the elipies had ben promised to me. I then demanded them and stated I had no intention of leaving until I obtained the" copies as promised . The secretary then became distraught and retreated to the town attorney' s office. I fol.lowed 'and rlepeated my demands . It was agreed the copies had been promised to me and the result was (6 ) that the assistant town attorney worked out a compromise with with my attorney . The chairman' s letter has publily tarred me as the villain of the piece when , for all I know, the secretary was told not to provide me with the copies I required . Finally , under published date of February 18 , 1993 , the chairman stated the matter was before the courts . The fact is that Judge Luciago had rendered his decision on January 15 , 1993 . As to the comments of Ruth Oliva and Freddie Wachsberger in their Equal Time submission printed in the Suffolk Times Edition of February 11 , 1993 , who is actually misrepresenting the facts? The legal notice for this scoping session merely serves to underscore the enormity of the actions , and lack of action,. by the trustees in this matter. This session is "ex post facto" . The expanded marina exists . The damage has ben done . How do the trustees propose to recreate conditions as they existed . How, for example, do the trustees propose to replace 2900+ cu. yds . of dredged spoil . In short , how do the trustees propose to create a level playing field . IA=Mblwt ,�ow do the trustees propose to create the "status quo ante' as the necessary basis for considering the effects on the environment resulting from this project? To propose that the same organization prepare the DEIS as planned and engineered the expanded marina would be ludicrous if it were not so indicative of the manner in which this whole application has been treated by the trustees . Can an impartial DEIS be anticipated under these conditions? To have a Diff reviwed by a reviewer whose previous efforts have been criticized and rejected by the court pr15tically guarantees future litigation. In view of all the above , two actions are indiocated : Firstly , the marina failities have been expanded contrary to the provisions of SEORA and without either demolition or building permits . The improvements should be summarily removed and Christopher D. Kelley, Esq. has so notified the town. Secondly , the trustees have demonstrated throughout either incompetence or bias in favor of the applicant. In either case the trustees have demonstraAd that they are unfit to be the lead agency in this matter and I demand that they relinguish this status to more competent and impartial hands. t (7) • SuaFi Pg F . M. Flynn RIC, P . n Box 144 Southold , rl . Y . 11971 April 29 , 199 Southold Board of Town Trustees Town Hall Main Road Southold , U. Y. 11971 SRe : Proposed Expansion of Brick Cove Marina irs : Ir. re.^,ponce to asuc^esti.en made at the Board 's sessJ.on on April 27 , 1993 , and in accordance with my statement of that (late, I hereby request that the Trustees reli.nguish Lead Agency status in the captioned matter to the Southold Planning Board . The sole exception raised at: the session was based on that person ' , contention that the Trustees were better able to review matters pertaining to impacts on the waterfront and its ecology. Since the Trustees have retained a consultant for these purposes , the Planning Board could well do the same . The problems involved here are broad and involve the total Physical , social and economic impacts of the proposed project . The analysis of all the various factors influencing, and influence,l by, this project should be left to the professional staff of the Planning Board which is much better equipped to cope with these issues . Very truly yours , F. M. Flynn TO r4 u APR 2 91 M +( J SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD i7L'Oz'c<. + oUFF®(,�-�, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS _ p SCOTT L. HARRIS � T Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George RitchieSupervisorchie Latham. Jr. ,�• ',�� .�O Richard G. Warder Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORAI I.1UM TO: John :oI. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Tru::tees FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Senior Planner RE: Scoping Session Outline for Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, New York SCTM # 1000-57-1-38 3 DATE: April 28, 1993 This is a supplemental memo to mine of April 22nd. At the April 27th scoping session, there were two issues that were mentioned but not discussed: the potential impact of the marina expansion on traffic on SR 25 and a description of the physical changes that have already been made to the property. It is suggested that information pertinent to these two issues be added to the scoping outline to ensure that the applicant includes the relevant documentation and analysis in the draft impact statement. To : Southold Board of Town Trustees From : F . M. Flynn Fte : Statement - Seeping Session - Brick Cove Marina Date : April 27 , 1993 I am making this statement hecause I have decided it would prove fruitless to# have my consultants appear at this time . The expertise of my planners , environmentalist , and attDrney has been consistently disregarded by this board . It has only ben the courts which have paid attention to , and given weight to their conclusions . Accordingly , I am holding these experts in abeyance at this time . As the public should know, I have brought seven legal actions against the town pertaining to this matter. The courts have ruled in ray favor In five of these proceedings and wit,held Judgement on two as premature . Despite this demonstration of the court ' s disapproval, of the town ' s actions , I look out my window and see a completed , expanded and operational marina . Lest it be thought that I brought these actions as the result of some cue individual aberrant behaviour , I would call to your attention the following : The Suffolk Conty Planning Department opposed the expansion of the marina . Tpe Southold Town Board stated it couldn ' t be convincer) that the project would not inflict substantial damage on the environment . The Southold Baymen ' s Association opposed the expansion as being harmful to Sage Cove as a very productive source of shellfish . Various civic groups , including the TIFEC, opposed the project . The posistions taken by the CAC are inconsistent , to say the least . The first time around , the CAC voted unanimously against the marina expansion. In fact , the council ' s chairman , Dr . narrell , as well as Jeanne Marriner opposed the project so strongly that , as a result , the town board dismissed them from the council . So much for independence and impartiality. The second time around , it wss reported at a trustee ' s hearing that, the vote was close . I checked and the vote was RQ�ually five Opposed to the project , one -in favor and one o " 9This constitutes a close vote? Surprise ! nn the occasion of the next vote , the CAC reportedly voted unanimously in favor of the project . Ghat transpired in the interim to bring about such a complete reversal,? -71 ` APR 2 8199(1 SOJTH::i! T0;6'aJ PLAtd^.3lfv'G fti;Hlzp The trustees have consistently refused to classify Sage Cove as a Critical. Environmental Area . This despite the fact that the marina is located within 500 ft . of Peconic Ray . It is of no little interest that the trustees declared that prtion of Ashamomaque Pond bordering on Rte . 25 , and proximate to Sage Cove , to be a Critical Environmental Area , but excluded Sage Cove from this classification . The actions of the trustees aside , the inclusion of the bay and all its tributaries and estuaries as Critical Environmental Areas of the Peconic Ray National Estuary defines the ground rules this time around . 41hen the trustees !sued their latest negative declaration , they had knowledge of an environmental report by **w consultant,,- in connection with the proposed map of Harborview Landingss owned by the Frendolph Corporation . The Harborview property includes the bulk of the underwater land in Sage Cove as well as the largest portion of its perimeter . The owners of Flarborview Landings , acting ethically and to their own detriment , conceeded that the cove and its surrounding upland was ecologically fragile and were the habitat of endangered and threatened species . They proposed to leave their underwater land and its abutting uplands "forever wild" . As a matter of fact , Mr . Rudolph , one of the principles in Harborview Landings , stated to me , at a meeting held in my atorney' s office , his concerns for the effects of the expansion of the marina on the environment and on the value of his property. In spite of this background , and the testimony of other experts , the courts have found that the trustees have ignored the provisions of SEQRA . The requirements of the Coastal Management Program, the New York Department of State ' s Marina Criteria a.nd the marina best management practices recommended by the Peconic NEP CAC must now be considered . The question arises , I= have SEpRA regulations been ignored? Perhaps the reason lies in the chairman ' s disparaglnr*. description of the cove as an old clay pit . Does he not know that it has not been a clay pit for some sixty years? The change of name from Young' s Marina to Prick Cove Marina is yet another attempt at denigrating the area , The chairman has also disparaged Sage Cove as not being a natural. body of water. The definition of natural is : "created by an act or force of nature" . Sage Cove has been a natural body for close to sixty years . If it isn 't , neither are Fire Island Inlet , Moriches Inlet or any other of the inumerable storm created water bodies . ( 2 ) In any event , should the cairman not know, SPQRA draws no distinction between natural and artificial wetlands . In view of the above , the actions of the Board of Trustees may well be explained in the light of the chairman ' s agenda , as stated to me , in the course of which he planned to'S ove d the moorings from other town creeks and concentrate them in !age Cgve . The trustees have consistently viewed Sage Cove as being the t, private domain of the marina owner to be used as he sees fit . The various reports submitted to , and approved by , the trustees have ignored the effects of this expansion on the property and property rights of the owners of the majority of Sage Cove ' s y underwater, land as well as the surrounding upland . L The marina owner has title to only ,approximately 22" of the cove ' s underwater land . Ile owns only' a small fraction of the surrounding upland which is , except for the marina ' s spot zoning, at also zoned for low density residential use . As a measure of the detrimental impact of the marina expansion "for the benefit of the owner of such property and the detriment of other owners" , able relative values of all properties surroundin- the cove can be deduced from their assessments. �4 O Nihe marina assessment, of ?2`1 , 000- is only 16% of that of the '1 assessments of all the property around the cove . Q As a matter of fact , the assessments of my residnce , combined with that of only two neighbors facing the marina across the ti p cove , exceed the marina assessment by 20% . C y As evidence of further ineginity in the treatment afforded the Nmarina owner, all his piers and docks are , and have been unassessed . 6t Not only have the trustees permitged the expansion of the piers p by approximately 1001 , but they have permitted extensive dredginal which will certainly have adverse effects on the cove ' s environment , now and in the future , the changes in water flow and increased exposure to southIrly tidal forces and storms will inflict consequential damages on the neighboring residential properties . lllider date of May 13 , 1990 , Judie Daniel F. Luciano granted Henry Weismann and I a preliminary injunction against the respondent Board of Trustees , Board of Appeals and Planning Roard , as well as Howard Zehner and Dorothy Zehner as intervenors which restricted the marina to install floating and removable docks , with no a/ditional installation of permanent fixtures , which will accommodate the same, numbgr.9f--boats as were accommodated prior to any work in furtherance of the proposed expansion, for boats of the same size as were previously accommodated . . The JUdgP concluded that : "there would-be irreperahleinjury, if such permanent expansion were permitted in the absence of adequate .env ironmental or wetland review. " ( 3) The court , by its decision of January 15 , 1993 , has concluded that there has been no such adequaut review to date . It follows that the judge has concluded that the actions of the trustees and others have , by action or inaction , inflicted irreperable injury on Henry Weismann and myself . He are confronted with a fully expanded marina accomodating boats up 53tft . in length , far larger than previously accommodated , and an, extensively dredged basin . All this was d'one , as the judge has ruled in his consecutive decisions , without compliance by the trustees with the provisions of SEQRA . The judge has ruled that the whole review process must start anew. How do the trustees propose to rectify their previous errors? While the supervision of this project was purportedly the responsibility of the trustees , the ownelVamong other things , : Twice violated the judges stop work order. Demolished docks and installed new docks and related improvements without premits from the building department . Dredged outside his property' s boundaries and on the property of others , as confirmed by Ray Constable Dezenkowski . Attempted to widen and grade Sage Boulevard on the property of others and to dispose of debris in freshwater wetlands . Again confirmed by Constable Dezenkowski . As recently as April 9th , (Good Friday) the owner brought in three units of construction equipment and worked all day, This was almost three months after Judge Luciano' s most recent decision . Constable Dezenkowski brought these operations to a halt on April 10 . Judging by the duration of his dredging operations , and my estimates of daily yardage , T believe he has far exceeded the cubic yardage his permit allowed . As evidence of his disregard for his site plan permit , and of his presumption that the trustees will once more rive him carte blanche to continue his operations , the owner has kept a. hopper barge used in his dredging operations moored to the outside of his most northerly dock . The barges beam for exceeds the 15 ft , setback to the pierhead and , as a result , not only is commercial dredging egipment stored in the marina , but the storage is , in part , on residentially zoned property. Py these actions , the owner has indicated his contempt for reulations• and the trustees , for whatever reasons , an inability or unwillingness to enforce them. ( 4 ) The trustees issued a "de facto" conditioned negative declarat.iot) on September 26 , 1991 . There were thirty plus conditions attached . Such a conditional declaration is contrary to SEQPA regulations for Type I actions so stated\ in his January 15 , 1993 decision . l'y ✓ ,a*, lvc,n.o The effect of this decision is to nullify all existing permits and to require a proper Environmental Impact Statement which would examine and take a hard look at all the areas which could have Potential negative impact on the environment . As a result of the trustees action , the marina was expanded and operated for the 1992 ,season without valid permits . Even had the declaration been Proper, many of the conditions still have not been met . The trustees have improperly permited the operation during the 1992 season, 4 the owner has started use of the expanded facility for the 1993 season. Certain of the stipulated site improvements have not been made even as of this late date . It is apparent that the trustees exercised no supervision over the owner and his actions . Particularly egrhious is the fact that the marina operated throughout the 1992 season , and has started the 1993 season without Health Department approval for its seware disposal system. A conference regard Jig—this installation was held at the department only as recently as last Thursday April 22 1993 . 1 am told by the depar4ment that no for the pump-out facility to date . Permit has been granted Desplite the fact that any kowledgeable board woul have known that conditional declarations are illegal , and with knowledge_ that proceedings challenging their action had been initiated on February 10 , 1992 , the board arrogantly issued a permit on „June 30 , 1992 for the construction of additional piers and 350 cubic yars of additi.on'al dredging. The January 15 , 1993 decision of Judge Luciano held that the marina is located in a "Critical Environmental Area of the Peconic Hay Estuary" a fact that the trustees had heretofore never been willing to concede . He also held : " while the environmental. assessment purporting to support the negative declarationin this case "Ives the a earancc of having reviewed all areas of environmental concern . . . " ". emphasis supplied . The decision also stated : " . . the Court oncluded that a reasono,� articulation in support of a negative declaration which does not address the specific allegations of adverse environmental significance cannot be deemed sufficient . " The trustees have been effectively been put on notice by the court that the casual broad brush treatment provided by the trustee ' s reviewer will not be tolerated the next time around . The court expects a reasoned elaboration reflecting a "hard look" at matters of environmental concern to be paret of the record . ( 5 ) Evidence- of the chairman ' s prejudice in this matter is provided in his letter to the ,;uffol.k Times dated February 1$ , 1993, He has displayed his antipathy to me to an extent that constitutes extreme prejudice and skirts the bonds of libel . ilis reply to Ruth Oliva and Freddie Wachsberger ' s Equal Tim incorporates an attack on me that is disinge comments enuous to say the least . The trustees may not have ignored the rulings of Judge Luciano, but despite his previous rulings , his decision of january 15 , 1993 'indicates that they have not complied with SEQRA regulations . Iam not the only person to have sued the trustees in the T; st five years . I dare say many more would have done it not for the expense and so were the frustration resulting from seeinr; taxpayer ' s money used to defend the often ililegal actions of applicants . In my case , in two of the three actions brought, Aqq nJ the trustees in the last three years , Henry C. tic,,ismann , Esq . was my co-petitioner. Actions were decided in our favor in all these instances . The implied full support of the CAC over the period is also deceptive . The CAC has voted on the marina on three seperate occasions . The CAC"s first vote was unanimously opposed . Its chairman , Dr, Garrell , and Mrs . 14ariner were dismissed from the council because of their outspoken opposistion. At a later hearing before the trustees , the results of a second vote were discussed and the impresion left that the vote was close . I checked and the fact is thatof the seven members , five were opposed to the project , one in favor and one abstaining. Hardly a close vote . While it is maintained that the last vote was unanimously in favor of the marina expansion , the complete reversal of opinion raises questions as to motivation and influence. I stand accused of having broumht the chairman 's secretary to tears . Ile was not there to witness the circumstances . At; mV attorney ' s request T had marked and requested copies of certain documents required for trial purposes . Despite the fact that I was a known litigant , I was told I would have to wait five days for the copies . I deliberately waited till the sixth day and requested my copies . I was told they were not available and I could not be assured when they would be . It was not denied that the copies had ben promised to me . I then demanded them and stated I had no intention of leaving until I obtained the copies as promised . The secretary then became distraught and retreated to the town attorney ' s office. I followed and repeated my demands . It was agreed the copies had been promised to me and the result was (6 ) that the assistant town attorney worked out a compromise with with my attorney . The chairman ' s letter has publily tarred me as the villain of the piece when , for all I know, the secretary was told not to provide me with the copies I required . Finally , under published date of February 18 , 1993 , the chapirman stated the matter was before the courts . The fact is that Judge Luciano had rendered his decision on January 15, 1993 • As to the comments of Ruth Oliva and Freddie Wachsberger in their Equal Time submission printed in the Suffolk Times Edition of February 11 , 1993 , who is actually misrepresenting the facts : The legal notice for this scoping session merely serves to underscore the enormity of the actions , and lack of action ,. by the trustees in this matter . This session is "ex post facto" . The expanded marina exists . The damage has bdh done . flow do the trustees propose to recreate conditions as they existed . How, for example , do the trustees propose to replace 2900+ cu . yds . of dredged spoil . In short , how do the trustees propose to create a level playing field . IXQNkMFrtt ,,Wow do the trustees propose to create the "status quo ante" as the necessary basis for considering the effects on the environment resulting from this project? To propose that the same organization prepare the DEIS as planned and engineered the expanded marina would be ludicrous if it were not so indicative of the manner in which this whole application has been treated by the trustees . Can an impartial DEIS be anticipated under these conditions? To have a Dftf reviwed by a reviewer whose previous efforts have been criticized and rejected by the court prf�tically guarantees future litigation. In view of all the above , two actions are indiocated : Firstly , the marina failities have been expanded contrary to the provisions of SEORA and without either demolition or building permits . The improvements should be summarily removed and Christopher D. 'Kelley, Esq , has so notified the town. Secondly , the trustees have demonstrated throughout either incompetence or bias in favor of the applicant . In either case the trustees have demonstrated that they are unfit to be the lead agency in this matter and I demand that they relinguish this status to more competent and impartial hands . (7 ) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS r" ski, Jr., Chairman Bennett Orlowv� George Ritchie Latham, Jr. n1� SCOTT L. HARRIS �� V Richard G. Ward Supervisor�?�OI .�� a Mark S. McDonald Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE P.O. Box 1179 Telephone Southold, New York 11971 P (.,16) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - MEMORANDUM Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: John M. Bredeme er Board of Trustees 211 ' President FROM: Valerie Sco paz, Senior Planner RE: Scoping Session Outline for Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, New York SCTM # 1000-57-1-38. 3 DATE: April 22, 1993 1 have reviewed the draft Scoping Outline for Brick Cove Marina that was prepared for the April 27th scoping session. The comments are arranged by page number. Cover letter: The Description of Action section of the cover letter should indicate the number of boat the existing marina ( 91?) slips in and the number of slips that will be added in order to reach the final tally of 138 slips. The fact that the docks will be reconfigured in order to accomodate the new slips without extending further into the cove should be mentioned also. The distance of the existing septic system from the water' s edge should be noted here, so that the magnitude of the improvement is evident. Any art of the current addition or modificationaoflthet re that is lan i should be noted here. previous application agencies that The reason for this is that the you coordinated with the last time around will not know why this application is before them again unless the differences are set forth. The Scoping outline must provide sufficient information sp that reviewing personnel in the coordinating agencies can do a quick comparison of this outline with their notes on the outline from the last time around. Page 2 . III. B. Location Subsection 2. requires a description of road access to the site. This site is a landlocked parcel with right of access over a right-of-way owned by the owner of the adjacent Sage property. The applicant should be asked to provide sufficient information in the DEIS to prove that his access is legal. III . C. Design and Layout In addition to the information requested in this subsection, we should ask for the acreage of land that will be revegetated or allowed to revert to its natural state. The marina has been allowing the waterfront edge between the parking area and the water' s edge to revert back to wetland plant species. Formerly this area was weeded clear of most plants. Somewhere in this subsection, we should ask for a description of the proposed extension of potable water to the docks. Page 3. III - C. 2. Structures This section should request inclusion of a review of the previous use of this site as a brickyard. Some of the structures and the landforms on the site date back to the brickyard use. If we are requiring the inclusion of septic systems then we should require the inclusion of water suppl, y pipelines. F. Approvals We should ask for copies of the final approved maps and permits that have been obtained, and copies of the actual applications for all pending approvals. A mere listing of the approvals and pending applications will be insufficient for review purposes. Page 4 . IV. B. 1. Groundwater Resources This section of the report should indicate whether any groundwater from the site is used. If all water needs are met by the public water system, then DEIS should note the capacity of water supply to the site. IV. B. 2. Surface Waters Suggest that Subsection f. ) be written in such a manner that the existing potential and the proposed Potential after site improvements are completed are contrasted. Page 5. C. I. Vegetation The areas that recently were allowed to revegetate should be mentioned here too. A• Transportation Services Somewhere in this section, reference should be made to the right of way issue that was brought up in Design and Layout section on page 2. Page 6 . C. Community Service Perhaps there should be a discussion of what will be done with pump-outstation waste as well as with the sediments that will collect in the drainage well for the washdown platform. V. Significant Environmental Impacts This section could stand some rewriting to improve clarity. As written, I have several questions as to what we really want the applicant to do. In the interest of brevity, I have included a copy of this section with some editing comments. If can be of ther Please let me Both BoblKassner and fIrwill attend athence�scoping sessionkonw. Tuesday, April 27, 1993 : n reference marina traffic and parking needs with existing published or circulated narratives addressing this issue B . LAND USE AND ZONING 1 . Existing land use and zoning a• ) description of existing land use of project site and the surrounding area (within 1/4 mile or beyond) including commercial (marina) , residential , and vacant . b. ) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area within 1/4 mile or beyond; preparer should refer to Town of Southold Zoning Map 2. Land use plans a• ) describe the proposed project in relation to the Town 's existing Master Plan C . COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1 . Police protection 2 . Fire protection 3. Utilities 4 . Public water supply 5,. Solid waste u'isposal D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 . Visual resources a. description of the physical character of the community within 1/4 mile of project site. (ex. vacant, residential , commercial b. description of natural areas of significant scenic value within 1/4 mile (ex. Sage Basin, its shoreline , Peconic Bay (Southold Bay) and its shoreline) V. Significant Environmental Impacts Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be a erse3 —Fr Tlnnf1 f f J� the proposed action•ad—r_ ��C„ the range of �T�"{" Additionally, g potential environmental impacts relating �ePe w W, this proposal were v' usl tate orized into to kCP " cons rut ion and dredging proposed ; 2 (1) the �✓ b� surface waters ; and (3) The activities associated with into marina operation and use. The reviousl' with tie Environmental Assessment Form identified potentiadl}_a .t IMPACTS TO LAND including d IlCaKfu,s 7 g (1) the temporary or permanent mod �ax�.sw placement of dredge spoil ; (2) the construction of a washdown pla�fo m and associated drainage ; 'So o� (3) landscaping _ lN' 7f W and (4) relocation of an existing septic system; IMPACTS ON WATER including (1) discharge of boater sewage wastes including its impact to shellfishing; (2) dredging; (3) stormwater runoff impacts. These impacts should be discussed in connection with development that has already taken place as well as that which has yet to be undertaken. VI . Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. In the previous application much of the mitigation measures were proposed by the applicant and have since been implemented. Those measures already implemented should be disclosed. Additionally, the preparer should address mitigation measures previously proposed but not as yet implemented. VII . Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented. Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI . VIII . Alternatives . This section contains categories of alternatives with examples . Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs , benefits and environmental risk for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is not feasible . A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1 . Site layout a. ) density and location of structures . Previous comments concerning the proposed expansion suggested that docks be located on Peconic Bay to reduce impacts to Sage Basin. This alternative should be evaluated. b. ) location of parking 2 . Orientation a. ) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b. ) site size and setback requirements. (septic system) 3 . Technology a. ) pollution control equipment -7- ' �SueFic.E gUFFO(�- John M. BredemeyeTRUSTEEIII , President �0 COGy �/� SUPERVISOR V S Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President o SCOTT L. HARRIS Henry ry P Smith Town Hall John B. Tuthill �y �'F 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson �O( # �� P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQRA SCOPING OUTLINE March 25 , 1993 TO : Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P . 0 . Box 1179 Southold , NY 11971 In the matter of Brick Cove Marina, please be advised that the applicant has elected to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("g,EIS ') . Attached herewith& is a Scoping Outline for the DEIS . The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments with regard to the Scoping Outline. Project: Brick Cove Marina Location : 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County, New York Description of Action: Im rove, modernize , and enlarge existing marina (138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff, landscaping, dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Additionally , the applicant seeks to dredge a recently discovered shoal area at the entrance to the Marina, approx. 550 c.y. to a depth of 6 ' , to add a fuel dock slip, a work boat slip for 14 ' Pram, a work boat slip for boats to pull in that need repairs or servicing. The above will be in accordance with revised plans dated August 31 , 1992 . Please submit your comments to John M. Bredemeyer, III , President , within 30 days . n M. Bredemeyer , c, r, , President MAR 3 1 1993 sig: State Environmental Quality Review Act Scoping Outline Application of Brick Cove Marina March 25, 1993 The Scoping Outline presented herein is based on the Scoping Checklist which appears as Appendix D in SEQRA Part 617 . 21 . The intention of the Scoping Outline presented herein is to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern , de-emphasize non-significant issues and eliminate non-relevant issues , identify the extent and quality of necessary information , identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed project , and identify and discuss mitigation measures designed to eliminate or reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. This Scoping Outline and any amendments thereto relies on the wealth of existing environmental information generated in previous environmental assessments of the proposed project , previous comments submitted on the application and any and all reasonable comments received from Involved Agencies and the General Public resulting from the circulation of this document. The resulting Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") should concisely address all topics raised in this Scoping Outline. Further , the Applicant is encouraged to include all previous relevant environmental analyses in the DEIS by integration of such existing analyses into the DEIS narrative, appropriate reference and/or inclusion as Appendices . I . Cover Sheet All EIS ' s (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes : A . Whether it is a draft or final statement B . Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (County and Town) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency and the telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information F . Date of acceptance of the DEIS G . In the case of a DEIS , the deadline date be which comments are due should be indicated II . Table of Contents and Summary At table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS ' s . -1- The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B . Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts , ( issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D . Alternatives considered E. Matters to be decided (permits approvals , funding) III . Description of the Proposed Action A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1 . Background and history . A detailed account of the proposed project is warranted. The preparer is encouraged to discuss the previous proposals for the use of the project site, the previous description of the project submitted to the Southold Trustees , all previous approvals for the project and any new modifications to the proposed project. 2. Public need for the project , and municipality objective based on adopted community development plans Here, the applicant may determine the public needs related to marinas as well as whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the Town ' s adopted Master Plan and Zoning Code . 3 . Objectives of the project sponsor 4 . Benefits of the proposed action a. ) social b. ) economic c. ) environmental (aspects of the proposal which may improve the environment) B . LOCATION 1 . Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional or local scale maps is recommended) 2 . Description of access to site (include water access and road access) 3 . Description of existing zoning of proposed site 4. Description of Sage Basin and its relationship to Southold Bay and the Peconic Bay Estuary C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1 . Total site area (include underwater land) a. ) proposed impervious surface b. ) amount of land which has been or is proposed to be cleared and/or graded c. ) open space ( lands which will preserved such as vegetated tidal wetlands and beaches , ect. ) -2- 2 . Structures a. ) provide a narrative which describes all structures found on subject parcel. (Structures include buildings , tennis courts , bulkheads , septic, docks , ect. ) It is advisable discuss all structures within the historical and regulatory context of this project. b. ) site plan showing layout of all existing and proposed structures c. ) material storage d. ) drainage plans f. ) underground structures and piping ( septic and/or drainage structures) g. ) staging area for material handling (dredge spoil) 3. Parking a. ) parking area (reference and include site plan) b. ) number of parking spaces and layout (reference site plan) D . CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION I . Construction a. ) discuss previous construction activities on site in the context of previous regulatory decisions. b. ) schedule of construction (describe when structures were erected within the context of regulatory decisions in force at that time) c. ) future potential development on site (Include previous development scenario provided as part of the previously issued wetlands permit. Later , such scenario can be presented in Part VIII . Alternatives) • 2 . Operation a. ) describe operational aspects of marinas (ie. service, boat storage, maintenance) b. ) describe operational aspects which may be unique to Brick Cove Marina such as collection of boat wastes , material recycling, ect . F. APPROVALS a. ) List and describe all previous approvals granted in connection with the expansion of the marina. List all other activities pending agency approval . -3- IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1 . Subsurface a. ) describe the composition of subsurface conditions based upon historical information and test hole information 2 . Surface a. ) List of soil types and discuss their distribution on site b. ) Discussion of soil characteristics . (physical properties including hydrological ( infiltration) capabilities , and engineering properties (soil bearing capacity)) Reference Suffolk County Soil Survey. 3. Toography a.pdescribe the topographical conditions of the site (ei . slopes and unique features) B . WATER RESOURCES 1 . Groundwater a. ) describe groundwater conditions beneath the site. b. ) identify present uses and level of use of groundwater. Describe the amount and use of public water resources 2 . Surface Waters a. ) location and description of surface waters located on project site or adjacent thereto (ie. Sage Basin and Peconic Bay) b. ) list the present NYSDEC Surface water classification and discuss what effects , if any, that the existing marina has had on surface water classification c. ) discuss recent water quality information (coliform data) in connection with the existing marina and other surrounding land uses . Also, discuss the potential sources of coliform loadings to surface waters . d. ) discuss other water quality issues pertaining to marinas relying on existing studies e. ) discuss existing drainage patterns in connection with stormwater runoff impacts f. ) discuss potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication resulting from the project as existing and proposed -4- C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1 . Vegetation a. ) list vegetation types found on site particularly Vegetative wetlands , any beach grass communities or other natural areas b. ) Relate values listed in Article 25 of the ECL in connection with existing wetlands C. ) Disclose the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (for example, eel grass) and the presence of any unique and rare plant species d. ) Discuss values to wildlife which other vegetation types (natural areas) may offer 2 . Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a. ) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on project site and within surrounding area including migratory and resident species b. ) disclose the presence of any species designated of special concern, threatened or endangered ("Rare Species") . Preparer should include a list of any Rare Species found in nearby habitats such as Sage Basin, Peconic Bay and Conkling ' s Point and what potential exists for these species to be using or relying upon habitats found at Brick Cove Marina. c. ) discussion of fish, shellfish and wildlife population characteristics including abundance, distribution, dominance, productivity. (relate shellfish abundance to dredging activities already undertaken) d. ) present and analyze FDA Guideline Calculation for required shellfish closure based upon number of slips existing prior to expansion. Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1 . Transportation Services a. ) description of size , capacity and conditions of services including roads, navigational channels , parking facility and traffic control . b. ) description of current levels of use of roads and channels with regards to existing marina use; also, preparer should -5- reference marina traffic and parking needs with existing published or circulated narratives addressing this issue B . LAND USE AND ZONING I . Existing land use and zoning a. ) description of existing land use of project site and the surrounding area (within 1/4 mile or beyond) including commercial (marina) , residential , and vacant . b. ) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area within 1/4 mile or beyond; preparer should refer to Town of Southold Zoning Map 2. Land use plans a. ) describe the proposed project in relation to the Town 's existing Master Plan C . COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) I . Police protection 2 . Fire protection 3. Utilities 4 . Public water supply 5. Solid waste disposal D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 . Visual resources a. description of the physical character of the community within 1/4 mile of project site. (ex. vacant , residential, commercial b. description of natural areas of significant scenic value within 1/4 mile (ex. Sage Basin, its shoreline , Peconic Bay (Southold Bay) and its shoreline) V. Significant Environmental Impacts Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Additionally, the range of potential environmental impacts relating to this proposal were previously categorized into (1) the construction and dredging proposed; (2) overland runoff into surface waters ; and (3) The activities associated with the marina operation and use. The previously prepared Environmental Assessment Form identified potentially large IMPACTS TO LAND including (1) the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil; (2) the construction of a washdown platform and associated drainage ; (3) landscaping -6- and (4) relocation of an existing septic system; IMPACTS ON WATER including (1) discharge of boa including its impact to shellfish b boa ter sewage wastes(2) dredging; stormwater runoff impacts. These impacts should be discussed in connection with development that has already taken place as well as that which has yet to be undertaken. VI . Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. In the previous application much of the mitigation measures were proposed by the applicant and have since been implemented . Those measures already implemented should be disclosed. Additionally, the preparer should address mitigation measures previously proposed but not as yet implemented. VII . Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented. Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI . VIII . Alternatives . This section contains categories of alternatives with examples . Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs , benefits and environmental risk for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is not feasible . A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES I . Site layout a. ) density and location of structures . Previous comments concerning the proposed expansion suggested that docks be located on Peconic Bay to reduce impacts to Sage Basin. This alternative should be evaluated. b. ) location of parking 2 . Orientation a• ) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b. ) site size and setback requirements . (septic system) 3 . Technology a. ) pollution control equipment -7- 4 . Mix of activities a• ) addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility. B. ALTERNATIVE SITES 1 . Limiting factors a• ) availability of land b• ) suitability of alternative site to accommodate design requirement c• ) compatibility with local zoning and master plan C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE 1 . Increase or decrease project size to minimize Possible impacts 2 . Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs . D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING 1 . Commence construction at a different time. Discuss the timing of dredging activities both completed and proposed. Discuss construction scheduling, part which has been completed and part of which has yet to be completed. E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE 1 . Suitability of site for other uses. Discuss the full range of uses permitted by Zoning and evaluate the range of impacts associated with those uses . F. NO ACTION (No action in this case refers to the environmental setting and operation of the marina prior to the last expansion proposal) 1 . Impacts of no action a• ) effect on public need b. ) effect on private developers ' need c• ) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts . IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. X. Growth Inducing Aspects Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. A. POPULATION 1 . increases in resident population (by virtue of -8- employment) and transient population (by virtue Of providing boat slip for non-residents) . B . SUPPORT FACILITIES 1 . Service industries created to supply new facility C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1 . Introduction or improvement of infrastructure (septic, navigational channels) 2 . Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infrastructure XI . Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources Identify energy sources to be used, anticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption. A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES B . ANTICIPATED SHORT TERM/LONG TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1 . Increased levels of traffic due to the proposed project 2 . Increased boating activity by virtue of marina expansion C. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Discuss methods of reducing energy usage that may reasonably be incorporated into the proposed project . XII . Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS : A . List of underlying studies , reports and information considered and relied upon in preparing statement a B. List of all federal , state, regional , or local ,gencies , organizations , consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Relevant correspondence regarding the project . -9- P� COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RK ✓S T. TEQRr�/19 ot2. ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER November 24, 1992 Mr. Bennett J. Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski : On November 10, 1992 the Suffolk County Fast Track Team received the attached application from you with respect to Brick Cove Marina. This is to advise you that this application was discussed at the Fast Track Team meeting of Tuesday, November 17, 1992. Team members were advised by officials of the Health Services Department that they have already been working with representatives of the Town with respect to trying to find acceptable alternatives for the placement of a potable water line and a drainage pipe in the same trench. Health officials expressed confidence that they would be able to resolve this specific issue to the satisfaction of both the Town and the Health Services Department. If you have any specific questions about this particular matter, please contact Stephen Costa of the Wastewater Management Division at 852-2100. I also want to advise you that in our general discussions at the meeting about this project, we were informed that there are other important related issues being addressed by the Health Services Department as well , e.g. , soil types, that will require additional review by Health officials. At your convenience, Mr. Costa can be consulted in regard to these additional matters as well . Thank you very much for your application. Should you require further general assistance, please contact me at 853-5011. Sincerely yours, John R. Heilbrunn Office of Management JRH:ms and Research cc: C. R. Merolla Joseph Baier ` �5 Stephen Costa1i � Valerie Scopaz Robert Kassnere DEC - 2 1 1992 i Attachment OFFICE OF THE Attachment STONER 225 RABRO DRIVE EAST q.rt.•Pp(`..Rry-1'.1 HAUPPAUGE. N.Y. 11'188-4290 r' 15181 853-3005 %r1OV 10 '92 1545 TUWA1001l • P.2/2 + ,- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FAST TRACK PROJECT SUMMARY 1.APPLICANT/SPONSOl y 2•AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE: HowRD •--�Hr/�� ADDRESS: .0 , v6x AT 0 G17ErlJ'al21 I)!7� /19 � ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: PHONE NO,: 3. HAS A SITE BEEN CHOSEN? []No ea (If yes,give precise location.Provide map and tax map number it available.) /d' 7a si9�'� fa�30 so yriy'a�0 /Yy�/97/ /o 0,0 4, IS PROPOSED ACTIO [3New anslon []Modification/Alteration (]Relocation (Itse, give previous addressJ? 5, GENERAL pESCRIPTION OF PROJEC7INCLUDING PURPOSE(attacp relevant design reports, plans,eto j; X r Pq ie 'r- 1.ao p F4sr .11,e.-.4iI 9 orr. Tp Rcu1�w �-- i9AP�ou,� rr c��rt�� //y o,?/G�Mst� sfr� Pte/ TU pl-.?�I Po i O04e w e ra,< iv., + e oi: p��f�Pr9re0 Drl.sir�NGT �r�i= 8, PROJECT STATUS (check if begun): 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED OR NEEDED; Start Com lelion Pro osal Fees Pit Study Initially acres Prelimina Planning Ultimately acres Final Plans: S ecs Site A uisftion Construction Other e, WILL PROPO ACTION INVOLVE ANY SPECIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS? []Yes o If yes, please describe 9. WILL PROP I ACTION REQUIRE SPECIAL FINANCING? Q Yes o It yes,please explain 10, WIL OPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LANA USE RESTRICTIONS? es ❑No If no,describe briefly,i.e.zoning Change,zoning variance or special permit 11. 13 PRESENT LAND USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT? Reside tial Industrial ❑Commercial []Agriculture CI Park/Forest/O en Space Other 12. ODES TION NVOLVE A SPECIAL PERMITAPPROVAL,OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER G ERNMEN11AL AGENCY(FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? es (] No ❑IUnsure If yes,list igency(s)and nnrgy'/$pprsgvals f/fa�L.7x/ �F 3"c[PfOtK Cb Unr i.� 13. DSS ANY AS EC" �F THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PEgMIT OR APPROVAL? yes, s Yes ❑ No If lit agencyna is and permit/approval Sou %lyc+c 1a 7wSTiCs l.�•ET�fl.� p )� .P/yi� Al il S 16"1 A4 14. A,. ggRESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION,WILL FXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL I I RE MODIFICATION? es C) No Not applicable new business Qr ar FtF,9�Trl 15, HP,U SEORA R EYV BEEN INITIATED? bd 1 es tl No It so,who is the lead agency? -rO—,✓i✓ 7-A?IWS7� S , /,S'S41g,ty I CERTIFY THAT T F INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE GEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor name:7aN ec Date: jpycG-j Gy^A(J i59a Signature: /- ��-p—. c-�iY�YX�.'i�uk•resG��iPirNtdn�J�� Completed form must be submitted no later than one week prior,.o schedulecfFast Track meetings (third Tuesday of the month), Please forward to: C.R. Merolla,Commissioner /,� 42ee Suffolk County Department of Economic Development S�o�s� �� 11 th Floor,H.Lee Dennison Bldg. �� _ _ Haupuge,NY 11780 Fax#:853-4888 paA.tach additional sheets as needed, 44-006 (Rev. 6/89) � Notice No.l --�2— SUFFUR CURN DEPARII+dsM OF HWM SERVICES 8j" TO: �w ��x-u2 FROM: Bureau of Wastewater Management —�✓� ��z r7� - Suffolk (,It t C�nter Rivert" New York 11901 P.E./R.A./L.S. Plan No ,;-y- �/ 516-5 NOV 27 G - 12 NC►PICE CF MOOI+IP'LE'18 APMMUICN - CC MERC SOUTUCLD TCss PLAPl.JI�V6 EC uU f H.D. Ref. No. civ - 9 z-voi Applicant 9 •�1 T.M. Designation i000 .- r7 - i - ,�p, Article VI & Article V I Zone_ THE FOT,ILWIING IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE REVIEW CN THE ABUVE PAPERWORK REQUIRED [ J Town and/or Village Zoning Letter ( Public Girbsr/Sewer Availability_ Letter ( ] CcFrpleted Application Form WWM-004 (3 copies) [ ] NYSDEC Wetlan�rmit or Waiver [ ] SEQRA Determination [ ] Restrictive Covenants: Art. 7 Other [ ] SPDES Form [ J SPDES Site Plan 8 1/2" x 11" [ J Processing Fee [ ] SPDES Fee $50.00 $75.00 [ Denitrification Permit Application [ J Monitoring/Sampling Plan (8 1/2" x 11") ✓J Review Board Determination aB X- 'So;c cc„re rro,✓.s INFOIPMGN MISSING AND/OR CORRECPICNS REQUIRED CN PLANS [ ] Tax Map Designation [ ] Plans Not Signed/Sealed [ ] Metes and Bounds Description [ ] Industrial Statement/Signature [ ] Lot Size [ ] Deed Location [ Sewage System Plan/Profile [ J Key Map [ ✓Test Hole .'b KE [ ],Gallons/Day/Acre Sewage Discharge [ ] Gross Floor Area of Building w.rni�rs sd [ Sewage Disposal Design Calculations [ ] All Surface Waters Within 300' �� nY>u [ ] Insufficient Denitrification Details [ ] Private Well Details and Location o�F'r� [ ] Public Water/Sewer Line L ] Neighboring Wells and Sewage Systems [ vTExpansion Area for Sewage Systems Su/a Within 150' of Property [ ] Site Statistics [ ) Monitoring Well Detail and Location [ ] Capital Costs of Sanitary System or [ ] Latitude and Longitude Description [ ] Capital Cost of DenitrificationOperation and Maintenance Information [ Project does not conform to Department standards. See Notice of Non-Conformance. Comments: - - � a P a [ ✓J Plan r/adiew i gcoordinat with follow' Approv cannot be granted without their review and permit issuance where applicable. [ /fArt. VII ( ] Art. XII [ vf"Water Quality [ J Ecology [ J DPW [ J Oil Tanks By-� 1� Date c.c. . �iP. /fac%fRD It Z�EiidF�Q i % Ma 014 (6/89) • *Notice No. oZ �! SUFF Z COUNTY DEPAIt'II4 U OF HEALTH SERVICES TO: l ec ua FROM: Bureau of Wastewater Management .box G72-- Suffolk County Center 9° Riverhead, New York 11901 P.E./L.S /R.A. Plan LM. 516-548-3312 NNICE OF - COMMMIAL H.D. Ref. No. C/o - 9U-00-2— Applicant 4s � T.M. Designation_ loon -- -i — dP 3 Article VI & Article VI Zone_ This application is not being processed for approval as submitted because it does not appear to conform with the standards/requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code as indicated below: 1. [ ] The proposed sanitary flaw is greater than the allowable population density equivalent. A denitrification system or sewage treatment plant is required. 2. [ AThe installation of a subsurface sewage disposal systen(sl is not permitted when: [ J The proposed system will be an insufficient distance from neighboring well(s); [�posed well; surface waters and/or wetlands. existing subsoils on the site contain meadow mat, bog, silts, clays or other impervious materials which extend below the groundwater table or existing subsoils in the area are unsuitable for the proper functioning of the system. [ ] The groundwater or drainage conditions are unsuitable for the proper functioning of the system. [ ] A public sewer system is available. 3. [ ] The installation of a private water supply well is not permitted when: [ ] A public water supply is available. [ ] The groundwater supply in the area is inadequate for individual water supply wells. [ ] The proposed well will be an insufficient distance from proposed or existing sewage disposal system(s) . [ ] A denitrification system is proposed. 4. [ ] 'the installation of a denitrification system is not permitted on land subdivided subsequent to 1/1/81. 5.[ ] Theroject is apparently on land to be subdivided, or land subdivided subsequent to 1/1/81 without Health Department approval. Subdivision application required. 6. [ Other/Comments: d ah a - 7 2 For reconsideration, proof should be submitted that this project conforms with these requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. If this matter cannot be resolved, you may request a variance from these standards by applying to the Department's Board of Review (forms and instructions enclosed) . Prior to applying to the Board of Review, the conmercial applicationmustbe completed. By.--ZL Datea 18-241:8189 SCOTT L. HARRIS SUPERVISOR } Town Hall, 53095 Main Road L P.O. Box 1179 FAX (516) 765 - 1823 - 1• Southold, New York 1 P971 TELEPHONE(516) 765 - 1938 ��'�G�t�' <.-' �• r' PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX COVER SHEET TO:'' i a� i FROM: DATE: t�/,,.L✓ le277 Pages to follow: Additional Comments: G'� afij�Yrmzct� IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL SOUTHOLD TOIVN HALL at (516) 765- 1938, s-PROJ CTLDAUMBER i • .. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FAST TRACK PROJECT SUMMARY 1.APPLICANT/SPONSO ENT/REPRESENTATIVE: �Owhf RD zFNn'FR 2.AG ADDRESS: 'PD , Pox AT 0 ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: GREE<YP°Rr/1 30'941 S PHONE NO.: 3. HAS A SITE BEEN CHOSEN? ❑No es (If yes, give precise location. Provide map and tax map number if available.) /6' 7o SAG'k Ro i D /YX//%7/ /000 - 6-721 - &T-3 4. IS PROPOSED ACT19bu ❑New ansion ❑Modification/Alteration ❑Relocation (If so, give previous address.)? 5. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT INCLUDING PURPOSE (attach relevant design reports, plans,etc.): �xP�/�ts/ver a/c �7/ST'r�YG �ii9<Ziir�i . 514:71r� %EgNEsr: NEPA f<eoo, rt4.x+"ft 190Pr. 70 9fulek, d- el`P/?o/i,E rt P4,*/ To pL � PG / o01-,e wol- p4ef4mre9 04zF-11)461F p,I 0*1�� 6. PROJECT STATUS(check if begun): 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED OR NEEDED: Start Com letion Proposal Initially 2-y0 acres FeasaWit Stud Ultimately .IV0 acres Preliminar Plannin Final Plans: S ecs ✓ Site Ac uisition Construction Other 8. WILL PROPO ACTION INVOLVE ANY SPECIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS? ❑Yes o If yes, please describe 9. WILL PROPO ACTION REQUIRE SPECIAL FINANCING? ❑Yes o If yes,please explain 10. WIL OPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? es ❑No If no,describe briefly, i.e.zoning change,zoning variance or special permit 11. IS PRESENT LAND USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT? tri Reside tial [Industrial ❑Commercial ❑A riculture ❑ Park/ForesUO en S ace b Other 12. DOES TION INVOLVE A SPECIALPERMIT APPROVAL,OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER G RNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? as E] No ❑Unsure If yes, list agency(s) and nerrri!/Vr)rovals G( 5. Aemq Co,2PS ew(f�t it/EE/e-S HAOk-Tt/ TJ9,0T - SUPP-ozK eeL4 13. D9£S ANY ASPEC'i �JF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? YIX es ❑ No If yes, list agency na a and permit/approval SaNT H01-1J 7 sTF�3 Iv�TL/9N0 (/�iPlyi< / NIBS RgeMIr-; 14. AS ESULT OF PROPOSED AC--WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REOUI E MODIFICATION? Males ❑ No Not a licable new business vT er y,?,9L7 r}� 5, He6ySS SEORA REVIEW BEEN INITIATED? 1sdYes d No If so,who is the lead agency? TtJA✓I✓ -rr&LrS'� /SSG!£ /✓bfgAnr/<F- �£Gr6.r4,es9Tion/ Di✓ S£PT." .2�J'� /55'/ � Y THAT THS INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Ensor name: �� .�t /y�/� Date: ?LGwGr��O /l�7`02 submitted no later than one week prior to scheduledFast Track meetings (third Tuesday of the month). C.R. Merolla,Commissioner /,- �<f.ST/O�YS' CfPZL Suffolk County Department of Ecot,omic Development �pgg�T ,�ggi✓3'�C. Ith Floor,H.Lee Dennison Bldg. _�!ppauge,NY 11766 A tach additional sheets as needed. ..,. '� `:,•.t..-:!Sit -. - -1i Np y, b, 4 9 .1 1 Ifl� MNv/ eL. 2 .0' C (WEST) - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL-------------------------- I M LW EL. 0.0' ------------------------------ C --------- PROPOSF�D � ` ---------------------------------------------- I D - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL W�LAND ------------------------ ----- -- �2Ei7GE UN£—� VeA55Es ' � KEY MAP E ----- ----- ---------- CA-ANY s ° BARGE AND CLAMSHELL ---- 1' RacK, (3QiGK RIP FLAP - ------------------- ______ — — — — Scale 1" = 6 00, MAINTENANCE DREDGING ( ENTRANCE) : DRAGLINE FROM WEST SHORE s� _ SECTION A-A ' eye NTS OF WAY � R1GNT �� ✓E S 65'11'10"E 219.00' S 64.11' 10" E 134.13' S 64.55'00"E 50.94' 517-20 11399' _ �1, 0o N/O/F w' Ns 5 Ag4p?- HARBOR 9 , VIEW REALTY LUEVELOpA&WT CORP. ` \ O s RABR300 DR/VE HAUPPAUGE, N Y 8weie bre="G°"?99 _ to PECOM'C BAY y'r N/O/F ' a o9 & MARE � \moo I?B.79' � -� -_� I59.8t JOSEPH � fmov ,`!� _ ,,• � �s W/[UAM �y` / •�jr°�"' u+i r ,, ' 1 r` ;. K N/Z A K I K/LL/ANp q /STAKE SAGE 8944EVA \ • _ W ARSHAMOMpp NY , a � - t Z $ PO BOX 205 4 SAGE ^1 ^� G "o" Y I SOUTHLD, .ti' 0971 BOULEVARD >7P a e ARSHA Fc o r C/O a W.rt ' P O BOX 19? r�q 11ON4 L gREOGING „INF6ttMATION METHOD OF DREDGING --- ES,T.jMATED CUBIC A (EAST) - ORAGLINE TO LIMIT SHOWN (CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LOCATION EXISTING DEPTH (FT. AVG. ) FEf; ', 70 BE REMOVED BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION OF OPERATION TO "A DETERMINE OPERATORS AND EQUIPMENT ABILITY TO " PROTECT. WETLAND) 2500 ------------------------------ 16.4 AY ---C ---------------------- ------ -----' ) - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL 3 �`'------------- A (WEST) � 11! 2�D'MN� 3 ' y ,nlN EKfSTiNG GRgDc 'Fq Et, 5.a' "off -". 195.00 --------- --------------------- - A -----------= - B 30'x4n 2' Fl.OATiNG Ix+G_K D GLF,P B -, ---------------- ---------- �_ ~-^^---------- ' ---BARGE-AND CLAMSHELL D . -5 --' 10500 �. �- " .-------- - --- � -------------- - C ( EAST) - ORAGLINE - 24000 - ------------------------------------------------ . ' - ((1(111 W eL. 2,•0' r T C (WEST - -------- -3 A ? MH � E ----------------------------------------22500-------- -------)-- BARGE AND CLAMSHELL �a D I MLW Fi-, O,o' r - --`*y`-r---'------------------^--- ----- ---------- D - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL- -- -- v PROPOSED Is K E Y NOTE:. I' DREDGE uN£—� TOTAL 79000 CU. FT. ----------------------^---------------------------- V/GfTLAN� C�RASSEs MAP OR 2926 Cu. YD. € - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL --"- ROGK, C7R � CLAY IU< RI P I, ': - zz=cz==zze $ I' _ _ _ _ _ tale 1" - 600' E%ISTING WAFER DbPTHS (MLW), i N MAINTENANCE DREDGING ( ENTRANCE) ; DRAGLINE ,FROM WEST SHORE N SECTION A-A \ LU \ �< 138 SLIPS (9'h,, PREVIp{Ik5) t "' �'• F-- GH'� OF WA Y � NTS DOCKING ASUMf�,ARY _ �6' R- L seE -n'ro"E are 00' S64-n'10" E 15413' C) E =epzz_z=czzzz=z_== S84'55100"E 51581' SIT 4B Xvess --_--------- I _ _ _ i — 5p1.45' e ,<'3p•�E- NIOIF Mbi 13 4 ' X 24 FINGER PIERS+ -I-24 4 ' % 30 ' FINGER PIERS °• Hee 51,pp•• aao7 I-1-IT-H-15-7-RAMP �� 99 HARBOR VIEW REALTY DEVELOAAfEW CORP, °d7 3 4 ' % 30 ' FINGER PIERS W�1TH 15 ' RAMPS 8 --y--------- s�„L� 300 RABRO DRIVE DIGVE 15 4 ' % 30 ' FINGER PIERS WITH 20 ' RAMPS } n G.«A H MAP" 1q' 4 ' X 40 ' FINGER PIERS - - -' I D ', so'F� HAUPPAUGE, N Y B'writ � PECO 9 9 _ � wwl er Or� ne 6L NIC BAY g -- 355F=====________ =�'�� Q 67� rP ao" E - ( FLOAf.ING' / MAIN DOCK'S'i••. Pi __ ---- _ O = JOSEPH MARIE f \ H \ c 428.78' f o 6 ' % --- - P N I, iITH 20 ' RAM yL________ ,N '_________ _ F / 6 ' X 2Q0 ' (FIXED)-- --- � I59.8�' ' i� 4A - %,' ,315 ' ( FLOATING 'N 20! RA P N/O/F \ gh / DN"'S'�CM .1 k *" j _ (FLOATING 'tl 20 RA I+I ` _ -------- I - - - - - -- -- �� WILLIAM 4\ \ ° 6 ' X 215 ' ' a — h I 5 KNIZAK �_ - - \ } ' - sibLE w I -4 K/LC1A`� °Oj ��, '�'.-o a/ 9( �_ • � g ` NOTE ' NO BULKHEADING 'T ' BE -CONSTRUCT€'D I - SAGE BOULEVARDn N l W PO AR8HAoxD 05 NY. fq SAGELP'a Y TENNIS . c SOUTHLD, ^/ v 11871 ) BOULEVARD N ,xpgp� �•" I w Z ARSHAMOMOOU , o % I_ I couar _ C/O W, !. CLARK I �` -r`-,.-.!•-'.-. I'n I n l P A BOX 1, I E 1 x - - MATT/TUCK, KY JER ? ETU LDfEoED ) h ,l VicgT/oNA � 11857 95 �'` \ _ A , w I - 6.1 R/GHT oP 'Ay 11.9 I0 MAP OF SOUTHOLD �' 05 pBP"AL Q'- Z" 1 / ' cxAw L!Ar ra¢e SHORES SUFFOLK S 69' 31' 30" E COUNTY FILE NO. 9859 t 300.00' � , I hlRj� ? - �elcC SURVEY OF TENNIS PROPERTY COUNT i C o OAK O ss= O _ 0 A q I A T ARSHAMOMOOUE' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD A ( N�.rt . Y . 11 29' 6I n Ca.Y ACCA'QL SUFFOLK COUNTY q}A SAGE PROPOSED -- - O 100 57 — 01 JB.J -3 Fr t ASA EST IIP ou. c[tePoo 30' �'— IIIJ / �� 1'Y Jin� y000 GAL. cAP. IBEFTIC sys TE FOR POOL) \ Y �11101. F111 fl Scale 1 Q 50 0.FPY J M - '� h 4r' 10' DIA. lFlTK TANK B A SIN N I r M A � 9 ,a �_ G A Roca GAL, cAP — b // zo oe 9 5 ro !" fl ANN �- REaA " ' ML a /e,..hO� m ,BRICK _ J" WALL May 17, 1991 bo Adz. — — EAS - BLDG.- " May 30, 1991 f � _f -- _ _ _ o.,R B� coNCRETE e`oGE h N 1_ - -- — /r" R•dG L K5 I BRICK I cOIIREGATEc INBROLNG POOL I - ' BUILDING KETAL BAR TO AR A PCN sT r ' n OPEN CONCRETE BIYJM1£ I 3 j lJ 7,Z c I I AM 1'C"CpA�T � I BRKK HALL / \ N/O/F HARBOR VIEW REALTY DIE OZ CORP ' I_ —_ 8E -5 W ICIGED / 1 -6'J' / z AREA T \ I LEGEND 300 RABRO DRIVE HAUPPAUGE, NY \ V W � -- UNPAVED u; AI /' BRICK _ '} e �kaA 'G J B J BUILDING RDN TRATKS WOODED 52 FOR TNAVEL L,FT APPROXIMATE TE AREA OF 'LSA GE BA SlN" nP I -- BNKA o JJ— -- wA rE {7 LINE - ` BDATEs - ur, Irr POLE = 14.5 acres IM — \ RAME NTERTIOAL MARSH, LU /,•. -- — --- FLUS _ zRGY 9d, RLDG. .i 2000 GALLON IN-GROUND JBF I' \ -j ASOLWE LANK \ � D — FRENCH DRAIN FIXED AND PLOA'rING DG�KS CN04TN SIDE 61 FIXED DOCK I ` q 111CKAdF ' s- q'q — WATER DEPTH AT MLW Off) s�HD FRO A �No REA T - ?' l / ' ,N 1:L. 6,O m I l - 20 tiARBAGE -r(PILAL OF (2) CI1 pLl'K$ 'NDvTW 51 M)NLE LI M a ( I ( I A y- f,.._ - 1 BUiTSTA'PN� eREA _ 1 '24�o GlkpfcP t \ _ _ DREDGED -(to -6'J FLAGGED MARINE SPECIESDREDGED1 ! � � �_• _ _ - — UA BE: -F - v,I�II14 —GROUNOSEL TREE (Boccftarl'sa OL 2a, I LimifaliO) AND MARSH ELDER �� !(4f/((ll( MHW 2 (t0 AL AzsW Gw+ss, (Iva Frutescens / - ^^ -- ff�(� ��14�� EL_O.O MLW To PRESERVED 1 BY MR. BRUCE Aga �er� ANDERSON ON JULY l9r l99/ tpc &i^o,� q _ "'L� II AREA" D" m z PRaPPseD APPROC. 7 B� AREAE / WETLANDS LINE (MHWM UN- D' D2eDG� LIN6�� RocK rSRICK ``-1 2e 94 b,3� / If n LESS SO INDICATED) aY I•ar�. ,' RLP rzAP � '< BRUCE ANDERSOAI ON - - - - l G''#'Y �✓ z JULY / 9, /99/ IE � � e-L -p` ' w ( B 5 SECTION B—B c sy I 3 NTS TOTAL AREA = 12.469 acres to tie lines AREA of LAND UNDERWATER = 423cres + TyY J = PRE-EXISTING DOCKS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED - was 6s (NOTE: TEMPORARY FLOATING DOCKS NOT SHOWN HEREON.) 245.07 — . "'Ic, CR/c•ny MHwM — N 6.5. � 2 361, 0 I �.1 TEMPoggRY SpUIL DISP054L \` CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO N G. V D. �y AND pEWATERING Lx -no N 332 _ a / �J 59 20'A 1$0'x 4.5'Ra 2950 CY _ D _ DO } ( SVITAr3LY RE-(PINED) INTERTIDAL MARSH AS SHOWN ON TIDAL WETLANDS IIS' �1yel OCT 18 1991 MAP NYSOEC MAP 718-50 lb '1 P(CO POSEp �jULKNEA D- 'a=s��• MAINTENANCE fJQg pGIN6 /�' TOWN \ CA PPROUE v) W 1 BARD SPolt, AREA � � -� � - X51 0 5 O� (11F' h9 p9, ' o �O�O `� O 't e . R �s9 Il/ \ m Prepared in accordance with the minimum 41 standards for title surveys as established 50 JA 5� nv ."<'aB ' A"DFExslo.11 by the L.LA.L.S. and ap royed and adopted 0 OJT �0 2 3313'�pta°' , - - - - 1 N . Y . S . LIC . NO . 49618 for such use by The ew York State Land �pP G r e p s 51" b• as Title Association TITLE ITS r B RICK COVE M A R I N A �CGIIVEG�� RVEYORS , P P . C C . p�,�- solo 01110 I19� "°B p � .X11 I 16l 735 - solo y Fit, Pyo ' H " " 7,75' P E C O N I C ASSOCIATES 14 C . PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 4iNO BOX 909 y19 I LOCATION - :)U ROAD c o n s u l t a n t s ARSHAMOMOQUEt NEW YORK �l.JTHOLD , N . Y. One Bootleg Alley P.O. Boz 672 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 SCALE As sNowN REVISED z6zTouy Iggl DRAWING No, DRAWN By 18 SEPT 1991 ' 516 - 477.0030 APPRO.. JLB - / APPROVED DATE 1S JUN 1991 89 = 461 . .ypw,,ir,�r-,-. ...-,._rm.. -ma-, w _ .--mi«r.. -. ......-n-,. .-.._....... _ a. - -" , , ;'' 1. p _ „ - I " IqI :n�" 'n _ - _ I ,- -,1i" I , � . . I , � tL I — — I— — � . I I I — a', __ 'y �,,' _ - , I. . , I: " - I ' ) IAIZ-, - 4 - . ' ham° . .. . 9T EN R T'I W R , � : M1� , , I•l _ � '1 z [; : - TRI _ , ' mem „ _ ... I � � I; ; . w e , -- �� WRIER DIS CT MfFlI N"" �, , 1 � n � b 99 I - II �� i I z I I I ; ,: � L 7 � r .---1 , [I Ir ��I:6 q G T ` IC"3 y SII � ' I � r,.�L, I I -I ,� , I ' �i, I 02, I ,i A � _ r . I I : ( - I - - . a ti '•o„ y , '� '11 r' I �., - c O o _ 1 -.Iil, - .F ': th .n : 'J,1'', v W. _. ,. , - ,,, ,.f''. ;1. 1 ., , 't' a-1� - - , ,'. , ' , „ _ � . C - P ' o Lr � , b` 1 -iI4. 1 ,,+ „ , C. a i. lu: N^, Q dt. I V ;i.: nqI I f�4- ^A't 1 r N ' m Mr' f f, I r Z 1 1: I I 3? �. m I y� .F ' O . ;� n l D I z., � � W T I"'' A -SLS d `F ti '' �. 'C,w I r ' N - 1 . 1 o �+ �' ., t NI.` N fr ' ':l /� r �-/�i-C�k.,lyv�_a�Y �� ,,:,,' . p �.U1� �_ yr .N - Io;�„ -� t''' . I � P , �I_� 1- � 0 , _ ' ` 4 �;�� p �9 � D � I 1Y1 v - z , T 1 Pw m ( - '' a;rO'Ip'� t ,1 - - r' M m a , m(Q�`N / , ' ' ,c n I '..�' ' „ I '60 - r � , .y ro DO _ C1 SI'o li�I 11 11 a 2 1a. ` � p q -� I. - a. �gln \� '' A ,p �1A e, , l k A 01 z ,, './' T> : � c � ° II w ©, o , ' , I--..-.-. , oma �` � v >' n a \ 0$ c f� o. - r, ,! � I �L I I I I 1� - � � I I i R I \ - \-� I � I I�� I I I I 11 I 1: �I I . 11 -1 - � I - I � ,I I -- I 1- . I I . of 1 - - - ;P - ! �� T 'I 6; X11 R y �►` -11 I . a. y ` I c o w ' 'A M. 0 I _ - �.! s� R z� I - '��'. SIN w ., .9,, m I .I.. o A -k � I � I17I1 `}r 1� � i 11 L7 vr' I , . - �. - r 01 I I , _ ^ J' II S V. W TER METER aR � � tom : ) � II p m 11 � / �� `' QG, I �z m I : U I/ 701- I o AD _ - '' c //i I � I tix , 1. � � 3 I / / 1 oo D ( _ s�p�E I 1 I it IIO D \h V I ., 1 WAC.lYWAY I x (' ti i --I I I l / m T CJ L OVE HE I �+ G/ C R AD m O ' tr }' �P N -- „ ,Q I C - t. 1 1) I +F I I ELECTRICAL L/NE 1 /� � II` '� o m . '. �� I ' , o r R� d o r 'o , �� o I � � � N C4 n3 ' a I / `� 1 N 0� I " \-, .j1 W I TrNIV 11 ,.I 11 11 i� � �� .r, sc�'v4RY'cx PLAN 2 F R fa•vr �• O �� ' 11. r I I I ,+-�,4�1.1, , .I ";a, i�'..z� / -�17 � � 4' :1 ,L), I I� , '"Th,d a 'I .,q , ak. v nil kilw v . �, A - n 1 11\ o <� •�. ,�, I .,�, a _ r '\ \I, �, to N I Iv `/ ,1 I ` j / �" O Q rc�' �" k i t s . ��' _ 0 . . .'d 0 1 t O \ ,o H 'i 1 - 11 r - m 6\1 , a- �° ,111_ " 1 Im - \ l •.,F • l`• • ,I p f I GE'AQ}/JNf� FIEG D, _ T ...�- 14- - r ;,, - _ M�. y TO POQL D I S r `�1 p - UT ' � Z 7t - � d6 N a r , oX . - Iq - �N �� r n �/ I N I k � i, a . Z 3 n1. LLL �, D - .o ;'' , _0I .111, w POOL "oil, \. . D � � " I P 0 � .3 ` m �` `T '�„@ m3 I A - tQn Z . n -1 U' { - X I ., 1 Ii' -ND 1 m C x r A Ir I A N 1�' O '° O7 V 61 70 I - T�� k ( '� °� ! ,N-� 1➢1! P. III. W (A N I V r, Z z ' 1 mr, v � ° — _ _- _ n . 3 z 0 m '_, N A gob W - — — oI . I _ — I 3 R, _ . m v r P , ' OJ a , , ,o m D S , , - '" : 'Q�' _ In CD � ' 1S ,An C. iZ',1>I I� (A A - X ,7 ,� �� , -i �� to D �' _ N 7) ,� � �Dn � 8..3 l �' I � -, 'D 11 l ° 1 h , = y. (A /� '�. 0 R I n (0 — Z li , ' r, I'E g 2J r I o z a a, spy a ,�� \ � JrZ I €� '�� , Q - e > �`� Z'O� l - L , � p n Cb ` I� E �� L w p , �' 8.3 " ' � . . I oy� A �J y o z ��. , 11 , �o I I /m ti ��Aff C. SON ^ tt 'p 7�➢e �O �U Z 'Y / // / S io 1 r . ) O a // / / - m 9GOFE Lo a , , Z - , D f ✓ n o D 1 QI � � � A � R' (TI ,j�z m 0+ oftft / � ' i / �� n b i b S _.. v 1 i N o N n W N - Y Z N �! ,�� >4pLt�,�� ! U' r 0 '� . ooz o, m 1 19 m�l�C;' - Z I '0 A .�� o zrn V b1 ' q � , � y v , I , : � . '4' I ' ii us,�!'�, , �� g G , ' r~- ' 'I' .. , ',�'� I JI �' m ..v , ! y L.. ��.� '�� `�m•O`�,� "!^'^!T_ I r -1 H .d � -a' � ., , , �. . i. C `4 I - I� ({<, �' � IZ nhn'• {.as ili"P .I �k, 1A 'i I IT a 'w. , e1 ,� , ge w �r mw ' m I b c,; $ O n i " A .�. ;,,. 3f �,G � IN 'I� ) II r p _ _ , _ t�*y,'P 4 " " P+, ^q, a' %r1lU " �, I-�1I - • �I, N r 1 'V ti' I 'N . . + m yycc < C N • y� 'IV 'I { mm t�, 9 W a" I •{p;',. Z. ''a tl e . - .b_r,i ' r 51' Z 1 w, 'P y c I h W r ,�y $$ 1 ''' 1 O''. 4 :, ,- Aa tom , ''.i 01 fi rG A 1 Rl 0 �, °1. I ,- � I + L I 2 u z m o Iw �' _ ro' �. 41 I -- —. I � % '*l I I 0 .. A- III f— � - 'E �`1j&� '' „ "*#I,I a I I 6� ", 1 „ . �"`IA L , � �� _ I n � � @ ^ � i '2' - , Ze .. - 10 a W. sV' 'd ' 3 4 ,h - Qp � � `>, q , 'nl. ' '1 '''_ Y' A , ti4�'�' I � " :I ��' e ' YE" I1, I . IN - ,j O�' � ,� ,Q I m � � d � � IO O III , �, y 410, le , a solo m _ '�' © _ ^� l 9 p 0 w s I 4 _ -' " ¢ I roL n N D m - 0 c Q D N 1 m Is n �' �O N G -( II " U � D t.. � C xN , oP I - � I ^ I Z L yp I ' w � o r- " ' O t- m ' Viz/, I. 79 - r � OO I /Y I m - o >.. m 11 wI I I C7, >, a' r o x I. �' o im 0 3 Ir �Z N �C[�`� I. P :- � N - - i�T-T - 111 '�I - Cn' ,�_ . .�' �A I >o' ➢ II +�k s 01 A �r I )�o �:_ O ' I ,: '1 , Lf gym' - ,, b - r- L ,. m . 1, 1 .I I �i1, I , y'I Y , p; :t �3 O ;rl D � I A ,' :' ,,, I ., - r# n a a I �" I r V r ;4 ` LL n 9 m p D D 000011 I I 3V. 'mIti -C _ m 11 -1 - pj nm < D ?' m ' z- , �`••\ '' o pct% 1 ^ �n 01 3� I x Z E " f n2r VO O "�< x 1 ,!� ��jRT I • • 11/ a -� lit, Iy,, I r t" I M�v a'!`v o, c0' ' '`°'a-IRI Ij�y'A - I ., �i to ^'-501 m° os �" - ;pl, '' y .(< m ti mAQ I - F1 y _ 'n S K =I = �y S, "m T 0 0) I,� F- � M Z Y ,� m v I11 I 'Im� 1 .— v 3 m -m n "I T I I w. 11 b Ii' � .i . '0, n z r -1 ., Ql v I , p 1 - - •' 1' DC V Q� y �--II''��II m 2 :fiV x m m" m ZZ I I. IW �. .I^, - W � 9 3r�,� 4 -1 ,r W 11 IP .N I VI Gl p �I ' z `� Gel rn, T 'i p F- z �- a 7J _ 6 m. 3 m A - ,� 6I' o < _moo, Gl w I I I It) a ?' o Q ca o I �1 : - _ - �L �� I,I AI - �IQ1 _ 2 I� C'I '- M A Q c s r a r v -< 4 a ! , w o �p,�, z I I: - T _�_, n o � ' 1} — y1a Iv xl ,� f Q i - � � I � �II - I " I ' � I ,, � , . . , -- :, .�'-"- — -- =— -- -- - I 2L9ERTSON LANE METHOD OF DREDGING DREDGING INFORMATION ESTIMATED CUBIC A ( EAST) - DRAGLINE TO LIMIT SHOWN (CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION OF OPERATION TO CoK4 FI><Ev WALKWAY '`A�n• LOCATION EXISTING DEPTH ( FT. AVG. ) FEET T0, BE REMOVED DETERMINE OPERATORS AND EQUIPMENT ABILITY TO C-X14nH6 G2APG N° fl0 ; En1N -------------^ `_------------- PROTECT WETLAND) m N ----- L q 2500 A (WEST) --------------------------') - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL 30'x4x ZI FLaATi rJ6 IDool< td9 L Illi If�� - - a -^---------,------------------'^'-------^--- 19500 u g -3 , B - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL ---C----;r-------------- 5----------------------" 10500-------- C ( EAST) - DRAGLINE------------------------------------- G IIS_ � I - ML.W eC. O•o' w : --------------_----------------------------------_--- ------------------------------------------------------- — KEY MAP D . ., --- -- - : 24000 C (WEST) BARGE AND CLAMSHELL PROPOSED - WL�1'LANp CrRg55E5 s`' E .I _ - �I261�G6 uN6-�.� 'S� . Scale 1" 600' 4 22500 --------------------------------------- v° ----------------------------------------------- D - ----- AND CLAMSHELL CLAY Rot-K, p�RIG< R.IP RAP TOTAL j 'n - 79000 CU. FT. ----------------^----------'---------------------------- ------------------------ OR 2926 CU. YD . NOTE: E - BARGE AND CLAMSHELL - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------- ---------- __ 333X__==eee=k=====em=cveevv_ $' 3 ZO sem, MAINTENANCE DREDGING ( ENTRANCE) : EXISTING MATER DEPTHS (MLW) N Ir) DRAGLINE FROM WEST SHORE - SECTION A-A '� \ CA NTS ' Lu NT OF WAY 138 SLIPS (91 PREVIAV5) 15 S65'17' 10"E 21800' 554'1' 10" E 15415 �5 S". DOCKING SUMMARY - � ` O 'I S 84'/ S5'00"- 1,599' �' 'o•'f N/O/F / <Pj i 1 �, S E 51884' S , cr_13 4 ' X 24 ' FINGER PIERS, 501451 ueo?- HARBOR VAEW REALTY DEVELOPwNT CORP. 24---4 ' X 30 ' FINGER PIERS -- ----------- peg 51 00"E 99 --------------------------- 1 300 RABRO DRIVE oN° --------------------------------I _ _ RAMP_ \ SRr• - 3 4 ' X 30 ' FINGER ..PIERS WITH 15 RAMPS o ,< O.ee npen' 0°-•9o•E HAUPPAUGE, N Y 8 w< o•Pr.'« - aLi4 PECOANC BAY _______________________________________, I � - X99 15 4 ' X 30 ' FI'NGER PIERS WITH 20 ' RAMPS _ �cL ern e •� r j _ � 1j 4 ' X 40 ' FINGER PIERS - � w 81 �\S 67' 41' 40" E __-------- MAIN DOCKS, I / N/O/F ) \\ 0 42 --33X3 I I 25.11' .� ` ` WM�_ JOSEPH & MAR/E wN/O/F A B�� I �✓�-� - FENcra�-: -6 X 3'55 ( FL'GATINGI WITH 20 ' RA c I, -- - 6 '. X 200 ' (FIXED) �WJLLIAM W 6 ' X 3'15 ' ( FLOATING��yt #TH 20' RAMP _ rARtE T �� e _ - KNIZAK KILLIA� 6 ' -X 215 ' (FLOATING), TH 20 ' RAMP - \ ` - _______ SAGE BOULEVARD � ;�� TENNIS � I � f 1 NOTE: , NO NY1 BULKHEApfNG TO BE CONSTRUCTED I I ARSHAMOMO �. " 'r \ 1 OUE, NY. 14 SAGE \ o = rL� I COURT b m PO. BOX 705 I BOULEVARDJ�pq`n' C, ` - - SOUTHLD, 1 �` o - ri r-+ -,.---+,--•e-• r •r 2 0 1971 ARSCIOHW. JO. CLARKN : I � _ 1 : P O BOX 192 Q MATTITUCK, NY -rr 11952 p JcR ✓ ETU `DEGbED1 A'•1k/Gq „ O/✓AL cN�n• LME z --- --- RiGHr a� w, Ay E- ,v7- I / 6.1 - hh Ase ._ S 69' 31' 30” E 300.00' hln9 m I I 'I MAP OF SOUTHOLDI, I SHORES SUFFOLK N Zq.' ( {�I°i ' TENNIS COUNTY FILE NO. 3653 rvP. T— III 2 cw SURVEY OF = — i�N s N - - '- - tArE FIELp �rn cs COURT "OAK ' 'I 111 ( • �`– PROPER T Y Fri I Z U „ F Lu I r /' - A T ARSH'AMOMOOUE — — R�AaB„ d.=dy,.,. t "� N F� I— I� ISI -- SPE B Z TOWN OF SOUTHOLp S boo (nom —� c � 29 , \ -6.1 iYKLA f'1 _ - d. I W ` Y 1 1 A./ A l.7 E PROPOSED ` _ kk ' 9 SLA n� 2-"" Y. ou. cEsaRooL ° l d1 Y 2 SUFFOLK COUNTY , N • Y • - �__ —AQEA�^4 II,O --- I I 2 � /+e 2000 DAL. CLr. IaEPTIC SYSTEM FOR—POOL IA _ 1y -3 S L WEST tl. II 0 icacuwG FIELD -j 30' � J 10' DIA. BERM TANn 1000 - 57 - O 1 - 38.3 h - o �: _ BRIER P ., 2666 WAL. �. o d,ed a r ILA Rw N. RE'A 'A ML / /n; pY r"..;.. eLRe. - xAu corLE R �+ p /� �+ // ze.�e I9' 9 ro i� dIVW L_ E.ASf Kwa- eu0&Scale 177 = 501 O A J � N a" �IQ' � -/' - ��J�Vl�ri awl � - _ - � � WJE I � 5�� May 307 19911 T - - - �� E Y _ _ — n Next PO �' r - l� P/R., v+ c S \ I METAL y /–` BRICK COFREW TED POOL Y N N BUILDING BARN GONLRETE a� _ OPEN C_� — ER6x MAL / AR A ''C'WEsT Ak ARGN �r 7\ AREA r / p m � BE R�tlGED (r 'S�v N/O/F HARBOR VIEW REALTY DEVELOPEMENT CORP ___ LLLIII _ 300 RABRO DRIVE HAUPPAUGE, NY 1'1768 „ p ��I duanNG I �i G U LEGEND b,1 RNN TRA nS wA��\9.,wN 8� - uNl'avEU _ 5•Z cOR rRAVEL I—yIr 4P51❑1 T- -RHO . dOdiE 29 —.—_- - I 18"E"gI_[irJ wc/0DE0 G� APPROXIMATE AREA OF "SAGE BASIN" 33X3 GAI1 I \ 14.5 acres -',/ ?000ASOLNE TANNON N GflOUNL , warcR ( Ivr_ W /�,, a ` - v rPe96 I �U -- LIT. L ITY POLE ' 1 -I wnoo ALK 0 o sroaAr+1 f.. 9. IM - INTERTIDAL MARSH, ' r R0"NR 5I + FIXED �ocK / , �, A E D - FRENCH DRAIN Flxev AND FLOATING 2aG KS (NoaH SIDE 6 / IREA TII r_ - 9.9 — WATER DEPTH AT MLW �Ff) SaWo4> FIzOLA F�N� , SIN, 'r EL. 610 II` N I - - DREDGED -(to -6') - TtpICAL �NN¢7H SIPE � 4 f>=* NILYJ IpC1^P GL�PRp ;BE DREDGED A" MARSH CIRASS METAL I FLAGGED MARINE SPECIES a° PL 2°+ o _6, I - �yI �I _ r° r3L eceseRVFp , V/ "1 M H W Z �'5+ •, \ .3 FRAME 6AF. �Il v 14 GROUNDSEL TREE (Bocchorisa —� I(4Il((1111 - z -,- Lfmil`0 D) AND MARSH ELDER --I �� --dff ll�lb £�a.o n1Lw Mew AAII D J (Iva FrufescenS) BY MR. BRUCE Ncad vEanss"cs &0 9 ARea E" (— ANDERSON ON JULY 19 /99/ APPRmc. �' `9' DREDGE UIJ6 J J WETLANDS LINE (MHWM UN- LESS SO INDICATED) BY Mr?. _ _ - —J'' CILIky BRUCE ANDORS01V ON I )ULv' 19,199/ SECTION B-B N L \ \ NTS �. _ u vI — —,- TOTAL AREA = 12 469 acres to tie lines AREA of LAND UNDERWATER = 4.2acres ± ' / LeAUAIN� dPslN -_ ---- — 6.3 - PRE-EXISTING DOCKS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED_ O -- - - ' � 6,1 � y =� 9 � / 26� - 745.07 (NOTE TEMPORARY FLOATING DOCKS NOT SHOWN HEREON ) z 4' e ` ✓ a on y MH y M - N fis• ?5— 2 _ �9 "fEMP°2AIZY SFb1(. p15POSA� ?4$g?. 9O f1 ANP- VeWAT"E411+It, LOCA-nON _ , '� 29 12o'x 150'% 4.5'� 2930 C �\ CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO N G. V. D � ' - 91 C SVITA3LY RETAWED) O S , 0 M1� w C g y IM _ INTERTIDAL MARSH AS SHOWN ON TIDAL WETLANDS pRoPo56p �JV6KUEAD � - � \,Tem' ur MAINreNANe+r fJQ6rJGwCe MAP NYS.D.EC MAP 718-50 CAPPRo e �) ca in. _ SPOIL AREA �� .� ° 20�, r ' �I ;'- 1tEa > ` �' v� � ' � •fes' 'S S I ,_ OF Al h3 �y a 5�0 39 >.o_ "O ss9j " �- �I1i 0B no e �� p500!0 'Ra@laew ` A >" ! 0 r `f,gyp. Prepared in accordance with the minimum 50 (� hrI '�- 3313' N� v1 standards for title surveys as establisned OF OJT 0 12 ,-I 6Y' a•9e ,� h " BRICK COVE MARINA by the LLA.L.S. and approved and adopted PP 0 1 °, 1 0 �1 . pe+ �5 wo11 h h' N . Y . S . LIC . NO . 49619 for such use by The New York State Land �� 500 I ' '� I PECONIC ASSOCIATES Inc . PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Title Association J��O �� '''' W rw q<`sG`AT'G" ARSHAMOMOQUE NEW YORK 4E,ONc,�.;S RVEYORS , P . C . `' I` " s's j C O h S U I t a n t 5 (574.1) 765 - 5020 t (• SCALE AS 9MOWN REVISED z61uLy Ig91 OMwlrvc Nn, 18 SEPT 1991 P O . BOX 909 / i One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 DRAW„ an JLB C � ' MAIN ROAD �7 SO'UTHOLD , N . Y . 516 . 477-0030 APp.:_ IAPnnoveD ogre ZZ JuN 1991 89 - 461 M�� NOV - 6 1991 �J L y 11 PLANNINIBOARo I � I 8ES ORT WATERDISTRICT MAIN I g Z Lo 9.9 I Z { 111 .6 \ V ,4 G X �` I m Z 7 Ii - - - I X u r � �708- E. n n II j� o D o 1 I P N Fri � f-� � �2A y F C — D 1 Off➢ �o Iv � O � � � ➢ � � Ih - _ _ \ -�1 r 7o z kA 1C1 \ p f 6 m "� z a o 0 o D v 0 n c h z n o ll O j' I s \ \ \ I v, ��• `'�- \\\ \\\ \ I` —y ~— I I Iq > � Z aC SNF \6 „ W kh f L pp N I m - F a -01� ,m • �- '� lid - £` -2'' W TER Mt TER �n _ / m➢ � r I I 4, Aa _ 1 _ L Z D v 9 I ' � T tLJLCO OVE.PHkAO Z11YE 6.8 Ae T, e � J / s xo ' � _ 6�y6 � b m Y F �' w tE�ceon✓q_FiEc� __ _ /z rh, � —� �� DIST R16u TiOly ox N l,' / '100oAMP,pec rRlc O V N r m D� I • tp - I vlO ( • •' l� • v r � m T N r POOL � �• ,m � I L JNZ �- n A mT � ,� QZT I -I I I 0 U O n o � � V w � � (N N A — n m z s - pOa l � n � 3 — D m < -- vs - moK a 3? v me roar T � / A A3 NZ -D D roy - v�1 Io •0'4Di\ - ti 8.3 / l 1D SNI ,, (I -D I � � - � = cx _ IF, y X — O I O� ` l-li n P N siZ. NIP J� IN _ 8.3 Ng DD w Oo u _ U z N y<,p r D YI kh � i Tlm D / Izwo Z �-CO — G W V W i \ �Z N sc y n p II z �dpFY A O ro `� / c� _ c I1 / aha k D r �m r G - /. v d o x o c o=» C r w / z s z G a UI �zovn -I W < s a raj • I Sf1m0T OOOOOO I U o N D lrl C A 4- o -aa n + n 000�c m r f a rel 2 " N Hamam oo ooc Nir n • Io u a m• oo N I b o C UI ` N UIQ a ' "C'o co Z N o 'a _P m C ,-�— ( 'I N Z I r O a v I .... N� .m.� � . •` m mpn� ILn D m m y a i i T---' ' I Z O I �l ev N w s a ti h w I Z U1 -� I CID y CN i g o b v Arc 41_00 90 i f F Z-1 �l(� ( I { 6� 4i100 •. m �mzp a p 'Q m Z o _ 1 W D A I co b o• wA�kwAr £ I nl �' m _ _ ° ^ � 0 � w iT 10 m x i J � _- - m 3== I D r C r m G 3 w O ` 4 a Nl m Z • a A �� Z� V H y p, ➢ O � n r m o C N O O • l� Otn ; I wD 3 •� O {� D 'PiN Z � p rm WEI I 'mom DyN vz � < v '1 I • • �w N v to n I my m 'I D A< U P I • • N I ➢ -1 �? N Tab p c o r-' O F- r z ^ A a � o � r ozz y Z- - m o in rZ �rym I • • • v {� < o P I ' • U `, n ° In 01 2N � N `� it D � c . 1- @fPl I n m y p m � AC 2 mid I $ cq Nmw 20 �r ➢� p < ° DAQ A oA m1c ^m pF K? CP o c -IAD • • • ' a X Ll U) m > �� to CR - • • - 1 �^ a N, L, a , r y b z I �� r' m w1 x IV myy • N DLf) c. " r ' m.b �' Np U� W. 0 N v Z D Oh I N e m \I ' D O C IUIB W d �ij (\ -- .O 1 1 n > I O � O GO m Oai I -gi O — z O VI - -L in Ai ' m C LR - - —_ o T > m Z c, � . CA ase ,i * '�" "1 I qy •f D -_oo - G t s r z •� a D S J• � n l 1116' I , rN W TT 'N" 8ORT WA1ERSpISTRICTPMAIN g rn j X O 1 ( 9 .9 > t 11 .6 \ Sq � o I 2708, E. M 17 x _ ID Z- oN m , zmm % ,D I grFR ,NE � D c9 m I Z v W / wwx ru Iv .VI n r Wq[kw,vY 7J 'z y7 0'o m 7 - x --- rIf c C D I o � Ap � !b A 01 6 tG d _� • T c -�77 OD In m 73 nboo If ��+ R Z T. `". i m �� 7 '41. 11 Mp - tn ro�� 1 p � I my t C1 6,; • o^ W TER ME-TER ° Vt c _ I I _ n c / �• � ub II � mA c II I � � = a m I I w F A wF l rlti �� m 1\ I _ I �e z m P I X � NN1.1 • i sic oda,—, eVe PL.�H ? 6. 8 I _ � r a , k XN � • �• • � /� � I tEAcr N� FE�v / / � N 7- _ D1STRIBOTION aox 0O ' Iv z wN 900 AMP - 2.20 V ctcc T.eic n i i \ N Lo IS 70 tr• n �� Pyr N POOL p f D K x m 4 'a In � - II i'`i ' -.� •• �. 1 �°.. U+ CP ^I ay. p C� Z I-��I m �n �a p o W c -- A W < ' P m "� mo zl ` _ Im 3 HII N r ' ` O z -o D 9 � . . p v,� I o � � 8.3 .001 y D � ..Z m I _-_ z � r m O o ✓ O Y { Cb � zz — Z z N` 'p D I 4/ z rl N fib ° �m �j I '' x 7- z - yo \ w w w _ z gr g in y a \ / LOAF :m _ D I a� pG ` _ w / I or z `ty4y 717'o w <� - - 03, F9y Z I I 74 C rem !� f �\ Q ri I D Z i z G a ul rzi o'm� - - I - I D S[oPe w ° c 1 �. rm ' C7 xoa • n I C � • �� _ z n'NmT 00000 = � N D 6., m N N ° A � –aan,✓x o�Qo� smt- I � � • O � c el c. A .t, vt Z +I C) 4 � .,I /a� ro ca � � v ' I 0 2 m I Iq O _ lu ! RJr y I I<.1N�.T I I 6 � - I r 57 Z Oi �I N -�► d r a I r I 7- 2 Uf= f�1 p¢'' .t�' 'o' ;_ L Z S% S' Y 4'16 lei c ,INzm �� V\ v ig a:� I v a O A G ca C � o ^ Y 1\0 O o zs �I I £ 1 - O n — r Ts 0 i •C � � S � - I > N _— C! Z Z T _ D 00, Zo � = N r - � = n I 6 0 -4 m ➢ O � � xm ¢i . • m - m n •�" T� VO 2 3 v�V � I �� I n < ov3fV y"i r ,� V'I _ V 9 00000 N . � � r72`L �' -I � � P P< II r z n � Iw soar o� y , _ lIf LV{ IA I 3� O in r, Z "' la o • - r o ^< _ m K z z = � 4� T • �I> 3 ➢ ZYry �IN Lq C t1r 2 T" yn D r ( ti ➢ A 'R pA , tl�c ;� OWE <x (P n c -IoD • y ➢ , n nN" oI> � v I V r 2 ' pm m A a, m -, ywy I on • o 3 A z � o om b Zz I N n >r- r Q 'TI ^N 1 .r y. N N I � '� •^ Z O S (n zIm „ * c Ip a r D a m n N ➢ I zw,, N D l C a � �a ♦ A L Q - _ � •o� o o Q7 I h _ _ f _ 3+� Iv 0 Ir In s • _ q' M , U' _ _ � �I l � D a I ) z z� 0 y +rt ��!�' �� '� .. . a,m� � Lvr-a��s• .� `� /a,� d cd w,!' I r ut r - i - w - - - - - — 12s40SA00 i i .L � w w — w -+� w L-tlV-ifl {-4� _ 1 / � � /"i/ _ "T/ d ! IR':4„ � i s ' #r1 1 ! �• 'I f I' SITE: 13`30 •Q- �. r / gy - 134 '`1� IwUA1NO - 9,090 PQ- n. � ,� O i. - - - - ib0 SQ. FT. E � R SAMITJLRY CALCDIJ4'!IS j WUMI111O POOL — 143,0 SQ. FT,. — 25 SQ. FT./OCC IT — ! 40 OCCOANTS AM 10 OPD - - - „ - — - •, - 44e0 OiD I _ . *::Jowl OJ2 •AT 100 on]OOOJ T - - - - - - - « - . • xso MD l 3) E +, 4wna1# r*MLY 'PLUS ARTIWT UNIT (000 + 150)', #n "a am 10 001011; a - lI,y 009 S AT 0.04 BPD/SQ- FT- - - - - - ?ipo am Q !T. 06 !T. f 41”MQ 20 0 F11 'STATION A a 41 r ODT I VERAO i EC 7 (aa, aQAmP' >'VIiPaD - 5 PaA QRWILGY N , SF PORT VICL 6 OM Nail!- T 5 0JL !fit 'MIAR CW[' � / A A aNDh . u � i T F OETSIAMPaR DAY INTO *E 1Ya"� - 20 sS0M ) FF V I S TIM At:IS - SibOFD FOR ONTNlfTNO POOL AND TaNM P 060" I 00 on FOR EEcxDENaa ' 1000 OPD FOR NARSNA FACSLITIES � ' 32'56 "SAL OPD _ M_ I TINh 'spM, NEN 9" OAL. Fast RUIDX ca, '200" ami•FDS � �'''. w AND TWO - ONE EXI0TING AND ONE NEN _ ,,3, 000 ONL tea 1811k'111A / Z'LITXES. I e ' Ocam PMLS FOR RESIDENCE AND MARINA FACILITIES: ®BI P«ZO PE�-t:. LINE_„ ,:2258 Gov TOTAL 2358 OPD J 1.5 OPD/S.F. - 1505 S.F. OF SIDMNALL Jf 1 1.505 B.P. / 31.4 E.T. (10' DIA. SO") . 47.0 VMR7hI'cALIT. Pt MEND � I h I zPramxVE DEPTH OF 3.0 FT. (101 DIANi"1'ER POMS) c' 47.9 / 3.0 15.9 P00LI5 USE 16 + 31 DEEP PDox:S 7 WUT \ 14A'x'�y►J!.'�; :7 -"'"} EK p,yN U R E 12 I -IAS CK M BL DC' 1 AINTAIN FdRCE M IN ET _ - + I Vti(, gL0 ER ME 14 1.g' P'4t N� BELOW A 10 '1 � ',ItA' . `,' I O w/ K.:P7. W.LJES GRADE 1 sv O CMWoF C Nk 2Gr O ^{ l I o' I / I 1 y' 12 ED R HY V, �vJ?ReU 12OA4CRfT �S r1AIN, �y LYe/ %Lt,e,, E OtTr�i' L : O vJ }4,� �y ' I p' ?u - 8 2z ZIVog AgID FOL w'H` LCPEY Lo ) .tmK V@qe 'AT/ 100* Wa: ©a O I IS (ste rSCTAIL7 "'EN NIS 11--5 P PROP OPFLF1 /0' CQu RTS I n-3 I / CLEAN OUT I ,�• I I 6RuUC HT' ro SLOPE ^4�u INV, 10.3' I TOIpE C S O INVERT CIRAD I /0' I To 6e POPSIN i EGev 9.b I I Fee ^i¢ UO N831, — 10 A / ) FgO,„I INT uM5 Tp y yYRsecT'o _ A0 a C V ID I EXrgg 2.. s� 70 J` WAT LAfi- C P k j ER ro NE \ CO � � 0 F. 4 t7eez s! TDExit5T 4 EZ15T. \ A ' LEACH. ILVYEKT �°� F/fG D q,7 \ CAP fK/52 L/NE NVERT g EV. 'E h9AN*- '_"�•.�. AQAND_ INLET '82 r`aR, b1 0/0�f - / Ea,/ST O'' IN inG 1 B TLE PUMP % ,� lY' ' K4F3,i.p� 'Fist`/,Hy,' ., "-�-- ` J mss— tjT'--C ,,,,,,,,,ppp fJ \ , z© O ,,rgl, 04 Fa,P Poo/T^,N.Y ,$YST Wq RS CE MIN. TANK ( _ AJ PROP I 5 7ACOM BWD a. _ Sr 7EA'NI - 'GTZOUND ELEV ' IM J Ci UN L _ S CTS, ! RO D SEPTIC TAMC APPIZO i INVERT 7p, EVEL \ \ ' 9Q0 CAL. K• IL'S QgcK \ J LEgCN ,c1 4D TI (SEE DETAIL _ SI /© AfA S . ^y,7• USE 5000 Ib. CONCRETE - - - 1 9 AN � 2) \ � �..,,'PQPO y 5 AtlrHr AMW rgAOE Ee 'N LVA'rfI:' MIN. oPnsMAE _ 1; 1 .°M9[M-/n NEL Lp-�T1°nl a EJ(IST. a E 670A P /CE s TAF- CLAY ' AG E 4A A r- 12^ p S-rc) C C - ,�• 4rKGH WAY YP> I ( I POOL 2 1'ENNtg couwrAREA , 4 x gp•) fr^Y+� k �+^e�rP CONSTRVCTtOt.) JOINT r2 b.5 - APP&O%- EVERY 20' • I2' Y OF WALL COINCRET C}ETAtL Es STOR#,gE TEJT ^'�"�'C�IIddGF At Nb'W 4" ' G'RAYITy^ I/ M -I r• ,t .' ,„, _ RS. Z-11 Nx ll't L i �f i � � 4 � tl"S - r f� jx � h' -' 'T� "Yw� T `�✓ATR'A6 " ' '+T-� r' I' t ! _ 11'4 C r ! 14 976 , INV. T CHT J6tN T$� ski It � r { o-�� Tvi Mr INV la.�j' F'RPh? - A f rnxl ' rM1 � 7 C wkrY.. •ry "«' ""' 7'0 I D �'S:i zo0a c nl. +Ma4 lP+ �IW1A ;,', lS11Ay '1# ensclay REPLA .F. It 2000 CAL. . J OFFICG C"14R' 6XJST Orbe swu!rea,. san#1 f4�td' Jrav \ Lt AT 8T. EKt'r tlF - 10 n A �VT'ALL CdNNEC Ck0A11 . , : ATC TI,Nt, 1 ••� T,Urti r' ` r . .a [d ( - •. ., - "P < { IWT 1?i�.'R'tS'C u13 QT'' Cd vEVR C NO RATp:po ear,', oveIt WA-V'tjr : conn 'tt5TpM CY)7 � f as " - \ Pwiwla. tali I � rSa rya ix41�a: r nodurtL,at'IadSB"''�e)�rA l2o mo Aa SUPFOLK COUNiv ULP4RTl.+LNI OV HEALTH SERVICES T p � NC^/AQ,v,A'p --. VKt APPRCVED'PoR CONSIflUCTION ONE, _ AT'Z.1" /✓N J a - - _ r a 1 f 1' ^3 S' t SOOTHOID T N M.S. REF. N0. -9 rod v . SU, ' , MIPf r" r AJ gT3 TYPE ' --�-�- ..FLOW' �L I I ' �J PLANNING BOARD Pf 71Wy This S ",` EXCAVATI0N INSPECTION REM IED ADp,nd at 14Med Mf 1� Donttru fi.n a-n» �A� . ' IP , �`� �v '�, tllSp(6i�and W]Ier sePPlV tapNIUEs pursuant IL Adicles V9 and ':'roved id;attoginnce with Board of RevietY ✓'`, 4' k - T SlrY -1 r �i.oii J .+ ^d 4' , 1, 5. 1 Ji.+ fj�,, ! A , a ' of the SunolM Cowry Sanil.ry Code mrD,ls put as expressed 7■r.. . '•+ptfov deed 3�i g 9 d n �h . ' ;..' :L ' r * J,,.'Ep' ' 3 p-'�,4 yat;L . 1yr k"V;+ +� tlDl 'rmpllxU rDProv,l rp tlisctf0'1 ' nom N xcupy Kte ] _ /_ t„ v fa FtS v' ° R 4 i W Y , e4AKafs 'snown k �4 ! 7 w d., ; - 4 F I "r f .� 'J.)Y .� r , (I' i _ "t.'I1IF �, ,i I,�� , I, , 4 1 (r11S'ANNROVAL,FXPIRES IWO rlI VEA83 + ' ;, ' .> ' -a r�'t<iF • +- I ' FRC7lTNE DALE BELOW. I � r { nrA �ATE9 ' „ _ ! 'r44 ar,_a45 II"I "w..' � 91GN1WRE - ""ur��J 1;. { s•i a a7 d tz ey:' ,, ,. �"t' x t 'g - ',:Y+ iii I i'. v9 ' Y'• r c�',"'l�"N'A&� �,� � ', � �'A.i3 "1 ' .a �"'' ,t �J#Y Tay, " - '1 w y „Y„ � T' :,J. ' w t. iM .+-'Y i+ Mm ::h ! ,. T p. y' 5 R �• 'M' � ' R5<,�>)�-, 'ri 1.1 "Y I , .� i ;� , .' x a it. d� t _n\:'.' t F�� V. � _ L M •I ,X : rvf r I t !':: ',. r i, ! t , i. _ V:,, .. n {r vI,J y.„w . :i 5 *c." .,tmT^i ' (am fi. e,' ,�},Ir - wr r ',1.,�l• a•,li'r ,.M.; ? 7 ::v _ s 5 l#Yr . „'I EI 3 ' t U;A" - r , #. ;i� .,Y33t u';r • G .#rv$ br :ri "N SS._ 11 ,ix E xW R : t. ' 1W�.,i J,3 I,, i , .� ' � ty G;n jY S>' 1 y'° `� Ik f'^", N q,� t w q�,�• alr,-.N:,, _ "P y�f+fdte:l .r•.r >��i' t. L s . 11 , v . i^ y. 'r`,-yy�� "�, �'+11e,L� m': ".A°�, e,.Ft}, t A r:yr:�r•,1 Fr c� } "e t'.:1� ii«r %u � ' f_'''J.n+, _ .a i I I I �:. •� i � •x+ ,i��Y^e`t lsr�+�1r d_- ural. ,��', -, � �, 2 ,�.'v^xL,qti;'. +�'Sr; �,,: ,. / r,,a? '-jy,f ,, ��i<< io fi'�: L ' 'P' ti;,y, ,�, ! o{ '�k i -, II IR,rUre r b Ge J�-�'' �'., ;'��1 .•�' ��' !' '� d'�' �& �r��i, � 3'I.��a�e ,r r�`J _ ail Ip- k yy y� i �Yr f� � ,U'11 a6. • + L >V I �. e v i �'f �` -"k'• pra q illi 117 4 k_I:r I T >1` r : :.e°I' uFr., ., .: Y, R.w4i v, Pi' ...v - - ,.ilw •4 - - ^`IMo „ . •. 54,r, .•y, .xt •'�q /,'. :~- 'x - -, „, '�� 1' METHOD OF DREDGING- ' :•, ,'� , - t<• `t� .- r r; ,•; [ '.,:* ,' s' �''- '{ A - (.EA'ST DRAG - '___ _ SI ' j FE'E , TQI E`LLREiIjOV�D- ) BASELINN :'TOyL,IMIT SHOWN (CONDITIONAL APPROVAL S\ LQCATION EXI$TING 'DEPS (,FT_-AVG. - -- FIELD INSPECTIPW OF OPERATION, TO _ _ _ _ _ (ow1>CE'D WALK4/AY rEq ��- - �",,k - I TLAND ,ANO EQUIPMENT A9ILITY', TO ' µ GRADc ' .__- i �- ��it 'AAAAERMINE-OPERATORS "�(,' � . A 4 - F 25PQ , - - + ',RWIP 3'rJrn ST NG �, =*-` ? y - - „`- +fir R-= . . I� ST) '- ' BARGE AND CLAMSHELL L - -- A F El . y.o' a0� TECT WE - ---- I; A (WE• CLAM- _ 3g'4x2 FWATi 1.16 Do 15 GPS ��I .. I I B . 3 ' ) 196D( . . B - - HELL-- ---r 1 --- N - - v/ � a ,-. "-* - . ,...C. CLAMSHELL - -- ', �____-- _ ' BARGE AND = 5 �146b0, - 'g- ,- - - - -�-- = - I��I( — - - - - — o' r, i 44k,�., - ------- ---- .--' �- ' -- ------, �'-- �� I(( X11 - .,_ :lc:r, ., 2 ----------- ---------- ML1W EL_, ., 4 r e --? DRAGLINET, __ LI 1 .� 0 u ��'--- A-- t " C (WE$T) BARGE AND: CLAMSHEL.C1 �� E- .;. '- 3 �:`,, �,,, .400P �, .. - --------- -:- _---------------- ------ - pROPOSfD , � ', s1HvJ e 50 pR£7G6 'unf£' I f ,.,- -- "-^--'-- - -.--- D '. - ' BARGE, AND; CLAMSHELL AAAA-- ------- 122" Wc�rI:ANp I ,. - -� - 90.00n'CD i FT - --- -_,_ - es �� 29_ --- - - `�� K1�' : p TQoTAL 7 =- �. ( � GL _ - --- 55 r� Y - N - I E. ° - : BARGE AND C4AMSHELG .,, - _- R .i , _ - '^ - c--Y' I' ---�_ ^=' -_ - --�---AAAA- A Roc"K, f3 IG< R P RAP ale " 7 ,80 - ,' -_--- " NOTE', •e -, I � AAAA- •, 5' �a` „ ��_ -. i• . ,I,. .,, '.:. EPTHS (MLW) „ i - , -. t,4 , , . MAINTENANCE i N.TRANCE}; EXISTING WA', .R D I e I _ G DREDG, NG ( E �,pP'q-!r_K�'fA4w', : ',��'U. �' DRA NE . WEST SHARE- / '�7 h , iia e .. .. ..' �fd C91 'Pr"VL n N SECTION AA �7oy NTS i iK AW' long x C.671''W1de ° LU �� F wAY with '20 lod9 x 4'' wide ;ramp T ' , IG _ 16' S 55'1I'IO777 ".:Filo: er rers;-'' - R EE y� '9� 30 ' ,long,,,x . 3� wide I�� p„ ' ', j se4.55•oa sres4' s»se nes "spa `*' g . 45 s0 E N'/O/F c 9 P 3 25 loo x 3 wide 1 30 7 on `,x 4 w 1 d?' . - ee HARBOR PMEN 'EwL , ' B ' DOCK: VEW REALTY CEVELO T CORP._ Main ' Dock - -313.8' long' x 6 .671 Wide - o �H 99, - f 300 RABRO DRIVE �• with 301 10 x 4 ' wide ramp o . .��-'M',.0„ «�R n _ E� '- -`T HAUPPAUGE':N Y•.q 8 1vN60 Aihe _ . �� Finger Piers - I '# 25 � long x 3 wide=191f],E 'FOR„WaRK` -- Z '•< - -'� sv - - n �''- ' is -i / Warar o - �P@CbN1C_ BAY .8 35 ' long x 3 ' wl'd'P, FRAM ` AAAA'- v.y._-.rf--�� I xw,n - .� .,,1 35 ' `long x 4 ' Wide, .-.�\� ' -/ ' ' J--- - ', ',}on9 x'.4.' wide gi \ S 187- 41 10'" E c 1 40 ' long x 6 ,67 ' wide- SIDE R. // Q o I N/O/ 1 -r - CS HU OFF I/ v1LLAGe• _ 459.9s' 4 I o F' I o (�' ' C ' DOCK : v ,I . Main Dock 200 1on � `x „ __ JOSEPH & MARIE 6 ' wide ( Fixed Pier Dock ) NCC /O/F �- -9� —�a `"'w,�cw. _� II WILLIAM W L Finger Piers - 15 45! 1'gng % 4 ' wide Articulating -"- -• '--, AAAA_fingers comprising :comprising : h - - _ _ 30 ' long, floating section o KNIZAK \ \ -� 'o - n KILLIAN 15, long ramp section with 5 ' mounting I SAGE BOULEVARD 9.8 - ' D ' DOCK: - -� 0 , j " TENNIs m I ARSHAMOMOpt/� NY 14 SAGE \� I k �a,N Y I I _ _ PI s/INrrARV tre Ml ' SO BOX 205 BOULEVARD cOy �r a° \ • 160 I . j _ L.EAICN1Nr�' oeus Main Dock 342 ' long ,x 6'.67 ' wide Z g SOUTHLQ N ?' +1871 I ARSHAMOMOQUf, °' spy ti ` �II �' I 1 obuRr with 20 ' long x 4 ' wide ramp - Q g C/O W J CLARK \ Finger Piers - 20�' 25 ' long x 3' wide` e , ,,6 \ LL ER5 f- n h-Qs�oNAMex , P.O. BOX 182 n MA TTITUCK, NY I 1 Lg„ 1 E BA51Pl - I 9 3`0 ' long x 3 ' wide _ ? ER � fTu DECOEo ) n lv,cAT;'O/vA � 11952 501 \ ' °x aIPJ / TRAVEL LIFT .AREA - - 6.1 - RIGH//T ov -way — --_y -' q01 0-0 ., I HALt� .a2. - 55 30'1 FLOAT - 15' RAMP = 95'� MAP OF SOUTHOLD t� �" ' v\ 1 _ S 88� 31' 30" E 300.00' - I,. I 1 45 ' long x 4 ' wide Articulating. SHORES SUFFOLK BOAT SERVICE Sup Finger with single side use only � COUNTY FILE NO. 3859 � _ .• - [ -.� z TENNIS - o , f't1 , -�� m 11 o- �r� V) rd SURVEY C _ Q �� K51 off O/ " F _ - � rE 11 i s couR,c: D° DOCK o y _ _ 0 oae l` !"w/LW a PROPERTY o �� O ERT o Y O C_ -J .f - - DOCK I 1 . ♦ � I __ :�, a ' - o I `1 P -- `o CMA U A T ARSHAMOMOQUE � � , el . F � Q _ �,G � 1N TOWN x ' d,�� Zo1_ - I F- (PRO bdund4� , N AREA; 8 9 9 ,I Z OF SOUTHOLD /1 Z9' y I rc h � SUFFOLK COUNTY N . Y . N I S A G E PROPOSED g ` QRiA f;- I- - a r� o a _ AVZ- r- .a L + I I _ � W �.+�� 10' DIA. [EBMOOL N6aREsr 1,g' /,r,e'(O �•2000 xAL CAP. ISFlTIC SYSTEM FON POOL I GG J Y v / - �, - FT \'1 ll/ 40 I .fk% AR�P�N� W 1000 - 57 - O1 - 38.3 30, \ - P� Pont , } _ I Is' mA, avrc upx drecYo Y-] „ , /I / REE Mc --J- > Scale 1 = 50 zone �9 `✓ m � M N y, II I, V ' A SLOGW __ O // i May 17, 1991 B A SIN bo — w�,/ I �� 5 «c a ..BALL P / J/ V(1//ry /�1 - CONd1E 11p, 7�, ww _ Ccx15r I A _ E woulm : QR May 30, 1991 „C„ DQ K �( vSTtMN+ n ' SzoePI,E coNNEOA. h'E AISAN pI'O 4EiOL" {� L"- OF {ooNONLT,E - -- Or AR AR C_. r 72I B 1 I r it ORE' ED O - I 1. 1 -SFr /. - 'rl N/O/F HARBOR VIEW REALTY DEVELOPEMENT CORP --- - - .,C�r� ,, _ � / - � m 300 RABR `.� 'S' r h LEGEND O DRIVE HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788 � - � � _ .� ,� ,., �i. ' �„ - _ '. /: _ � / _ _ " h UNPAVEp - h - B� u � I , �6 PAT aN rNLcs QMH, _ _ ^yERV 1 GE 30 I � � Wn u Dowd 8 3LL 8,1 6 2 5 2. R iRIVEI 5-A BOAT YARD APPROXIMATE AREA OF "SAGE BASIN" '14' „WORK'"PRAM rrtArAEL[r. 2 1I,�- I ut0<� _ F'20P. -�2ootl C,Al - N.- - WATFR LINE r 14.5 acres - ".o' uO GAL "oN ,N-eNo°Nc. L �Ep-Nl c."TANK ' W Ip' -�� /./ , GASOLWE TANK - - U1 , 1 ITV POLE * e1 r` _ IM — INTERTIDAL MAPS/-/, g„ 1 - DOCK a7 ! I ` woodwAlN D — FRENCH DRAIN '1"(P1GAL oP 2�ND PaKS t'N TL-TH SI DE�J 5 6 FIXED DOCK 1 I.9'^ _ Al DGEd "I - -B'l ' I 0 nNOUNO ON6 PLACE ONE eyl 9.0 N 1 1 9.9 — - SFlaND t-R01A Eh1D P M FUEL E TO I _ _ AAne1er / WATER DEPTH DEPT hl AT ML (�f) N. 6.O A - ✓ T ` C ) - rl "cJ \2.DM GJcP dL6 ooc KI BE GED '4 nLw l I„ TAO LETS N/ - v FLAGGED MARINE SacciSPECIES HD ` __ ( ALL MAZSH GaAs,; —GROUNOSEL TREE (BoccHorisa jlll(Illl EL 2.o MH1N ( to -6' I i, /� _ 15' --s1 Aro grA. FRe5ERVED ' / "'E'T•L Limif0lio) AND MARSH ELDER f(� l( __ � �,1�/c/ EL 0 0 FR.uE I (lvu Frutescens �// 'D7 I' WET ANv IIIA MLW ML / y / lul 1 BY MR BRUCE � � � �D 1 _ .I_ „ I ASA' D' ANDERSON ON JULY l9r 199/ pRaPosED �� APPRoc. 7' y I AK Est" O Ol 4 — (� I V,A,w,M,,.,,•A.�,A„ WETLANDS LINE (MHWM UN- DREDGE �20CA' tSRluc LESS SO INDICATED) BY MR. — ''j 1 A 2.5 .__ 1 e5 BRUCE ANDS f2SON ON 8.2 _ -�; � r JULY / 9,199/ s �� 8 p ?� P .9 - SECTION B—B ti' o L ;. NTS m „A„ / TOTAL AREA = 1 469 acres to tie lines 2 �b _ l DOC m UNDERWATER - 4.2acres _ ar - AREA of LAND U z e _ NI - - • O i NG PSS ' _ � _� - — G m PRE-EXISTING DOCKS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED . (NOTE TEMPORARY FLOATING DOCKS NOT SHOWN HEREON ) GG / ¢ h pw[' /'L O 6'' ` Y'� N 88' 06' 78" W _ 245.97 \/7� �f, irnes ee/o n_ M" wM N 56• �� 2 . 2 _ / / P ZAKY F,UII- DISpo54� ?49 - - Ir Dk o a? / 1 + ANp D�WA't"EiZING 4O[AT10 CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO N G V D / L/ 59 - 12u x 15o x 4,5'= Z93ocY �l� - ��, C SVITAf3LY RETAI NEO) = A SHOWN ON TIDAL WETLANDS 5 I/Vf INTERTIDAL MARSH S S 1 _ o , i.I MAP N.YSD.EC. MAP 718-50 - p(Lo?05BD )3ULkF16AD � � �e�- � �'tAINTENBN6E QVp(slNle '' :_ r� SP01L ARBA 15 �, . . PLANNINGBOARD�r:� l � oo. � � i, / PLANNING OOARD 9 OF Rety y sy\ O 2 O IF PA R 5 � ,6 v+ 0 g51 N 5� aD 09 < µ ^ro Ess axx� J 23,E ? '',t,• E Ici Prepared in accordance with the minimum 0� y .�� ak'< a - ., ' y O 001, 19' m^-' 'J by standards for title surveys as established- � F 5 - AAAA - }ti^ / by the LIA.L.S. and approved and adopted P G o q p 0, ef as"0� t E - - - N . Y S . LIC . NO 49618 for such use by The New York State Land P T�' , 0 ee' /` S .y Title Association 0j,- 500 0"o� I19� N �r�, BRICK COVE MARINA cc>Nt-.- RVEroas , P C . S�FF„ Pyo H M ry, PECONIC ASSOCIATES Inc . PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (576) 765 - 5020 mcxnsn P G' BOX 909 51e c o n s u l t a n t s ARSHAMOMOgUEt NEW YORK MAIN ROAD SCALE A5 SHOWN mE oTD zb�,.y 14g 1 11 NOV 1983 DRAWING No SOUTHOLD , N Y One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 onAwx BY 18 SEPT 1991 x 516 - 477-0030 JL5 27 J11LY 159? S - APPnsveD 11 AUC 1992 19 j AUC, 11992 992 AArnoveD a1. Au c, 1993DATE 2Z JuN 1991 i , __— 46-1/ i CYLINDRICAL SEPTIC TANK - - - _ 4' j AAAI" 'A OUTLET I?v � I I PUMPS CAST ?IKON COVER . TO, `9kAOE NEW I� [ q GROUND ' n1ErIA 4X t{� ` b.s BURFACE 17 A Tn 12.H v :;, 1 PL EX CONTRR EL `^ , `'" POUT:,, 1y l) 1.7 LOPE ,IB,• INLET 03 K (�1 2$O V, A6oV£ ou TJ, �j PER FT.� INVERT .,n ELEV. VIEW ]IJ IS s rl -t F_J Q�I I__-1 DROP - .- _ - _ 1 4cCA POSTS _ -- FLAN VIEW ` '(,.IYd AV EL i I� I-1 I TEE NEW - - _- - - ^�� - ( NOT TO SCALE C'IICAV EL BETWEEN I ALL UNITS f y. / z4" f �2 _.- OR.I CANAL 1 OFC p OPG I' k TRAFFIC B£ARINC� ��LEv. Q 'IR'71JNP LEVEL - (j 0" OVPLEX CONTRaL /- d ALL CONDUIT TO hEN mD-1-TOM TO E3E 18" PAWEL I p LLEV. 7.R - TOP 'f ANK s- ^^'�- ' ---�-� --`--'t'_- I MOUNTED ON 2 EXT EPID TANK O.8' � 1 I ?? E40w GRo CCA P0575 VENT AoovE CRADE i""'d' gyp"`-� FINISHED GRADE �_ - kd --- --- --- s{ ALL TI P OIL _ R SR4L PIPE ly I C120U NID ELEV. E7.0' G/J'^s- V. _ _ _ _ ,f POOR MAT ERI AL TO ISE - 'a ^E REMOVED n REPLACED �• - -_ C"-. - 5T. sTEE ` - � � � �' EXIST. SAND - -�- - 4' I LIST. en a f 1D 2ou c ''°'- "` '"- ,�t 24' «� 1' 24' �, C2AVEL AS REG1L#IRED TOP VIEW 6 ' CONOVII FLO/A'T SWITCHES -i- Cy 2alJN� �/ATEIR_ d FF711M : COupu EC - .a !20! _ ...._ _....-_- '`� -_ E TABLE BELOW) t_TLE V. 'L10'A.T EIRS INVERT FRO �'a TrIILE',ITg� ELG�/. �S_ I nws '� INLET 1 12' i 00 NOL. SEPTIC TANK TOILc V < 2" POLY. PIPE All4' DIA. OUTLET TYPICAL LEACH. POOL ' 2" IPs . SDa 'ao 4 INLET A INVERT E�T- J CLASS 2400 FLOW LINE i3 MIN. 4' DIA. : ? 7g" APAP'ToR PIPE OR EQUIVALENT ise A 2400 PIPE OR No gcALE ^3 PITCHED 1/4'/1' EQUIVALENT vE T L PITCHED 1/8'/1' " o FROM(cSEE DETAIL ' Ol6C,.NARG � ADAPTOR FROM AD., GGU PLIN( ,AA SCRCDVLE - t FIFSERGLA SIS To 2" POLY BASINS BREwe Roo© , PRECAST WATER- 4-DIA, - � . AWAY 2600 C'ALLOM GAL P¢oaF oI�TRLeurloN 7 a� X _ ._ ,V_ BIOX - q' O'tA / �.`t CAST IRON COVER I{ 3 $0004* CONCKETe _ �I 's ' __ . - yyy((( TO CIRnDE I4" PNC R kL BOLTS 12" O.C. e-- .'9-___-p__�_ 1.4 #''9 R£{NFORCE. ROD$ :t: .w,�' 4 MIN. "L,• p1A. _ - I'll. vi II O.C. EACHwAY 10' .DMME E'R T F L0T ATION� 5' --� , CONCRETE L i COLLAR 1� -_- __ . If PA0+40UTN5C 6 $C7TTOM Awo SICiCda GRIhIDER PUMP STATIOPV GRAVITY ESANITAPbV. WL1Y55 ELEVATION OF DUPLE.)( NOT r0 SCALE DETAIL NEW 200_0 CA_L. SEPTIC TANK Z' b1A. " Fo17 DETAILS A.uo SPECS. NOT 'F'o ..__scALE _ _BERM--____.___ i FORCE MAIN --� ,• \ _._ 4 S3FrA. � 4" -171A lM.'+N i SEE "SAN -'S" - 9 P _ 4 2' MIN. h 7 BOA - DISTRISUTION BOX '*�q __ O OET AIL BOATERS TOILE75 i.5'nIN FORCE (NOT TO SG ACEI �� B OCK THRUST -TYPE A P15TRI$U-TION ( 4'3' ---- HI[II-1 LEVEL ALARM DETA\L of FORCE MAIN Pool ,I i1�99Q 37' ----- L PUMP ON IN VICINITY of D\STR5BUT10EN POOL / CENTRAL ` 3.6' _ f DI ST 72.1@rU-F ION - - LEAD PUMP ON NEW GROUND SURFACE ,i ELE'FATION BOX - C,ROUND AT OUTBOARD of LEACIFI. POOL SOIITHOLD TowN' I FLOOR ELEV. ELEV '7.0 12.4 <- -<--- -- - E 13.0 NEW SAND '¢ C,K.AV(EL PLANNING UGA0 CFaL_Y PIP,' =OR 9.0� _._. . .. _-. _ LrA're- SLO,F.' 4- Cit AV I-r`Y LEACH, -Pohl @rEl (SE.E SIVN-1 CIQOUND ELEV. DETAIL lA00V E� FOG. " E 1"IAIN --_ V�•-- 1 8.5 __..,._........._ .._.�.._._,__ .,_.. ...._._..._.._.__._., _ ___ _ l BOTH PUMPS OFF ' ` _. ELEV. 4,1 APPROX.) fLEV., ,3 T41 M)N5, 3 8" CROSSOVER / 4,2 C4C'1.$g9 r-4d- .. PIPES - WATER TI qF\T BOT10M OF FIQdM9Pt IT T ' _. _ . .». _-•• ,, �T, �T,'C9W wtt �+V' 'aF'h54"4�'* - '�8' PE,F FOOT I N - 3, ...w .._.__ Ig TA2,1_E OF LEVELS I" PeEsSuRE RATEb P/PE �I�OXI�OD WA* TOW, FLOAT SW ITCHES w/ WATER TIGHT IloliVTS VALVE BOX MIN Q,` Ti►'S L4M9hM1 .I Df{oT'. - t - EX1S7 PRO!? (SEE DETAIL ISELOW) 50 2,k 410 R ' }75F%' t GVGfEeAv ES Poe#4 MIN. E4 � . in 2004 CA;.. SEPTIC 'rANKCo PUMIS-STAT/dN E-X)5T ' `SAP"4L� +,�` 'Vst#%VtL 6 1 I �1, Lpp ove`d in amlNauce w Ih Lwrd'of K Uuw ,. �a ' - TO B£ WAT;EI� dThrminatinn dated 3��'?? - - - CLAY ( EXCAVATION INSPECTION � REQUIRES INVERT ELEV - --�----�---- -------- -----. --- - ---- ' --'---_. - .. - . ---. _.. _.-- _ I . I 1 - 5.1 _ _._. - .. -_ - . _.. ..__.._ _ _ _.._._._. _- -...q _._ .._ T- ,I__.. I __,.. INVERT rmi-EY, I__ ___ ___ __.__ . 10.3 10. IO.6 10.9 l0 - 0.7 10.5 10.4 a . SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARiIVF.N7 Pd NEALTH SERVICES A�<�oF NZN' _ 5 3 '"ARPROIM Nk CONSIRUCTd N ONLY a y#�' e o ` G POLY PIPE ` Y" r'TTI"C POLY TO POLY O yq i BUOYANCY CALCULATIONS _�� - � TYPE WO _C/o - Ta-40✓- ��, .2.Z5-? � 4 CTION 2. - -- ` ., � This a�pron61ed r,the construction Of tM e+nitely disposal and water supPlV facill6es pursuanttu ArUclea V9 and ^'YTEss,00, WEIGHT OF PUMP STATION UNIT - - - - - 470 LB. ADAIPTpasf POLY TO 70l they;Sndw Count, ,.Oe .Dd s nuhagles vs WEIGHT OF 8" SEWAGE IN BOTTOM - - - - S22 L8. BRA.S9 C�AATE 1A,VCS � AUG 15 1994 rOr Imppuffolk ount,ruvd, m rs r,. I s �,s or nniph6py :ed TOTAL - - - - - - '^ - 992 LB. ho SANITA1i_y SY6r^' T1=M PROFILE structulels) shown Ilil) ArPNU6Al t:PINLS' IWO I2lYEARS I STATION. - 75.4 CU. FT. --�-�_I _ 20 -�- -- FROM THE DATE BELOW. VOUME OF PUNP . L IREMOVABLE BUOYANCY DISPLiSCE1110 M.- 7$.4 M. FT. X 62.4 LB./CU. FT. 4705 LB. V S.C. DEPT. OF g �-6 - - _ HEALTH SERVICES s 'S/I=EL}8 [LVED - _- - D TF' 91GNATURE ,, :r,< DIFFERENCE: 4705 LB. - ;992 LB. - 3713 LB. t=�G>T 7�NO J+1kFgCE L c CU. FT. OF CON6ME: 4113 L@.. } 3.50 LB./CU. FT. 24.x'3 -CU. PIT. TITLE S FT. DIA. X 1.4 P'T. x'' 27.48 CO. PT. 2' POLY 7, POLY P -- ^ R'^ TO LEKHINCy + laa�.t�l�c l .' nn ,�,taq' � ��r SYSTEM PECONIC ASSOCIATES Inc . LOCATION consultants caa'E. ' ' " y �__ 'A"Ot CU. YD. � ' T i 1" Mon.loLFrwIC ARS" 4AAME3M`J - Dom ' PREiG ADT knnwtnrn 1 CD. YD. OQl[ „ 44350 �. cc.-+cTznTE One Boot 1 y e :cele�S .;a+-14'waA•' " E I5ED leq A le P.O. Boz 672 Gr enport, N.Y. 11944 DMS �� + it 4w 516'- 477.0030 KTP I ' 4' L' PIPE Sp Pi•OIlT � � ' BOX CN@M, r Oxon last? OMWInmaS2mo I DnifLlk -Srxmtti i ",% Mom TtaIL P € YOR attlat"a Co 131100111" MAS i, ORO" A, BIVIaItt 1 sColEr Tarnish and install s factory u*eebled duplex non-s eking Stainless Steel 1. BACKFILL MATERIAL TO BE FREE OF CLAY, ROCK, GRAVEL LARGER SUBMERSIBLE GRINDER PUMP up �' THAN 2" IN ANY DIMENSION, DEBRIS, FROZEN MATERIAL, ORGANIC Duplex Non-Sparking Stainless Rail System Bell package as shown on the plans. The package shall 'consist of a 'flherglass basin MATTER OR ANY DELETERIOUS MATERIAL THAT COULD INHIBIT PROPER p /s� h with cover, non-,parking slide rail sseemblies, discharge piping and fittings, check COMPACTION OR IS CAPABLE OF BIODEGRADATION WITH TIME. ForaExploslon Proof,Class IrGroup DIDIvIson 1 valves, gets, valves, level Controls, and control panel. .,r++M$�y" TACEWE MOMS The baglq diameter shall he 48-inohe with a depth of,IM•lncAee. 2. FOR TRENCH DEPTHS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET, SHORING AND _ BRACING SHOULD BE APPLIED. IN NO EVENT SHALL WATER BE Construction shell be castom awlded fiberglass reinforced polyester resin with interior ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE IN THE TRENCH BOTTOM. surface to be gel-Coated from 10 to 20 mil thick to provide, a smooth sealed surface. The sell thickness shell be sufficient to withstand a water-maturated sand load of 120 3. INSTALLATION OF SEWER AND COLLECTION SYSTEM SHALL COMPLY �ae.eeer$er$m _ lbs. per cubic foot with a safety factor of two at all depths. A 4-Lech cast iron - - calki ! inlet hub shall be furnished At the shown location. A 4-inch plastic pipe WITH TNG APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL STANDARD n9 ill PLUMBING CODE, THE NEW YORE STATE BUILDING CODE, THE SUFFOLK • S soapier will he used in place of the C.I. caulking hub if the gravity service line to - '• '•- -- .. -.i�t#�Iei,_ DXer?RS the basin is ABB or PVC. The cast iron hub or plastic pipe adapter and gasket material COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOCAL PLUMBING _ _ - " shall be ,hipped laces for field installation. An anti-floation collar shall be CODES, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT. �� provided as an integral part of the basin assembly. The coder shall extend a minimum 4. MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN AND SPECIFIED IN THE1 - ei{4n I�IsCharSe of tbres inches (3") on the radius of the basin. DRAWINGS SHALL ONLY BE EXCHANGED AND/OR REPLACED WITH t The brain cove shall he of steel construction with • minimum thickness of three-eights MATERIALS HAVING EQUAL OR SUPERIOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL inch (3/8"), and shall have a minlm= diameter four inches (4") greater than the basin. PROPERTIES AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE ENGINEER. , Both inside and outside surfaces of the cover shall be sandblasted to remove rust and - - scale and shall be completely coated with air dry asphalt bituminous coating for 5. FORCE MAIN SHALL BE MADE FROM POLYETHYLENE RESIN COMPOUND corrosion resistance. A binged door shall be en integral part of the cover, and shall ASQUALIFIED AS TYPE III, CATEGORY 5, CLASS C, GRADE STRENGTHP34 IN have locking provisions. The cover shall be securely mounted to the basin with a 1450 Z48-78, WITH A N PSI OR 1600 PSI WHENTESTEDHYDROSTATIC ANDANALYSEDBYSTM DF minim= of six (6) stainless steel halts threaded into stainless steel inserts in the ' t collar of the basin. All hardware shall be stainless steel. 2837. IN NO CASE SHALL THE FORCE MAIN BE INFERIOR TOA 200 op PSI HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST NOR BE LESS THAN CLASS 150 PER The slide tell assembly shell consist of 304 stainless atesl upper p=p guide bracket$, ANNA C-900. S.D.R. SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 9.0. lower pump guide brackets of brass and slide rail assembly of 14 gauge 304 stainless 6. WHERE WATER LINE CROSSES A SEWER LINE AND THE FORMER IS ` mtW. The stationary portion of the hydraulically stalled discharge coupling assembly LOCATED BELOW THE LATTER, THE SEWER CONDUIT SHALL BE shall be machined treat iacoq and the savable of 85-5-5-5 brass. The upper quids rail PRESSURE RATED WITH JOINTS AT A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM THE bracket shall mount to the basin cover and Position the upper Bad of the stainless INTERSECTION, EACH WAY. S P E C 1 F 1 CAT! tJ 111 S steel guide rail wfsils �tke disahar¢s pipe o0oltices the lower end of the guide rail. Tom ;stainittas iatn.l toil *hall auppert the pump At a distance of four (4) inches from 7, OP'IIpMAItHOMTROG PANEL NAY B$ LOC'Ag�, INSIDE OT ADJACENT BASIN: Fiberglass with 3"Antl•AotatlonCollor. BAF MOVABLE SUBA SEMBLY: NOTES the ,beais floor to provide unrestricted flew of saterisal intim the pump- The guide STORAGE BUILDING WITH A NEMAU JUNCTION BOX WSROWN brachets shall be attached to the p=ap for positioning of the unit an the guide rail Rei LOCATION OF CONTROL PANEL. IF THIS OPTION IS SELECTED ALL DISCHARGE MUS:Steel with Black Asphalt Coating, �I e:............ . during lhttalkatioa or rsmova4 a the unit within the basis. the stationary fitting _ IH aS'liLrSA7v' ,8f70IItL8".(C1 WITH THE NEC OXSRSr 1-1/2" NFT. n ' ,ball have a febris reini'mreaial Naopr+a• diaphragm elarwp*d gitw••n the stainless steel ME FOR DISCONN$CTjNo MEANS AND FOR. (l'LABS I DIVISION 1 rail wad the stationary cast iron discharge. The Tomas moveable fitting, when in HAZARDOUS LOCATION. INLET HUB: V PVC (For Field Inewllailon), 47Y.2 e nipper Pump Brack#tv...Oty, EIOh 304 position shall he held against the stationary Slitting by the uonntraction of the COVER#Steel With Black AsDha9 Coating, Vent and IIWTdatl StaeL stainless steel rail, alitgning' the movable fitting to the 4lexibls diaphragm for Lockable N(F[g'ad AODEar door, • LOWN P proper ,cling of the two outfaces under pressure. TIM flexible diaphragm shall also 3, NPT RAIL SYSTEM: (Cly Two, 304 Stainless Steel Channel YRtp BfaakataL.RlIy.TWDEaEIn, •ern as a anti-siphon device. A stainless steel lifting cable yith a minimum breaking IREAMAWAY PITTING: Bear' strength of 2100 pounds shall be provided for pump installation and removal. (BAF) SOtUavone "Cost Irm • Break Awayy Filling; 4'•' AloMrble:a6•a-a•68na The discharge piping shall consist of l I/4-inch schedule 40 stainless steal pipe. A Dlapluallm:No no a pia011 PI : Stalls"Stell ball check valve shill be installed in the vertical position between the p=p discharge ELECTRICAL COUPLING; (For 1.1/4"NAT, LEVEL CONTgOL9: and the rcvable fitting. Each valve ,hall be I 1/4-inchas in size and shall consist of -5.95 -•'^ 1.13 q (For Flield Installation) "n* Fow three major components: body, mrrees olvq, and ball. The design of the vele„ shell hn FLOAT POLE. 1r2' mGh. 4D, PVC, }!{wPO: Mercury A such that it keeps solids, stringy material, grit, rage, *to., moving without the need atpUnling; P for back flashing. a. ,,,1,/ $ Housing, P op oM In the opererinq'mode, the ball shall not impede flow, through the Valve. The operating TTS' 4,10 ��' 1a'2 wY5 flow ares shall be equal to the nominal six$ of the valve. The ball shall clear the 21.00 waterway providing "full flaw" equal to the nominal site. It *hell be non-clog in - _1 B.00 IONS: Depths Other Than uetad:IMrtTnedletg design. There shall rot be outside levers, weights, springer dash pots or other POR for Depths 12 Ft. and Doo�rppaoa-wfr-' Rataad accessories required for a awing (clapper) type check valve. The hall Shall be natural 1"1/4 NPT LIfTINIG CABLE: Discharge (Consult Factory); LOW L�rlF61 AUM rubber and be remittent to material normally found in sewage. The body and access pllp DISCN Quantity TWO,Stat01e3u Steal F)Oat; Other., shall be grey cast iron, ASTM Class 30. All fasteners *hall be stainless steel. Inl,t With 2100 ib. Breaking Strength. and outlet parte .hall be 1 1/4-inch hex threaded. HARDWARE: Stemless Steel STATIONARY DISCHARGE PIPING: SiBir lege Steel A 1 1/4-inch 85-5-5-5 brass gate valve shall be installed in the discharge piping of each p=p to provide Shut-off capabilities during pump removal. Each gate valve shall 3.17 iby fitted with an integral stainless steel extension handle. She extension handle ' shall extend up to within six (6) inches of the top of the basin for ease of access and BOTH PUMPS SHALL BE RATED AT A MINIMUM OF 29 G.P.M. AT TOTAL HEAD operation, and shall be ""red at the top of the basin with a stainless steel brackec. HF R NE FU LD D OF 28 FEET. Pum and control wiring shall run continuous) to the control NO. NO. (Nom) CODE LOAD ROTOR SIZE TYPL OD Pump g y panel through conduit a.Ad M AMP maned fittings as required by state ane local codas. All igaaeing power and control 1$02 0821 2 23D 345D F 14.5 48.0 10/4 B 0.71 { wires must pass through cord gripe and sealed fittings with sealing compound as --_ _ _ . required by UL. MdstuaAsrnpersture sensor cable for all model#Is 1816 SO,0.479 OD. hr„ ra ..a aitm°_nLC W ILII Guard at Fcvmw A quantity of four (4) liquid level control* with 25-Ft. of Blow-A cable, shall be provided to Central "irstien of the pumps and bigh,-water alerts. The level connote determination dated *hall be man ury type pilot duty devices mounted In corrosion resistant polypropylene tMPnRTANT I housing. The level Control* skmall be mounted to a One-half '(112) inch PVC support polex q Itt01ETUM AND 1'EAPEMTURI SENSORS MUST NCONNECTED TO VALIDATE THE UL USTINO AND THE MARNES PUMPS attached to the stainless *told. mall. "aamai ily as shown in the plane. Sufficient cable cgs' nbali be supplied to reach the control panel with as splices in the basin. Level A>AA speol .M09TUN1 SENIOR RELAY AND TM CIRCUIT 4 NECUIRM a4 TWO CONTROL PANEL FOR PROPER OPERATION EXCAVATION INSPECTics REa'UH0 controls shall be set at the elentiont indicated on the plane. OF TMi MOISTURE I[N60Ra. CONTACT aARNSS PUMPS FOR aJPlY15AAT10N CONCERNING MOISTURE aENiINO RELAYS KN1 A duplex control panel ,hall be furnished in NEMA 4X stainless steel enclosure for 230 CUSTOMER SUPPLIED CONTROL PANELS. Volts, 3 Phan, 60 Herts power supply. Por each p=p motor titers shall be included: a r•)A MODEL,aAFE1•V4 HDy,SEAS"BREAK AWAY FITTING MUST UUSED TO VALIDATE THE UL WTe1S. combination circuit breskmr overload unit 4, THESE PUMPS ARE UNDEMMgTERS LABOMTOWS INC.LISTED POR PUMPING WATER AND WASTINATER.DA 1u]T I me / providing overload protection, *hoe[ circuit I SUFFOLK COUNTY OEPGR'nl Fid; Or Ntel TN S FRVICES protection, reset and disconnect for all hue , acrose-the-line magnetic contnciors, TOMrMPRAuWMELKXM APPRUVEO FUR CUSIHOCTiON ONLY I O IS IS 0 V IS D 1.)PUMPS ARE NOT TO BE USED IN AF'PLIOATIONS WNERt REGULAR HUMAN CONTACT WITH THE PUMP MMA CAN OCCUR hand-off-automatic selector switch, overload relay properly sized for motor IJ0.4G° _ 9d-o�1— herr � characteristics and factory sealed to Insure trip setting is tamper proof, 120 volt III, IMMI BWNI PODLS, DCCOMTAIE FOUNTAINS.SH.S. REF. a� S� mTC FLOW gel" j control panel pilot circuitry. A 120 volt control transformer with fused Overload TYPE rG/Ct 1' protection for external pilot circuitry spall be included. An automatic electric soU[HOLD TOWN I alternator shall be included to provide alternating operation of the pumps under normal Tms approval is granted for the construclior, of the sanitary PLANNING BOARD disposal and water supply lavirt,es pursuant m, 4rtcles VB and 7 pl the SuIIOIM County Sannary Cndr :r n -s raver en expressed conditions, or ed with simultaneous operation in cases of high level. art re phase peach p ear Imphen a county r., r,�.+�. ,; •�;r ;,a nu aapy tit! motor te provided with a start mapacitor, tun capacitor, and start relay for each p=p nor IMPlsl snnwn IVIS' 0" AL 7' IWO L0 y the I motor if not provided it the p=p. A panel mounted moisture sensor relay with warning light *hall be included for such pump to indicate moisture in the p=p meal cavity. FROM THE DATE SELOA. The moistore oansor relay shall have a test circuit consorting of a push-to-test button with neon indicating lamp for checking the moisture sensing components. Each panel '�"4 shall be equipped with terminale for temperature sensors. These thermostats are wired , D E `-_T— = 94GNATURE in 11" with the p=p motor starter coil and will turn the metor°wlth temperature rise. A highrvater alarm light and bell shall be included to indicate extreme high levels of liquid in the wet well. iMODEL PART BASIN BASIN POMP COVER MOVABLE PUMP OUTLINE DIA DEPTH DISCH SIZE TICK. FITTING P/W 11140, 4 O. .__ . :__... . _ . SERIES. _ O _0#519 __ 8 � XGV THP p?.Tn, cot X9�9 i eSSi ErnI ° EW 21•�,�O i II�ORuid 1. Guide rail in designed to support pump approximately 4" from bottom of basin. pE p62�'VAA5 c s fO rUeEYtl OMwL ,.'!r"u E / I _ I TRLE SPECIFICkTiONS Folz L3RICK COVE MARINA PECONIC ASSOCIATES Inc . naTmN c o n s u l t a n t s A5ZSb4AM0M0QUEI Mr-W YOKK SCALL OMWING N". NQNC - One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 1q 5A 'I 516 - 477-0030 .R, r�Ko4�EN 5A1 —3 APPROVED RATE