Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-51.-5-2i'l ~ Z()~I (,_ (,ALL[ L&,JIO~NS _. !LI~CI~NI) . /i /',/ / / r~ ¢4--. / ~F- ~,~r, ~ ~,~_ ~ ' / 4a~' ~ ~; -~o~ , , ~ .~ ~ .. ~I,~I ~,,,~ - ,.,,, ,, / - ~,,~ ~ ~ ri ~ ~ ~ J~ ~ ~ ' k ~ ~1 ~ ~J . I I I / I ~rchileds designgroup, p.c ~ / ,-- -- I numbe¢ I ~' r( "~ ~ ~ ', ~ ' ', ,: drawn ~ dote '~'4-l~'~- : , , - Ii ~111~ ~ ~ , ' ' ~ '* J . ~ ~ ~, ~AT ~.. '~~ ~ __ J ~l!ll~ll '11l~ / / / I /AIL ~,,:~ ,,'~L', ~, / ~,0,~" / i --' i I I ' ~ ~ / x I ~111~ .l.l*I~ (, .%l .. I ,, .. 2,'q /.I / / / ALL[~"'AWI"4(~;, ',P~r,:I,FIEAIIONSAND~OPIESTHEREOF~NISHfD / ¢~Ob¢ - -I ~"J [' / "~'[~'~,I,Y¢ ~l,~ / ~ ~ ~ , ~ e .... / I / J , , ~/wtrll hjp~R]¢qSK)Nq, f~D(~OUP, V,L' ' · ~ ~.-~',~' ,,~. -- . ... ~ '. . , HENRy E. RAYNOR, Jr., Cha/rman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jl'. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELI~HONE 765-1938 February 15, 1983 Mr. David Kapell Real Estate Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Sal Caiola Site Plan Dear Mr. Kapell: The following resolution was passed by our Board at our regular meeting held February 7, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan of Sal Caiola Condominiums, having two build- ings consisting of five units each, located at Southold, subject to a one year review and an on site inspection by the Planning Board prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD cc: By Susan E. Long, Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Secretary HENRY E. PokYNOR, Jr., Cha/rman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCH1E LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM F, MULLEN, Jr. TO~ OF:S~U~Itb~,D Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 December 15, 1982 Mr. Victor Lessard Building Administrator Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Sal Caiola Condominium Project Dear Mr. Lessard: The fOllowing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, December 13, 1982. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan of Sal Caiola to the Building Inspector for certification. Three copies have been attached for your review. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN $OUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Attch. cc: David Kapell, agent Zoning Board of Appeals By Susan E. Long, Secretary pg. (2) 11/29/82 · Angel Shore Estate - The scheduled appointment with Mr. Richard Cron, Esq. was cancelled as the Board is requesting relocation and redesign of the recharge basin. Mr. Lawrence Tuthill's report was reviewed regarding the drainage area. qleaves Point Village - Mr. David Kapell, agent, met with the Board to discuss the amendments of the site plan. The following action was taken by the Board: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan of Cleaves Point Village, located at East Marion, to the Building Inspector for certification noting the following amendments to the original site approved June 22, 1981. t. Addition of two tennis courts. 2. Addition of a chain-link fence. 3. Addition of driveways~ Addition of one car garages for each unit which will reduce parking area. (44 parking spaces required, 72 spaces proposed) 5. Reduction of one dwelling from 45 to 44. 6. Configuration of last quad to the North. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski A field inspection will be made when the last quad has been staked. Sal Caiola Condominium Project Mr. David Kapell, agent, discussed with the Board the amendments on this site. The two units that were located on the northeast have been relocated and attached to the four quads on the west as requested by the Planning Board. The Board requested that each complex be moved in a northerly direction to ~vo~d the necessi~ of ~and it would also allow for a higher elevation and scenic view. Also requested tm hm ~uhm~ted to the Board before a determination is made is the.drainage plan for the area, ~lanting schedule to show buffering, ingress and egress sh__ould be pitched with the hi__qhest peak to the north and the ~ur~' cuts should -B~gmO~n the'~oad. P D Sou~hold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 76~-1938 March 16, 1984 Mr. Robert Tasker 425 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 ~Dear Mr. Tasker: Enclosed is a copy of the map of "East Wind ShoreW' located at Arshamomoque. This was approved as a site plan for 2, 5-unit condominiums in 1983. Presently the applicant proposes to deed the open property and each lot owner would have 1/10 of the common area (not shown on the blue print) surrounding the building envelope. However, this will not be a homeowner's association under the new proposal. Please advise our Board on the best way to proceed with this application. Thank you for your assistance. enc. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD · Schu ltze ~3 Secretar~J ~U.~)E~ W'. YOUNG YOUNG %~ YOUNG ~oo OSTR~NDER ~,VENUE RrV'P-RHE.AD, NE~ YO~ n~ HOW~D W, YOUNG /,/ TOVN OF P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOL~, N.Y. 11971 ~1.,. 765-1802 February 1, 1984 Mr. Joseph Fischetti Hobart Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Condominiums at Southold Dear Mr. Fischetti: This will confirm, as the living units are completed within this project Certificates of Occupancies will be issued, when applied for, for each unit as an individual living unit. All necessary approvals from other agencies and departments must be submitted with all applications for Certificates of Occupancy. There is no formal action required by the Building Depart- ment for your proposed change to a homeowners association. It would be advisable to contact the Planning Board in the event they may require some action due to the change in concept, i.e., there will now be individual ownership of the land for each living unit. Edward F. Htndermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:ec xc: Planning Board HENRY E. RAYNOR, .Ir., C~/rman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, .Ir. GEORGE E. ITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 June 16, 1983 Mr. David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport New York 11944 Re: Sal Caiola Condominium Site Plan Dear Mr. Kapell: On review of the above referenced site plan file, it has come to our attention that the application fee of $25 has not been received. Would you please forward a check, payable to the Southoi~ Town Clerk, as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary O~cer$ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM H. LIEBLE~ ROBERT T. WEBB suFr. OF UI~LITIES JAMES L MONSELL / [[a31e oir t'een ot,[ 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 APR 11 REC'D April 11, 1983 Mr. Henry E. Raynor Southold Town Planning Board Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: /~ Two contracts for water supply have been prepared by the Vil~e of Greenport - l~ater Department - 1.) Sal Catola Condominiums,/ Southold, 2.) George Popkin & Barbara Coyne (Speeches Property) 16 lots, North Greenport. These contracts are awaiting proper signatures. The Authorization by the Village Board was given at a Special Meeting on April 7, 1983. A copy of each contract will be forwarded to your office when signed. If I can be of further service, please call. Very truly yours, James I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities JIM:hr DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 516.,477-9,403 ~CE~VEO ~¥ JmmAEy 20, [983 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES Hr. lioury I. hynor SoutasoLd Torn ~[mm~ns BoArd Sou~_b~_Ld, #er York [[97[ S4n~enly, TOWN OF SOUT OLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 ~[~EL. 765-1802 December 28, 1982 Planning Board Town of Southold Southold, N.Y. 11971 Subject: Sal Caiola Southold, N.Y. Site Plan dated 5/12/82 Gentlemen: The subject property is located in an M-1 Zoned District and multiple dwellings are permitted by Special Exception by the Board of Appeals (Art. V, Sec. 100-50 B (3)). The lot area, lot width and set back of buildings meets requirements of the Bulk and Parking Schedule (Art. V, Sec. 100-51). The site plan does not indicate the length or height of buildings. However, using the scale of 1"=30'-0", the building containing units 1 to 5 inclusive scales to approximately 115'- 0", building containing units 6 to 10 inclusive scales to 120'- 0". If the height of buildings were to maximum of 35'-0", the separation of buildings exceed minimum requirements. This meets requirements under Art. V, Sec. 100-52 A & B. Off-street parking facilities shall be determined by the Planning Board per Art. XI, Sec. 100-112 ~. The proposed 10 .unit development is within the dwelling unit density using 9000 sq. ft. of land per unit under Art. XI, Sec. 100-116. The certification of in accordance with Art. zoning requirements. this proposed development is submitted XIII, Sec. 100-133 C, relative to Yo~ truly, // Edward F.~ Building & Housing Inspector EFH:ec Attch. design group, P.C.9 210 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10010 212.679.0620 Transmittal To: Date: Ms. Sue Long Southold Town Planing Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Ms. Sue Long Re: December 3, 1982 Southold - site plan Gentlemen: We transmit Herewith: Under Separate Cover: By Messenger: X Copigs Shop Drawings: Drawings: Letter: Samples: Other: Description 12 site plan & details These are sent: For Approval: K For your use: X For coordination: As per your request: Return Approved: Approved as noted: Returned for correction: Disapproved: .copies for our files and distribution. Resubmit corrected drawings for final approval. cc: Very truly yours, architects design g o p, p..~...~ Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N,Y. 11S71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMRERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE 0OYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH November 22, 1982 Mr. David E. Kapell 143 Sixth Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola Condominium Project at C.R. 48, Southold Dear Dave: This letter will confirm that the following actions were taken at a Regular Meeting of the board held last Thursday, November 18, 1982: RESOLVED, that this board, as lead agency, determines that a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is not required; and it is further RESOLVED, that the proposed action will not have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment and that no final Environ- mental Impact Statement need be prepared; and it is further RESOLVED, that a copy of this action be forwarded to the Southold Town Planning Board in order that they may process the site plan (and amended site plan as recommended by the Planning Board) request on this project; and it is further RESOLVED, that upon receipt of a copy of the Planning Board's determination on the (amended) site plan, this board will be in a position to schedule a date for the public hearing on this Special Exception application. If you have .any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Yours very truly, CC: Planning Board Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appea MAIN RnAD- STAT£ RnAD Z5 SOUTI~IOLO, L.I.. N.Y. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS November 18, 1982 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGGNI$. JR. $. E. Q. R · A. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS NEGATIVE DECLARATION JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Notice of Determination of Non'Significance APPEAL NO.: 2930 PROJECT NAME: Sal Caiola (Condominium Project) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State ,' Environmental Quality Review Act of the EnvironmeDtal Conservation Law. This board determines the within project no__~t to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction of ten condominium units, gravel surface road, parking areas, regrading, swimmi~91~01, etc. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-5-2. 2.5+- acre parcel located at the south side of C.R. 48, Southold. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Comments from the County Health Department indicate that storm water runoff be required to be retained on site, which this board is in agreement; (3) Comments from the Southold Town Planning Board indicate that the two units on the south end of the property would have a potential to damage the environment, which applicant has agreed to relocate. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Mrs. Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Main Road, $outhold, New York 11971. Telephone: (51.6) 765-1809. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant(s) or agent(s) and other involved agencies [if any] and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Cha#man JAMES WALL ]~t:uNN ETT ORLOW~KI, Jr. GEORGE I~TCHIE f~THAM; Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. II971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 October 27, 1982 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Sal Caiola Condominium Project Dear Mr. Goehringer: In response to your designation as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we offer the following information for your review and consideration: The two units on the south end of the property, we feel, will have a large potential for environmental damage. 2. The two units on the south end of the property to be eliminated from the site plan. Consideration of two buildings to be located on the northern end of the property having five units each. This propOsal will be discussed at our meeting of November 8, 1982 as we are in receipt of certification from the Building Inspector. Very ~ruly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary OF OUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 765-1802 October 12, 1982 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Subject: Certification, ~ite plan of Condominiums Sal Caiola at Arshamomaque Town of Southold, N.Y.~ dated 5/12/82 Gentlemen' The subject premises is located in an M-1 Zoned District and the proposed use is a permitted use needing a Special Ex- ception from the Zoning Board of Appeals as provided for in Art. V, Sec. 100-50 B (3). The Bulk schedule has been complied with relative to bmilding set backs, lot width and area, and floor area, livable for each living unit under Sec.'s 100-51 & 100-53. The buildings are approximately 94'-0 in length meeting criteria of Sec. 100-52 A. The distance between the buildings at units 8 & 9 as scaled is approximately 50'-0". The height of building are not indicated on the site plan, however, sub sec. C of this section would limit building heights to 25'-0" based on distance separation. The proposed 10 unit density is within the limits of allowable as provided for in Art. XI, Sec. 100-116· Off-street parking facilities shall be determined by the Flanning Board in accordance with Art. XI, Sec. 100-112 A. 133 This certification is submitted per Art. XIII, Sec. 100- C, relative to Zoning requirements· Edward F. Hindermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:ec xc Board of Appeals David Kapell TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O, BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 October 12, 1982 QEL. 765-1802 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N;Y. 11971 Subject: Certification, site plan of Condominiums Sal Caiola at Arshamomaque Town of Southold, N.Y., dated 5/12/82 Gentlemen: The subject premises is located in an M-1 Zoned District and the proposed use is a permitted use needing a Special Ex- ception from the Zoning Board of Appeals as provided for in Art. V, Sec. 100-50 B (3). The Bulk schedule has been complied with relative to building set backs, lot width and area, and floor area, livable for each living unit under Sec.'s 100-51 & 100-53. The buildings are approximately 94'-0 in length meeting criteria of Sec. 100-52 A. The distance between the buildings at units 8 & 9 as scaled is approximately 50'-0". The height of building are not indicated on the site plan, however, sub sec. C of this section would limit building heights to 25'-0" based on distance separation. The proposed 10 unit density is within the limits of allowable as provided for in Art. XI, Sec. 100-116. Off-street parking facilities shall be determined by the Planning Board in accordance with Art. XI, Sec. 100-112 A. This certification is submitted per Art. XIII, Sec. 100- 133 C, relative to Zoning requirements. YO~ tr~.~ly , Edward F. Hindermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:ec xc Board of Appeals David Kapell Southolcl Town Board o eals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SrlU~THOLD. L.l., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE ($16) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMRFRS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR SERGE DOYEN. JR ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWlCKI -.October 7, 1982 To: Mr. Robert F. Flacke, Commissioner N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolfe Road Albany, NY 12233 Mr. Thomas J. McDonald N.Y.S. Clearinghouse ~ Division of Budget, State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 L.I. Regional Planning Board Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 2930 - Special Exception Application of Sal Caiola Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section copies of the following: (2) Draft E.I.S. 617.10 of the SEQR Act, we enclose (1) Notice of Completion of D.E.I.S. Yours very truly, GERARD p. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda F. Kowatski Secretary Enclosures cc: N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation /~ Southold Town Planning Board~" Supervisor and Members of the Town Board Suffolk County Health Department Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I,, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMRFRS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR S.E. Q. R.A. September 30, SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERTJ. DOUGLASS NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI 1982 APPEAL NO.: 2930 PROJECT NAME: Sal Caiola (by David E. Kapell as agent) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law'#44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environ- mental 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 E.I.S. are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until October 30. 1982, TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction of ten condominium units, gravel surface road, parking areas, regrading, swi~ningpool, et cetera. LOCATION OF PROJECT: State of New York, County of Suffolk, Town of Southold, more particularly known as: County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-5-2. Located at the south side of County Road 48, Hamlet of Southold. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: t. Stormwater runoff may result from the development and improvement of this property; 2. Information previously unavailable to determine effects on neighboring water wells and pollution into surrounding waterways; 3. A large physical change to the project site, which may be designated to be a critical area ecologically or hydrologically. COPIES OF THE DRAFT E.I.S. MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: Contact Person: Mrs. Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Office of the Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Tel. (516) 765-1809 (alternative #765-1802). Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation; N.Y.S. Clearinghouse; L.I. Regional Planning Board; All Other Involved Agencies. This Notice was posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board of the Town of Southold. HENRY E. R~YNOR. Sr., Chapman .lAMES WALL BENNETT ORLO~KI, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, WILLIAM F. MULLEN, .Ir. Southold, N.Y. 11971 IELEi~HONE 765-1938 September BO, 1982 Mr. Victor Lessard Building Administrator Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Sal Caiola Condominium Project Dear Mr. Lessard: Attached please find correspondence from this office to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the above captioned prop- erty. Please note the action taken by this Board concerning the referral to your office for certification. Two copies of the map have been attached for this purpose. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Attch. By Susan E. Long, Secretary Con'act carriage: Shipmen~ subject to applicable con'act be~een s~p~r and ca~ler In e~ct as shipment. ~NSIGNE~ N~E AND ~DR~ . ~, COM~DI~ B~GS mrs I ~XES J OTHER D T(~ HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE PdTCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 September 28, 1982 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Chairman Re: Sal Caiola Condominium Project Dear Mr. Goehringer: Our Board made an on site field inspection of the above captioned property and discussed same at our meeting held September 20, 1982. Mr. David Kapell, agent for the applican~ was in attendance. Mr. Kapell was advised that a drainage and sewerage plan should be submitted, along with a planting and seeding schedule. The Board also expressed concern with possible runoff into Arshamomaque Pond from units nine and ten, located at the south end of the property. It was the concensus of those present that these units be attached to the northern quadrants or be eliminated entirely. The Board was in agreement that the sewerage for this area be located on the North of the property as much as possible. After thorough discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan of Sal Caiola to the Building Inspector for certification. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD cc: Building Department David Kapell, agent By Susan E. Long, Secretary APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGON)S, JR SERGE DOYEN, JR ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, l.l., N.Y. ll971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 Southold Town Planning Board Jerry Goehringer, Chairman September 24, 1982 Appeal No. 2930 Sal Caiola Condominium Project at C.R. 48, Southold For your review and comments, please find enclosed copies of the Environmental Assessment in the Long Form and Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the above project. If possible, comments should be submitted to our office as lead agency prior to October 16th. Thank you for your assistance. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CAIOLA ~ONDOMINIUM Southold, New York PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT: PERMITTING AGENCY: PREPARER: Arshamoque ~ Middle Road (C.R. 27) Southold, NY 11971 - ~ Sal Caiola 77 Irving Place New York, NY c/o David E. Kapell, 443 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 Esq. Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Holzmacher, McLendon & ~'-' Murrell, P.C. 375 Fulton Street ~ Farmingdale, NY 11735:'~j Hugo D. Freudenthal, Ph.D. (516) 694-3410 HOLZMACHERoMcLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCLENTISTS and PLANNERS September, 1 9 8 2 ~t~k~ HO~MACHER. McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CAIOLA CONDOMINIUM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section iNTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS iRREVERSIBLE AND iRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES MITIGATING MEASURES APPENDIX A Page 1 4 10 15 16 17 18 Number 1 2 I II III LIST OF FIGURES Title LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACTION SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY SITE PLAN & DETAILS SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM p_age/Pocket 2 13 I II III ' ~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. il INTRODUCTION Sal Caiola proposes to construct ten on a 2.5 acre (108,900 square feet) parcel (10) condominium unlts bounded to the north by Middle Road (C.R. 27), to the west by V.I.P. Inns Ltd., to the south by Arshamoque Pond and to the west by the Goetz, Bagley and Gasser properties (See Figure 1 and Plate I). Construction and opera- tion of these, condominiums will include the following activities: a. removal of existing disturbed vegetation. b. excavation of upper layers of existing, disturbed soils. c. grading and filling of approximately 10,000 square feet of do lands adjacent to tidal wetlands. Construction of ten residential units occupying approxi- mately 655 square feet of land surface each. e. Installation and operation of public water, sanitary and electric utilities. f. Construction of a private gravel road with 15 parking spaces. g. landscaping. On June 26, 1982, the Southold Town Board of Appeals, pursuant to Local Law No. 3 (1978), declared that the proposed action "may have significant adverse effects upon the environment." The specific con- cerns raised by the Board were as follows: 1. "Stormwater runoff may result from the development and improve- ment of this property; 2. Information has not been made available indicating the type and location of the proposed sewage disposal systems, and the per- centage of buildable upland area does not appear adequate thereby possibly causing adverse effects on neighboring water wells and FIGURE 7O 63 sO9~9 6O 69 CAtOLA PRC COUNTY ROA[ 7O 6 LOCATION MAP CAIOLA PROPERTY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 1982 SCALE: 1'-_2000 ~__~j~ HOCZMACHER~ McI. ENOON & MURRELI., P.C. MELVILLE, N.Y. FARMINGDALE. N.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAO, NY I-~-/~, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. pollution into either or both surrounding waterways. 3. A large physical change to the project site, which may be designated to be a critical area ecologically or hydrologically." Therefore, the Board directed Mr. Caiola to prepare this [)raft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addressing potential environ- mental impacts resulting from the development of his property. ~'~./~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Natural Communities The Caiola property contains approximately 98,446 square feet of terrestrial habitat. The vegetation occupying this habitat is largely a combination of shrubby and arboreal species which include: black locust black cherry apple mulberry staghorn sumac blackberry honeysuckle wild indigo poison ivy Virginia creeper common reed Robina psuedoacacia Prunus serotina Malus sp. Morus sp. Rhus typhina Rubus sp. Lonicera japonica Baptisia tinctoria Rhus radicans Parth~ocissus quinquefolia Phragmites communis The majority of these dominant species indicate previous, substan- tial human disturbance throughout the site. Black locust and black cherry are trees which establish themselves during early succession from field to woods. The presence of apple and mulberry are generally the result of human plantings. Finally, the extensive presence of wild indigo with bare, unvegetated areas interspersed indicate that upper organic portions of the soil have been removed from much of the property. Therefore, the majority of the square feet of terrestrial habitat on the site has pre- viously been significantly disturbed, and the site does not represent an ecologically unique or critical area. Approximately 35,000square feet of this terrestrial habitat is less than 10 feet above mean sea level, and is classified as area adjacent to tidal wetlands in accordance with New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6NYCRR661). These regulations state that adjacent area (AA) may have the following environmental values: '~.J~ HO!..ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. "Adjacent areas make insignificant contributions to marine food production. Tidal wetland values for cleansing ecosystems, flood and hurricane and storm control, and absorbing silt and organic material may be served to varying degrees by these areas, but these values are not as critically served in adjacent areas as in the tidal wetland zones. The most important function of adjacent areas is to serve as buffers to protect the character, quality and values of tidal wetlands that adjoin or lie near these areas. Consequently, a wide variety of uses may be compatible with these areas, provided such uses do not adversely affect adjacent and nearby tidal wetlands (6NYCRR661.)" Of this adjacent area, a 550 square foot area on the property's eastern-central boundary was originally mapped as tidal wetlands from aerial photographs by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC, T.W. Map 716-550). Field investigation determined that this area is largely vegetated by common reed and does not contain tidal wetland indicator species. On June 30, 1982, DEC biologists agreed that this 550 square feet of the property is not tidal wetlands, concluding that, "the Department will no longer regulate this affected area as an intertidal marsh as afforded under the Land Use Regulations, NYCRR Part 661. It will, however, be regulated as an adjacent area (K. Koetzner, correspondence June 30, see Appendix A)." Tidal wetlands occupy approximately 10,454 square feet along the property's southern boundary and in its southeastern corner. These tidal wetlands are properly classified on DEC T.W. Map 716-550 as high marsh (HM) and intertidal marsh (IM). They are predominantly vegetated by groundsel bush (Baccharis halimitolia), salt meadow grass (~partina patens), and low marsh cordgrass (S. atterniflora). ~-~, HOI..ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. Environmental values associated with high marsh are as follows: "Since their (~'s) photosynthetic productivity is lower than intertidal marshes and since flushing of the biological produc~s of the high marsh or salt meadow to the estuary is less efficient than in coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes, salt meadows or high marshes, while critically important for marine food production, are slightly less important in this regard than coastal fresh marshes or intertidal mar~hes. Because of their size and location salt meadows or high marshes are as important for absorption of silt and organic material and flood and hurricane and storm control as coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes. Furthermore, because they are located generally in such a way that they are the first tidal wetland area to receive run-off and other materials from the land, they have an impor- tant role in cleansing ecosystems, but their value in this respect is 9enerally slightly less than in coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes because of the lower level of direct tidal influence in high marshes or salt meadows. Only very limited types of land use and development are compatible with the value of these areas (6NYCRR661)." Environmental values associated with intertidal marsh are as follows: "Intertidal marsh is the most biologically productive of all tidal wetland areas. Furthermore, since they receive twice-daily tidal flushing, the products of vegetative photosynthetic activity and decom- position in these zones are readily transported to adjacent waters for use in the estuarine food chain. Their intertidal location also makes them among the most effective wetland zones for flood and hurricane and storm protection. Both their intertidal location and their highly productive nature makes them among the most effective wetland zones for ~' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C 'cleansing ecosystems and for absorbing silt and organic material. Because of these high values and their sensitive location at the land- water interface, intertidal marshes must be the most stringently'pro- tected and preserved tidal wetlands zones. Even small portions of these zones are critically important resources. Consequently, only very limited types of land use and development are compatible with the values of these areas (6NYCRR661)." Natural communities on properties adjacent to the northern, eastern and western boundaries have been largely eliminated by the establishment of C.R. 48, VIP Inns, and the Gasser, Bagley and Goetz residences. On the southern property boundary, Arshamoque Pond is an environ- mentally sensitive tidal and littoral marine community. This surface water is extremely biologically productive. It supports a sub- stantial shellfish population, and acts as a nursery for the young of several marine species (e.g.,bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix). Both the fin and shellfish populations of Arshamoque Pond are harvested by commercial and recreational fishermen. Despite extensive shoreline development and the operation of boats on Arshamoque Pond, its water quality is generally very good. However, one water quality sampling station at the very western end of Long Creek (3,000 feet west-southwest of the Caiola property) has high coliform levels after rainfall, causing Long Creek to be uncer- tified for shellfishing (NYSDEC, April 1981). Since coliform levels in the creek are below standards during dry weather but above standards during wet weather, the source of coliform pollution is most likely storm water runoff, and not private septic systems (NYSDEC, April 1981). 7 o :pro: ~evi: :nta (; ]: ::'eek iM 1 ~' ',] ~o ] di ;t:urbed by huma~ ~t[v:_t:,,. , and ii u~ li:;turh:_~d tidal :~tlinds A sba 1.'::is bio Logically ::o tuct: ~, and n ::~ thetic values t::, :h~ Sot:[[~] d c ~ .i~ la prot:erty lies :n a :fro'.:~d ~at~ ~ , t~ ~ ,~;tret:chJng ftc' A] sh5m)q~le Por ~( ,a~ ~erly t:o Dam PonJ Regi:mal war ~e~ )n:s;trate that th~ site 1:~: :or ~L groundwater flow near t~e sit ] y to~izon, ta]. prcje,:t _ite cons'ist of hakit,.t, which ;nas been .0,4 54 ~:tk,:tre feet of >que P: rt,~ is an environ- prope~ t:)'s southern [~un [ t ~ . divJ. c:!~ b~tween lenses weat~l~l~ to Mattituck tab] ? Faps (H2M, 1970; belcw ~he one foot con- is p~,~do~inantly easterly J ~e:_: :i~[ation cf' surf. ~ce nal:e:TJ_~l on hhe site showed that , z ta]: .e is oae-half f :zt DeIlow ~e, n s ~ leve2. This indicates ',il ii_:[ :5~s: saline groundwa':~r occu. r ~', table is subje,:t t) tidal due to the pro: : [mi ,:y of :h~ ~ ft ene ::h the site and the lu.c :~ati,pn.~;. Phis is pos- si ~: to b:~th Rrshamoque Pond ,ong Isi[an~J Soum.. ean sea 1.=~vel d~ :~lm used .a the ;ire s~rw~.f does not ly refkect loca: ae ~n sea 1~ vel [msll . Th-~refore, the table is actual '~z ~t or ~b¢ ve] ~1 and a small fresh lense is below :ne site. q his ;eems i:he more likely ,~s bi[Lity because c [ t:~e pze~,er ~e ( [ pri.vate ::freshwater ,)1::, y well:i; on the ]~,t.[l,'y arcl Go_=tz ~ropertie ii .. :1~1~ HOI 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. In addition to being a source of water supply for the Bagley and Goetz residences, the local groundwater also flows into Arshamoque Pond. Therefore, local groundwater quality partially determin'es the Pond's water quality. To date, no water quality problems in Arshamoque Pond resulting from contaminated groundwaters have been reported. 9 o ~/~ H~LZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS Mr. Caiola proposes to construct ten condominium units on the subject 2.5 acre property. Potential environmental impacts asso- ciated with this development may be separated into those related to construction, short-term impacts, and those related to occupation of the condominiums, long-term impacts. 1. Short-term Impacts The construction of the ten condominium units and their associated utilities (e.g., wastewater disposal system) will occur entirely in areas more than ten feet above msl. This construction will include the removal of existing terrestrial vegetation and upper layers of soil from approximately 74,000 square feet of the property. Since the species of vegetation occupying the site are not unique, threatened or endangered, and have for the most part been established as a result of previous human activities, this action will have no significant environmental impact. The direct exposure of soils and surface geo- logic materials to wind and rain for several months during construction does create the potential for stormwater runoff to carry suspended sedi- ments into Arshamoque Pond. However, the construction procedure will include reverse grading and immediate seeding at the edge of the con- struction clearing. This technique creates a depression at the edge of a cleared area which slows stormwater runoff sufficiently to drop its sediment load. Seeding to a fast-growing grass prevents the reverse- graded area from eroding and losing its effectiveness. Because of these precautions, construction activities at the Caiola site will have no significant adverse environmental impact. 10. ~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P,C. at the Caiola site will have no significant adverse environmental impact. A private, gravel-packed road and 15 parking spaces will be constructed on approximately 10,000 square feet of the property, which areless than ten feet above msl. Therefore, this access way will be constructed on areas adjacent to a wetland. Vegetation removed for this construction does not include any unique, threatened or endangered species, and potential storm water runoff impacts during construction will be prevented as previously discussed. Therefore, construction of the condominium access road will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Long-term Impacts The occupation of ten condominium units represents a moderate density residential land use. This land use has the potential to negatively impact groundwater and/or surface waters as a result of storm water runoff from impermeable surfaces and as a result of sani- tary waste discharges. Significant amounts of storm water runoff will be generated from the condominium rooftops and access road. Runoff from the rooftops will be directed to dry wells, and so will be discharged to groundwater rather than running directly into Arshamoque Pond. Since the access road will be grave~packed and not asphalt or concrete, most rainfall will infiltrate the surface rapidly. However, the road will develop some standing water during very heavy rains. This water will be prevented from running off by six inch high concrete curbs (see Plate II) until it too infiltrates the road surface. The proposed action will 11. '~/~ I'{OLZMACH~R, McLENDON & MURR£LL, P,C. not cover any significant amount of area adjacent to tidal wetlands with impermeable (runoff producing) surfaces, and therefore will not generate runoff which would enter either tidal wetlands or Arshamoque Pond. Since the water quality problem in Long Creek (of Arshamoque Pond) is the result of storm water runoff from other sources, the proposed action will not add to it nor cause additional portions of the pond to be declared uncertified for shellfishing. Sanitary waste treatment for the condominium will be accomplished in two identical treatment systems which include nitrification and denitrification processes. The system was designed by Steve G. Tsontakis, P.E. in consultation with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. It will operate as follows (see Figure 2, Plate III): a. Raw waste will enter a septic tank. In the tank solids will settle to the bottom and be removed periodically by a sca- venger waste truck. The step will remove approximately 20 percent of total nitrogen, 30 percent of the biolo- gical oxygen demand (BOD) and most solids from the raw wastes. b. Septic tank supernatant will then flow into a sand filter where further solids will be removed and nitrification will + - convert ammonia (NH4 ) to nitrates (NO3 ). c. Nitrified wastewater will flow to a lime/sulfur chemical treatment tank. Here, denitrification will convert nitrates to nitrogen gas. d. Treated effluent will be discharged to surface geologic materials through precast concrete leaching pools. Effluent will have nitrates less than 5 mg/1, total and fecal coliforms less than 3 per 100 milliliters (virtually zero), and most BOD and solids removed. 12. OXIDATION NITRIFICATION DENITRIFtCATION LEACHING TANK FILTER TANK POOL WATER I CAPACITIES SYSTEM'~I - 2400 GPD SYSTEM'S?- 3600 GPD FLOW SCHEMATIC - PROPOSED SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL CAIOLA CONDOMINIUM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOURCE; STEVE G. TSONTAKIS, P.E. SEPTEMBER 1982 SYSTEM ~TO GROUNDWATER ~-~ HOLZMACHER~ McLENDON & MURRELL~ P.C. MELVILLE, N.Y. FARM~NGDALE, N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD, NY Effluent from this eventually percolate to the system was designed sanitary wastewater treatment system will groundwater beneath the project site. Since to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards and New York State Department of Health standards contained in 6NYCRR Part 703, Schedule I and Schedule II, the effluent will not significantly decrease the quality of local groundwater. Therefore, the Caiola Condominiums' wastewater treatment system will not endanger the Bagley and Goetz water supply wells. Additionally, the groundwater discharged to Arshamoque Pond will not be of signifi- cantly lower quality, and so will not cause this surface water's quality to decrease substantially. In conclusion, the occupation of the Caiola Condominiums will not adversely impact either local groundwaters or Arshamoque Pond. The development of the Caiola property will have a positive economic impact on the Town of Southold. This impact will result from the creation of construction jobs while the condominiums are being built and income received by local merchants supplying the day to day needs of the condominium residents. 14. ~-[,~./~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS 1. Lower Density This alternative would reduce the number of condominium units which could be constructed on the property. Mr. Caiola currently proposes to build two units less than the allowable density, and has designed his development so that it will have insignificant environmental impacts. A further reduction in the number of units constructed would not substantially reduce these already lns~.gnifi- cant impacts. 2. Concrete or Asphalt Access Road This alternative proposes an impermeable surface on the private access road and parking spaces for the condominiums. However, this alternative would generate significant amounts of runoff, and would violate Tidal Wetland Regulations (6NYCRR661.6) which state that "not more than twenty percent of the adjacent area ...... on any lot shall be covered by ...... impervious surfaces." 3. Wastewater Treatment System Without Denitrification This alternative proposes a wastewater treatment system excluding the nitrification/denitrification steps previously described and illus- trated in Figure 2 and Plate III. This alternative would siqnificantly decrease local groundwater quality and would violate Effluent Standards (6NYCRR 703, Schedule II) which state that discharges to groundwater in Nassau and Suffolk Counties will have nitrate concentrations of less than 10 mg/1. 4. No Action This alternative would deprive Mr. Caiola of his right to develop the property in a manner consistent with existing land use regulations and environmental conditions. 15. ~/~, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The construction of ten condominiums on the Caiola Property will require the irreversible and irretrievable removal of approximately 74,000 square feet of previously disturbed terrestrial habitat. 16. MITIGATING MEASURES Several aspects modified to mitigate of the proposed development have already been environmental impacts which might have otherwise resulted from it. These modifications include: Ail condominium units will be constructed on portions of the property ten feet or more above msl, and so, well removed from tidal wetlands. b. The private access road and parking spaces will be gravel-packed to prevent the excessive generation of stormwater runoff which could negatively impact both tidal wetlands on the property and Arshamoque Pond. c. Stormwater runoff from the condominiums will be directed to dry wells. d. Sanitary waste treatment will include nitrification/denitrifi- cation, thereby preventing significant impacts to local ground- water quality. 17. New York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conservation Rmgulatory Affairs Unit Building 40, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 516-751-7900 Robert F. Flacke Commissioner June 9, 1982 Mr. David E. Kapell 143 Sixth Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: 10-81-0226, Sal Caiola Dear Mr. Kapell: In accordance with your letter of May 20, 1982, I am enclosing a letter of No Jurisdiction for the construction of ten condominium~units at or above ten foot elevational contour above the mean high water mark as depicted by the "Site Plan and Details" prepared by Young and Young, dated Mary 12, 1982, and referenced in Section 661.4(b)(3) of the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations. Approval is necessary however for the construction of gravel sur- face roadway, parking area and regrading operation below the ten foot elevational contour. In this regard see the Incomplete Notice which is also enclosed. Should you have any questions concerning your application, please call ma at the above number. Sincerely, Dennis W. Cole Environmental Analyst DWC:ll mdc. cc: M. Kuenner EN-CONSUL 7[ANTS, INC. 64 NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTHAMPTON, bl~-W v('H~ f1968 516-283-6360 I:.NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES June 28, 1982 Mr. Kenneth Koetzner New York State Department of Environmcnta] Conserw~tion Regulatory Affairs Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Re: Property of Sal Caiola, Soethold Dear Mr. Koetzner: This letter shall serve as confirmation of our prior telephone conversations regarding a request for map to #716-550. Following my April 2, 1982 letter, you investigated our claim that a small Iow-lying area separated by an earthen dike be removed from a marsh designa- tion as it does not meet test~ required for that designation. Our conversation subsequent to your visit indicated your agreement with our view of the situation. Due to tile small size of the area in question and the costs associated with a map change, you indicated that the subject area would not be officially de-mapped, but we shonld co6sider it not to be wetland in our planning to develop the silt. This arrangement is perfectly acceptable to my client and we are proceeding accordingly. We would appreciate, a le~t(,r from v,m confirming this agreement for our files. We appreciate the cooperation you huve shown during this endeavor. Ym~rs truly, Roy 1,. Ilaje Pres i den t RLH: kb c.c.: Sal Caiola Dave Kapel l ~ York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conservation Building #40 - State University of New York Stony Brook, New York 11794 Robert F. Flacke Commissioner June 30, 1982 Roy L. Haje £n-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, New York Dear Mr. Haje: 11968 I am responding to your request for a demapping of a portion of the I.M. inventoried on T.W. Map 716-550. Attached is a copy of the map you supplied with your request showing the area in question. Staff biologists concur with your contention that the area north- westerly of the berm does not Neet the criteria to be classified as a inventoried tidal wetland, Furthermore, the Department will no longer regulate this affected area as an intertidal marsh as afforded under the Land Use Regulations, N.Y.¢.R.R. Part 661. It will however be regulated as an adjacent area. In order to simplify this decision, avoiding unnecessary time delays, the Department will not seek to demap the area in question but will provide testimony and/or statements at any or all Article 25 permit application~ matters that the area should be considered as a adjacent area. Hoping this information will meet with your approval. KLK?dlw cc/ D. FAllon DJ Cole C. Colefield /_Ke~neth/L. Koetz~,er,~ ~ Chief, ~ureau of ~da~tlands ., ~'"~'~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. BIBLIOGRAPHY Britton, N.L. and A. Brown. 1970. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. Vol. I. 1970. Vol. II. 1970. Vol. III. Cosulich, W.F., Associates, P.C. 1977. Pilot Plant Study Nitrogen Removal In A Modified Residential Subsurface Sewage Disposal System. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, New York. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. 1978. Section 201 - Wastewater Facility Plan of the Mainland Portion of the Town of Southold Engineering and Environmental Data Report. Melville, NY. 1970. Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study. Suffolk County, New York. Melville, NY. Hotchkiss, N. 1972. Common Marsh, Underwater and Floating-Leaved Plants of the United States and Canada. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee. 1976. Standards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1981. Review of Coliform Data from Uncertified Portion of Hashamomuck Pond Shellfish Land Number 23 February, March and April 1981 Data. Stony Brook, New York. 1978. Groundwater Classifications Quality Standards and Effluent Standards and/or Limitations (6NYCRR 703). 1977. Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661). Smith, R.L. 1974. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper & Row, Publishers, Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality. 1979. General Habitat Types Found in Suffolk County (Draft). Tsontakis, P.E. August 1982. Caiola Waste Disposal System. Mattituck, New York. August 1982. Personal communication with M.P. Bontje at H2M Corporation. NY. Please co~let~ the entire Oata Shee~. ~swe~ t~ these questions eill be ~nsiJer~d (;L--~S-- C~!PLET? EACH QU~/iO:( - .[ndica:e .X.A. if nsc a.~olicomle) -. (;h'.xsi~l ie~:!~l of aver~ll ~jecc, both daveloc~ 1, ue ..... l cqaract~r :f t~a lend: Genera}ly unifom slooe aaner~ily ~evem and roiling or ir~guiar Ao:r':x~ase _~cr~age: ,~r2sen:ly Af_r Camola~-!on · Su~u~an .... ~u~al . , For~sz ~,:ttr~ ' ' with slopes: O-lO: ~$_:; 10-15. .,.; - ' ' or site listed on ~he ~{at~nal Register of'Historic p~ject c~n.isuouS~o, or contain a butld~ng Plzces? Yes '~ No ' . ~hat Js the ~ep:h to :he ~ater tabte? ~.?eet hunting or fishing oppo~unities presently exist in the project area? .Yes ' .rio C~es projecC site conta(n~ny species o? plant or animal life that ts identified ~s threatened e~daF, c~re~ - Yes ~ rio, acceding to - Identify each species Are ?.ere any unique or un/Jsual land for~s on :he project sit~? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological for=.a~icns - ~ Yes ~ .9o..{Oescribe Is the project sit_~, ~resently used by the ~o~.,unit7 or neighborhood as an open space or rec~ation. :. C~es the presort site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important t~ .the c~.~unity? - Streams withia or ~=ntiguous to project area: /:~ /~ .~ ..... a. I(~,.-~ of strea~ and name of river to which it is tributary '~/-~ , ' : ' I.% Lskes,,Pen~, '~etland areas w!~thin or coh~iluous to project area: : '~h~t is the dominant ]~nJ use ~nd zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radips Qf ~e~roject (e.g, 16. slngle~a~ily resid~tiaI, R-~kand the scale of deveJop~ent (e.g. 2 story). ~0~ PRCJE~ DESCRIPTIOn( -'-.- 1. Physical dimension~ and s~le of p~ject (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage o~ed by p~je~ sponsor ~ acres. b. P~ject acreag~ d~veloped: ~ acres initially; ~ ~cr~s ultimately. c. P~ject acreage ~ r~ain undeveloped ~ .. d. Length of_project, tn miles: ~-~ {if app~Kiate) I~ p~ct is ~ expansion o? ex(sting, indicate percent of expansion p~posed: build~ng -- asa ; developed acreage ~az(~ vehicular trips generated per hour J~)upon c~pletfon of p~ eot) If residential: )(~,~ber ~nd type of housing units: · . One'Family T~o Family Multiple Family Initial Ulti~4te i. If: Orientation ~eighborhood-Ct ty-Regional Estimated Dnplc~nt Co.~.,ercial _ Ccndeninium IO \o 9. 10. 11. Ho..~mush naturaI,.qz:ar~al (i.e. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed f~m the site _" (~]) cubic yards- Hc~ many acres of Vegetation (.re_s, shrubs, cr~und covers) will be removed from site 0 acres. .... '~r~ ~ ~'~ -~o locally-important vegetation b~ removed this ~i!l any c_.u ..... s, ~_r lO0 years old) or ..... r . by project) Yes~ ~re there any plans f~r ra-va~etation to replace that removed during construction? Ye~ Nc, If single phase p~jact: Anticipated period of construction ~. months, (including dm~olition). If ~ulci-phased~-rOj_c~. '~" a. Total n~ber oF phases anticipated ' ~o. '' b. Anticipated date of co.n~,,.encement phase l month , ~ear {including demolition) c. Approximate com~lation date final phase m~nth year. d. Is phase I financially dependent'on subsequent phases? .. Yes ___.._~o Will blasting occur during c~nst~Jction? ...... yes ~.~o ' ' ' '~' ~'-. "~-.- )(u~ber of jobs generated: du~ng const~ctio~ ~; after project is complet~'~.-- ~'~. ,,u.._.r of jobs el(mMn~ted 5y this project ~ ' 2ill project requir: relocation of any projects or facilities! Yes ~ . If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~o. ·  If yes, indipJte ty~e of ~asta Csewase, i~d=strial, e~c.) / c. If surfac° dis-cea] ne-: of st"°=m into which effluent will be discharged __ 14. Is projccs or any portion of project located in the lO0 year ~oed plain?~Yes No 15. a. Oeec p~ject involve disposal of solid : e:? Yes b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes NO c. If yes, glue name: ; location d. !.Jill any wast~s net go into a sewage disposal SYStem or into a sanitary landfill? ~ Yes __ 16. Will '= ' herbicides or pesticides? Yes ~<~No 17. Will p, oj_c~ routinely produce odors (n-~re than one hour per day)? Yes p~j-c~ produce operating noise ~xceedlng the local ~bience noise levels) Yes ~ No 19. ~o. If yes, indicate type(s) ZO. 21. 22. Will project ~esult in.~'n increase in ener~27 use? ~ Yes if water supply is fromm wells indicate pu~pi-g c,.Facit7 Total _~nzicir. at_~d '~acar usage ~er day 3a]s/day. Zoning: a. WhaC is dominant'zoning classification of site? b. CurrenC specific zoning classif!caCion of site gals/minute. Is proposed use co~,sist, enr. '~,~..~ ~rasant zoning? If no, indicate desired zoning Is any Fedora! per. i% required? Yes ~lo Does ~roject ~nvolve State or Feder~l ~unding or ~inancing? lo~al and Regional ~pprovals: Approval Recurred (~es, rio) (Type) Approval COate) I.. u,.:~ .G.,~L OETAILS City, Tow~q. Village 8oard City, Town, Village Planning goard City, Tov~n, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies OCher regional agencies State X~oncies Federal A~encies Att.,ch any additional inm~Or~,etion as n~y be ~eeded to clarify your project. If ~h~re are or may be any adve~e (~ects associec~the'p~posal, pier.discuss such i~pacts and the measures which can be TITLE: ~ - · OATE: E~/~,,O ..... ~T~ ASSESSbLENT PART II ~. OJ...,~r~~.~.CT$ AN© THEIR 5tAGNITUDE G-?-~r~l ~qfor~t~cq (2~ad C~refuily) !n ' ' - ~he form ~o reviewer should be cuided Dy the question: He'~e my decisions and determinations s~ n~,~__n_. ~ny ~arc~ _,f_c~ must be evaluated in ~IRT 3 to deterc~ino significance. 8y ideot~fying an -~ [x~cgies ~rovid2d ere to assist the reviewer by skewing types of effects and wherever possible the thres of m,c.=~n:..._'..~ ~hac would trigger a ro~,~ns_'-- ~ in col~-n _. ~ The exarples are generally applicable throughout th State en~ For most situations. But, for any s:eciFic~r~ -¢=~,_.. or si~e other examples 2nd/or lower thresholds ~Jy ~e mGr~ appropriate for a Potential Large Icpacz racing. · ~.c~, on each.i.~,''~,~ in each 'locality, will vary. ~erefor~, the examples have been offered T,._y da nec constitute an exhaustive list of impact3 and thresholds to answer each question. _ t,,_ impedance of each question. I S nuC ,.,IS (~e-d Carefully) ~,.sw_r each of the 12 questions in PART 2. Aris'war Ye._.~s if there will be ?y effect. IF anSwering.Yes to a cuestion then check the e:o~riate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of ~he ~:act. If i~act threshold _...ls sr .xc__~s any example provided, check colum, q 2. If If reviewer ha~ doubt about ~e size of the impae: ~lQ%,consider the imf. act as potentially large and If a :~cential)y larse impact or effect can be r ..... d by a change in the project to a less.than large m2gnitud~, place a Yes in column 3. A ~la response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. t. Z. S)~ALL TO POTE;'(~FIAL CA;I IMPACT t,.P~C, [1-!PACT PROJECT CHA Constr~cticn of hayed oarking area for l,SGg or ~cre vehicles. ~nstru~inn on lane ~here bedrock is exposed cr ;chorally wicn:n 3 feet of ex~scing ground suvaco. Construction chat will ccntlnue for more than 1 year or involve Excavacicn for mining ~urposes that would re.~'~ve rsre than tons of natural ,,-~t~rial (i.e. reck or soil) ~er y~ar. ~onstruction of any new sanitary landfill. cons~.u..:on on slopes of 1S: or greeter, (15 foeC rise Der lO0 fco~ of long[h), or where the geoeral slo)es in the project ar~_e exceed CcnstmJCticn on Lend ,where the d_pt,, to the water table is lass than 3 feet. Examoles that t;ould Apply to Column ~ ~ILL THERE ns ~. ~, EFFECT .AS A R~ULT OF A PHYSICAL C~A.,=: ...... TO P ..... CT SITE? do I2PACT 0,~ NO YES Co CcnstrucCien in a desionated ~ocdway. NO YES w~__ ,i~:R: BE EFFECT TO A~iY U;.IIqUE OR U;:USUAL LA,tO FQPJIS FOU;iO'(3~l TF.E SITE7 {i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological Forma- tions, eCc.} Specific land form..s: NO YES 'JILL P~OJECi' AFFECI' Ah'Y WATER BODY DESi~--gATEO AS .......... PROTECTED? (Under Articles l~. 2¢, 25 of the Envir- on.into) Conservation La~, Dred?ing ~ore tha~ lO0 cubic yards of ~a~erial C~Cruction in a ~si~nated freshuater or tidal ~etl~nd. ~n. OEP. ATE I, P~T O~ger impacCs: WILL P~OSEC7 AFFECT, MIY ~:Drt-PROTECT~D EXISTItI~ OR "~ BOGY GF t!ATER? ............................................ Ex~:oles Ch~t'Jould Apply to Column ~ A l~. increase or decrease in the surface aree of any body of water or,.-~re ~h~n a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construcc(on cf a body of water that exceeds lO acres of -  Othsr impacts: ..£ ~0 YES '~ ..~ 5. WiLL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR ~ROUllO~ATER QUALim-Y? ~ ~6.~Project will require a discharge pe~i~. ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ject requires us~ of a source of water that does not have approval ta serve p~posed p~j~t. P~ject requires '4at~r supply fro~ w~l ' ~ then 45 ga)lens per ~inu~e p~ging capacity. C~nst~Jct!an or ooeK~tion causing any contamination of a public water supp)y syste~. )~ject will ~dverse)y'affect g~undwac~r. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site facilities which presently do Act exisc or h4ve inadequate c~city. Project r~quiring a facility that ~ould use wa..r excess of ZO,O00 gallons per day. tltatian ~Or other disch~e O® ~RGE I~CP~ET PoOJEC'F Ex?~le ~hat ..,~uld ~oply to Col~,n 2 P,~je:t '.ou!d im~zde flood '~a~er ~ows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Prelect is incsrPa~ible wi~h existing drainage pa%terns~,, ~ YES ~!LL:-,:r ....... ..~ ............... ....... ~r:~, AIR QU~L~W~? .... [ 2... ~xe~les that ~:cu~d A:~!y to Colu~ 2 P~ject will induce 1,SSO or mo~ vehicle trips in any given hcur. Pro,eot will result in the incineration of mo~ then 1 ton of refuse ~er hcur. R~ect emission ra~e ofell cont~inants will exceed 5 lbs. 2er hPur or a heat source producing more tken l0 milIicn SiU's per kour. Reduction cf one or more species listed on the ~ew York Removal cf any ~orticn of a critical or significant wild- AvplicPtisn of Pesticid~ or herbicide over r~.-e than ~wice a ,y~__r o~h~r ti!eh for agri~u~surel purocs~s. .,... :us~,,..,..LLf AF~CT ,:C,I-mR~ :.:~ 3R YES £x~mTe tma~ Wo.~Id Xp~ly to Column 2 Project .~culd ~s~.n..alw in~erfare wi~h an'/ resident or .~[gra~ory fish or wildlife sDec~es. Prnject resuires the removal of ~ore than lO...~~,-~=' Of mature f~rest (ever lO0 jeers in ego) or etna- locally .,~LL;"~ TOi~ I~OTFJ'ITIAL CAN ~RAC~ IOC?ATE LARGE R.~UC~g INPACT I~P.qC T PROJECT CHAN[ L','2ACT .;:; '/ISUAL RESGU~CE 10.. ~:~tt THE 2:gJECT ~.-';ECT V[EUS. ¥ISTAS ~R THE V~SUAL ~xa~ales .h.. %:ou]~ ~pply ~o Co]~n ~n inc~maatlbla visual ~ff~t c~use~ by the introniction A orcjact easily visible, no~ easily scre~ned, that is o~viously different fma others around ' ' ~mjec: ~ill result in the aliminatio~ or major .... t.. Impo~anC ~o the are:. ll. :.IALL TO POTENTIAL CAt: ~?':PACT ,00 cP. ATE lAP. GE REDUCED BY I~?ACT I~:P.ACT PP.O.~ECT ) S I~P~CT O:l HISTOR!C PnE-',qlSTCP.[C SR PALEONTOGICAL t?,PORTANCE? .' ................ Ex~m21es ~at ~4ould A:ply ~ Col~ 2 P~ject occurmq wholly or partially '~ithin or contiguous to any Facility or site listed on the ~(ational Register historic places. ~y i~pact to an arsheological site or fossil bed located within ~he projec: site. Other impacts: WILL TH'~ P=OJECT AFFECT THE GUANTITY OR QUALITY ?F EXISTING NO, YES 12. OR ~T~E ~PE~I SPACES OR REcR~TIO~AL OPPO~J~IIT~ES~ ..... ~ 0 Exemmles ~at ~ould Apply to Col~,m 2 The pe~nen~ foreclosure of z future r~c~tional oppo~unity. A major reducCion of an open sp~ce i~ortant to the co.unity. 13. Other impact~: I~P~CT nu Tp. ANSPO~T~TiO~I WILL THESE ~E A;I EFFECT TO EXISTING ,~,~.,~' ~' SYST~,,S? ............. Examples Chat '2ou!d Apply to Column 2 Alteration of present ~atta~s of ~vemen~ of ~eQple and/or goods. P, ILL PRgJECT AFFECT T~E C.=.'.~RACTER nF THE EXISTING ~:g YES .© 0 Ex~-r~ole that ~!ould ~pDly to Column 2 ' .~pul,..~n of the C~t7, Town or Village in which the ~roject is locaLed is likely to grow by more than 5~ O~ The aunicipel hedgers for capital exoenditures or oper3- tin~ services will ' ~= ~ , resul~ of :his project. Will involve any ~er-~nert Facility of a non-agricultural use in an agr~cult:r~! ~istrict or remove prime agricultural ]and~ from cultivation. i'ne project ~:ill replace er eliminate existing facilities, st?Jctures or ~re]s of historic im~or~cance to the coa~nity. gevele~ment ~ill induce an influx of a particular ego Ufo. up ~ith special needs. Project will set an impor'~nt precedent for future projects. Project ~ill relocate 15 or more employees in one or mere businesses. OCher impacts: 18. NO ' YE-~ .... ~. -tn,,--= ,,-?o ',,~ PROJECT? .... IS ~HcR~. FUSLIC C.,h ....... ST CO.,L,~,,H.,i,~ 'FRS Ex~!es that Would Apply to Colu~ 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent cors~unities have expressed apposition or rejected the pro jec~ or have not be~n c~ncac~ed. Cbjections to the p~ject imam within the co,~nunity. J POTEHT!AL LARGE I}?ACT OR IF YOU CAD;;~OT DETE.~.II;',EJ J 'TH~ ~'.,.,G.,,.~,~=. 0,- h,~, P..O~..O 0 .~ 3. J PORTIODJS OF ~F COHP1 ~ED FOR -u . -- ~..IS PROJECT D~E~qI~:ATIOD( ..... PART I -- PART Il . PART 3 __~ Upon revim~ of the infatuation recorded on this FAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude and i~portance of each implcs, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will resuI~ in no major lm~zcts and, there~re, is one which may not cause si~nifican: damage Co the envirtnm~nC. B. Although the oroject could have a significant effect on the enYS~nment, chore will nee be a significant effect in this case because the mitiqJcicn ~asures describe~ in P~CT 3 have been inc!uc~d as par~ of %be proposed ?sjecc. that Cannot be reduced and may cause significant dhmage to PREPARE A ~:EGATIVE gECkO, RATiO,'( P..~, .AR. A c P~E~ARE ?OSi TIVE DE'--L.-'.CATIO:( PROCEED Si§naLure cf R~sponslble Official Agency Signature of Preoarer (if differan: fram responsible officer) Print or t>.~e na~e of respo~si~ o~ I-.. ;l~L.. PROJECT ~FF-~CT TP, E uu,..~U,l[~IcS SOURCES OF DJ:L ~R NO YE~ ~.:r,~ SU??LY~ ................................. ~ ....... ~ ener~ used in transmission or su~Iv, s2s~m .... [o sa~e moro than 50 single l§. Other impac:~: ~ILL ~ERE ~E O~J£CTiC~ASLE OOGRS, NOISE, G~E, Y!~TION NO YES or ~ECTRI~L gIS,~.~,,C_ AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... Examol~s that ffould Apply to Colu"mn 2 ~lasting within 1.~O0 feet of a hospital, school or ct~er ~,. sensitive facility. Cdo~ tHll occur ~uCinely (~re than one hour per P~joct ~ill o~duce opeFating noise exceedin~ the Iota) ambient noise levels for noise outside of P~Jec: ~ill rm~ve n~:ural barriers that would eot ss e noise screen. OCher impacts: WILL P~OJECT AFFECT PUBLIC H[~L~H A;IO SAF~Y? ............. Ex~oles that ~ould Apply to Column ~ P~ject vill cause e risk o? explosion or release of hazardous substances {i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a ch~nic lm~ level discharge or emission. : P~ject that will ~sult in the burial of "hazardous wastes' {i.e. toxic. ~eis~eus. highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, inFectleus, etc.. including wa~as that ~e solid, sz~i-solid. liquid or contain ~asas.) Storace facil)cies for c~e ~illlon or ~ore gallo~s ~f l(quiflad nRcurol ~as or ot~er l(cuids. Other imoacts: c:n:~Suous o~ or contafn a building or sfte listed on the NatiOnal Register of Historic Ye5 '~ ho f~.B. ~hlt is the ~p~h to ~he ~ate? tab]e~ ~ ~ ?eot ~ 9. ~ h~nti~O or flsh~ng oppo~unities pre~en~l~ ex,st Jn the project ar~a? Yes ' ]0. :~es proje=t site con~ln~n~ specles of plan: or animal life that ts identified a~ threatened end_r, .... d YeS ~ dO, acco~ing to - Identify each species I1. Are Lgere any unique or un/Jsual land foK~s on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological form. orions - Yes ~ .90. -(Describe 12. Is ~e p~ject site.~esently us~ by the ~unity Or neighborhood as an open space, or ~ec~at~on . ..-:' a~a - ~es ~ ~o. ~., - . ... -... '; -:. '~ .:'~.: 13. ~es the present site offer or include scenic views or vis~s kno~ to be impotent tb.~a c~unity? , 7es .'~:~° , = .._ .. .'~' -. -'"'~ 14. Strea~s within or c~ntfguous to pmject area: . , ~ ~ ' ?~~ '? . '- ..~' .:. a. ~{~ of st?ea~ and na~e o? ?~ver to which f~ ~s tr~bu~a?~ ~ , 15. Lakes, Pond, Wetland areas within or ccnt?i~ucus to project arno: a. I(a ~(~?~.r~c~ b. Size (in acres) lO. ~hat is the dominant lanJ use end z~nlng classification within a I/4 mile radi,us QF t~e.project (e.g. sln~le/(amily resid~tial, R-2t\and the scale of development {e.g. 2 story). ~0~-~2~ l. Physic~'l dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) . a. Total contiguous acreage o'~rned by project sponsor ~----~'~ acres, b. Project acreag-~ developed: ~ acres initially~ ~ ,. acres ultimately. c. P~oject acreage :o re. main undeveloped d. Length of_project, in miles: .,.D~?Z~? (if app~.~ciate) e. I~ project is an exoansion o? existing, ~ndicate percent of expansion proposed: build~ng'squa~ foot a~e ,; developed acreage , . g. Maximin vehicular trips generated per hour J/J~)upon completion of project) h. If residential: ,~(~.~ber agd type of housing units: .. One'F~ily Two Family Multi~le Family Condominium Ini rial } 0 lo Ultimate .- If: Orientation ~eighbcrhood-¢lt¥-R~gional Es :imated Emolo}~ent Xndustria) tallest proposed structure _'-~ fee t. T£ OF SOUTHOLD ~7~I~O~.LENTAL ASSESS:'LE~T - PAP. T I PROJECT I ~FF OR/'tAT !O~ lC ,s exF~ tmJ[ cc~l~ticn of ~e ~F.ill be dep~de~ o~ info~acia~ ~encly av4ilable a~d will not involv! ~cw ~cuJies, research or investigation. If i,qfo~aciom requi~ng such additiona{ work i~-u~a,,a{~ble, 't.t~ .,,ID .AOC~E5-~ OF ,,m _R ((f O'~ ..... nt) :. ~ ~ ~L ~ o'. ~' , , ~ -'-" · c ' '" ~ P~'~. '7. ~ ?- -U~~ C ~ ~ ~ · Subu,'~an . .%ral. . Foresz earsn or fill: C~er {incici:~ cyme} "'!tt 6 Ao~rgx mate - ~ · ~ .? t~ '. ~er¢.nt.c._ of proposed project site with slopes: ;. · csntiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on the ;~aCional Register of Historic X'Net is the depth to C~e water table? .!~)feet '~o hun:ing or fishing oppo~unities presently exist in ~h_ project ar~a? Yes Caes project site contiin~n~ species of plant or eni~al life that is id~r. tified es threatened or ........... d Yes ~ do. acceding to - Identify each species tl. 12. 1J. 14. Are there any uniqse or uny~sual land forms on tho project site? {i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological for=.aticns- Yes ~*(o. (Describe Is the project site. p~-esently used by the co~rr~..unity or neighborhood as an open space or Yecreation area - . Yes ~( NO. " C~es the prese~nt site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be impofft~nt, to .the cgr,~unity? Yes Stree~s within or contiguous to project area: ~ ."~ a. Ila~.-e of stream and name of river to '~hich it is tributary ~ ~ ' 15. ]6. Lakes, Pnn~, Wetland areas within or ccn~j~guous to project area: What is ~he d:minan: land use ~nd zoning classification within a 1/4 mile r~dimUS 9F ~)c project slngle~a~ily r.sjd~tial ?2)~and the scale of development {e.g. ~ story). ~ ~ ~_~ ~ P.,O~ DESCRIPTtC;¢ Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage e'~ned by project sponsor ~.~'~'~ acres. b. Project acreage developed: ~,~.~ acres initially; --- acres ul~i~t~ly~ c. P~ject acreage ~ r~ain undeveloped ~ d. Lengt~ of project, in miles: ~ ~if app~priate) e. If pmject is ~ expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion p~posed: age ; developed acreage , f. ~,~er oK off-st~t parking s~ac.s existing ~; proposed I ~ ,- g. ~axi~J~ vehicular tr~ps generated per hour J~upon c~pletlon of p~Ject) If rasldential: N~,~ber and type of housing units: One'Fe~ily Two Fe~ily Multiple Fmaily Condominium Initial )0 Ultimate I 0 build'ag squ~.~e_ ~co: If: C.o.~m~e roi e I Orientation Neighborhood-City-~eg~ena! Estimated 5rnplo)m~nt Industrial Total height of to)lest proposed structure '-~/ feet. Ma~ mush natural re.t_ l~l (i.e. rock, eerth, etc. 1 will be removed from ~=~ cubic yards. Ro'~ m2ny acres of ve~etatio~ {trees, shrubs, -Trou~ covers} will be re~oved fro~ site - acres. c~turo Fcrosc var 100 years old) or ot~er loeally-l~oortant vegetation ~e re~oved by this Will a~ project) Yes Are chore ~ny plans For re-vegetation to replace that removed during construct(cA? Yes d~olition). If single phase proja¢c: ~n~c~pa~~d period of construction ~:p months. (including If multi-phased project: a. Total n~ber cf ~hasas anticipatedRe.'' b. Antici~atod date of con~,,encement phase 1 month year (including demolition) c. Approximate co,pla?ion date final phase ?~nth year. - .. .. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent'en subsequent phases? 8. tiill blasting occur during constr'Jction? Yes ~, .No 9. ,'(~-s:er of jobs generated: during construction ~.; after project iS complet~..~.__. lC. Nu,~-~er of jobs elim~n~-tod §Y this project ll. Will project reouir"- relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Yes ~o a. Is surfaco or subsurface liquid waste dis:osal involved? Yes If yes, explain: Yes ~0o d. If no, indicate desired zoning a. Whac is dcmina~t'zoning classif!ca:icn of site? b. £urren~ spec)fie zoning classification of site o.- is proposed use consistent with ~resant zoning? / c. If surface disposal n~me of stream into which effluent will be discharged . . · Will surf~:o ~re~ of ~xisting lakes~J~.,,ds, scre~s,'bays or other surface water, aye be increased or deoreas~.~ Dy ~osel? Yes ~ No. '- )~Yes - - ~ o ' ~ = O0 ear ~ood plaint ~o 14. Is project or any portion or prajeo~ locat_d ~n ~h_ 1 Y 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? ~es Yes b. If yes. will an existing solid waste dis2osel facility be used? _ ; location c. If yes, give ne~e: d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal ~ystem or into a sanitary l~ndfill? ~ Yes 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ,.yes 17. Will project routinely produce odors (mor~ than one hour per day)? _ Yes ~ 18. Will p~ject p~duce operating noise ~ceeding the local ~bience noise levels? _ Yes 19. Will p~ject ~esult in jo in~rease in ener~' use? ~ Yes ,.?. If yes. indicate type(s) 20. If water supply is f~m we)ls indiczt~ pu~pi~g ccpacitT_ gals/minute. To,al ~ntici~at~d water us2ge per day jets/day- 25. a. Is any Federa! perm.,,it req:ired? Yes b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? c. koda! and Regional a~provals: Approval Required Sub~f ~.ai ~pproval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Dale} City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning ~oard City, Ts~m, Zoning Board City, County Heelth Department Other Ioc~} agencies Other r~gional agencies Fed~ra] J~ancies C. I,,.u~..~ .,~.~,L DETAILS A .... h an'/ ad~e~e impacts as~cciet~the'p~posal, plea~discuss such impact~ and the measure~ which can be TITLE: E~p~i?.O~L~4_ENTAL ASSESSbLENT - PART TI PROJECT IMPACTS ANO THEIR 5t~GNITUDE Ce-~r~l '~,~.orr.. c"~ ', (R~ad Carefully) and determinations - In cc-~iet)ng the for~ the ~ 'o, = should be guide: oy '"° cues:ion: Have my decisions - Identifying :nat an effect will be ~otentially larle ~celuzn 2} ooes not mien that it is also necessarily sicn(fic~nt. Any large effect must ce evaluated in :~2T 3 ~o determine s~gnificance. ~y identify(no an ~r~ecc m ~o~urn Z simply asks that it be looked ac further. of :agn~c:ce tho: would :r~er a res;onse in colson Z. The ex.roles are generally applicable throughout the roy ca cor~ ap~roori~te for ~ Potential Large Impo:: ratin~. - Eoch p,~ject, on each site. in each-locality, will vary. ~erefor~. the examples have been offered ~s guidon, T,._y ca ncc constitute an exhaustive list of impacts an~ thresholds to answer each question. t._ impo~ance of each question. D(STRUCTiC~IS (~ead Carefully} a. Answqr each of the 13 ::es:ions in PART 2. Answer Yes if :here will he.effect. c. IF answering Yes to a cuestion then check the ec~:riata box (colu~m 1 or 2) to indicate the potential .... d any example provided, check colu~m 2. If size of the ~m:ect. If imoac~ threshold equals or .xc__ s tmeac: will occur but threshold is lower than o '~ '° d. If reviewer qas doubt about the size of the im:ac: t~leQ consider the i,?~.act as potentially large and or~-e-d to PARr 3. e. If a :ot:ntially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less.:San large m~gnitud~, place a Yes in column 3. A ~lo res~cnse indicates that such a reduction is not possible. S)~ALL TO POTE?(~FIAL CA:( IMPACT Bi ~,OO E?ATE La, RG E REDUC--D ~Y I,.P~C, II-!PACT PROJECT I~PACT O)l LAND NO YES WILL THERE BE X~'~ EFFECT AS A ~ESULT OF A PHYSICAL CFA~:.SE TO 0 ~ PROJECT S[TE? Examoles that ',iould Apply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15~ or greater, (15 foot rise per 1DO foot of lengch), or uhere the general slopes in the project ar~-a ex:sad 10%. ¢cnst~Jcticn on Land wher~ the depth te the water table is lass th~n 3 feet. Construction of ~aved oarking are~ for 1 ,SOO or =cr~. vehicles. C~nstruotlcn on land ~here bedrock is exposed cr ~nerally wi Cain 3 feet of existing ground su~ace. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve Exc~va~icn for mining 2urposes that ~euld r~m~¥e rcre Chon 1,0O0 tons of natural ,,-~:~rial (i.e. rock or soil) ~er ylar. '~// Ccnstruction in a deslgna:ed ~oodway. NO YES ~,, T~~ :~ A~ E~FCT TO ~;Y UNIQUE OR U::USUAL ~'- ticns, etc.) Specific land NO YES ,ILL PROJECt ArFECr A::¥ wATER BOOY DESi~'~ATED AS .......... PROTECTED? {Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Enzir- on~nt~l Conservation Law, Examples ~h~t ~ould X~ply ~o Col~m 2 ~.' than 100 cubic yards of ~aterial from Dr__,~ng ~ore channel of a protected Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal O~h~r impac:~: Ex,holes Chat Would Apply t~ Column 2 A l~, increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or ,,-~re bhan a lO acre increase or decrease. ?9DE?.ATE BODY OF I!A(:R? ............................................ . Construction cf a body of water that exceeds lO acres of  . , Other impacts: 2 2 . · C '-'J Nu Y~S E, ~ '_ ExamPles that '~euld Apply to Col~ 2 ' ~ P~ject will ~quire a discharge pe~it. ~ ' Q ~ ~ P~ject requires use of a source of water that does not have Project will adversely 'affect gr~undweeer. Liquid effluent ~(ll be conveyed off the site facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess a~ 20.000 ga)lens per day. ~ro~e:t ~.~11 l~kely ca~e $~l:e~oa ~ other ;~ an existi~ body of wa~r to the extent tha~ t~ere (~ ~l~ approval to set'ye proposed project. J~ ~-~ P~ject requires water sumply from walls with ~eter -- than 45 gallons per minute p~ping capacity.  ~ ~ ~ ocer~tion causing any contamination ~ of ~ public water supply system. LARGE REnUC~ BY PmOJE&~ O ~.ner 5. t~!LL ~ ~ol~ t~at )~ould ~op17 to Col~m 2 p~ject ..ou!d im:~de flood waCer ~ows. P~jecC is likely CQ cause subsCan~ial erosion. P~jec: is inc:~-.cible .ich existing drainage Other 7. 'JILL Exlm~les thi: t:culd X~=!7 to Colu~ 2' P~jectwill induce 1.COO or mm~ vehicle trips in ~ny ~ivem P~ject will r~ult in the incineration of mom than I ton of ~Fuse ~er hour. P~ject emission ra:e of all cont~inants will exceed S -> · 10 lbs. 2er ~our or a neat sourc~ producing more million ~TU's 2er hour. ~,DA ,~c,,~ SPEC[ES? p:-. ....~ AFFECT A~'(Y T:qREATE~IED OR ~ ,.~u d ~ppty to Col~ ~ ~xa~=les that '~ ' - Aed:cticn cf on~ or ~ species listed on the ~:~ York ~ or FedeKal lis:. u~(n9 the site. over or near sit~ found on t~e site. ~emoval of any portion of a critical or significant wild- than Apol~c .... oF Pesticide or he.it(de over Ot2er impacts: · . -..~ c--.-- i.-'~, "- . ... .....-r, ' AFFE-CT ,C,I- ,.2--..I .... -~-.,,.-r:c"~ S?E,_'~.E3? ................................. Example ir, at 'Joule Ap~ly to Column 2 Project wculd substentlally interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. PFnject reouires t,ge removal of ~ore than 10 acres of mature forest (~,zer iOO yeers in age) or otne~ locall'y ll. "?, _., T!iE 2DCjEC? Ar?£CT VIEWS, VISTAS 02 THE VISUAL An incompatible visual arrest caused by ~he '~ ~" ~ of aa'~ ~atarials, colcrs ~nd/or fa~.~ in con~rast to the sur.--sunding landscape. A on:ject easil7 visible, not easily screened~%hat is oov~ousI7 d~fferenc imm others around it. Preje.. will result in the elimination or ma~cr screening of scenic vie'.'s ~r vistas kne~.:n to be Ex2~sles t~hst l~ould Aeply to Col~m 2 P.'-:ject accur(nq ~helly or partially within or contigucus to any facility or s~te listed on ~h. ~Jational R_=,s~r of historic places. lS;~A L TO POT~ JT!AL LY CF. 2'~7~m._..' -~' to an arzh~ological site or fossil bed located ~..~n Cbc projecC site. Other INPACT ON O?EN SPACE & REC~EAT!ON 12. ~IiLL TEE r~.OdcC~ AFFECT T:qE CUANT[TY OR qU~Ll~f OF ~.(lal.dG >lO OR ~TU2E OPE~I SPACE$ OR ~EC2~qTIG~IAL OPPQRPJNITiES? ...... ~ Exa~mles ~at }/auld Apply to Col~ 2 ~ne pe~enent foreclosure of a future rec~tional oppo~unity. A major r~ducCicn of an open space i~orta~t to the co.unity. Other impact~: 13. ;ii'.L T'rt~R[ =_E AN E?FECT TO EXIST[N~ TaA.NSFCF. TA7',O:I SYST~-~,tS ? ............................................... Examples that Would Apply to Column Alterasion of presen: patterns oFmov_.:=~o_n.' of ~eep!e and/or ~oods. Project will result in severe traffic problems. REDUCED PRO&'C T ~, T7. WILL pp, OJECT AFFECT E~m~le [hat Would Apoly to Col~n The ~eguL]tion of the C~ty, Town or Village ~n which the ~ro;~ct is ~ccated ros~en~ human ~coula~n. ~e mun~cio~l budgets ting services will increase ~y more ~han result of this 18. Will involve any :~rmanert Facility of a non-agricultural use in an agr;cultu[a! aistrict or remove prime agricultural lands f~m cult~vac~on. ~ne project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, stm~ctures or ~reas of historic importance to the co,,-m, unity. Development will induce an in,lux of a particular age Or:up with special ne~cs. Project will set an imoor'~nt precedent for future projects. Project ~ill relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: NO ' YE'. IS TH:RE PUBLIC Cg:(TROVERS¥ COXC~R,,,,IG l~E PROJECT? .... i-- Exile!es ~hat Would Apply to Column ~ J" - of adjacent co~unities Objections to the p~ject from within the co~unity. PART I~ PART I1 , PART pR:PARE A NE~ATI"$E DECLA~ATIOX - © p?.EPARE A NEC~!T!'I: OEC~TIO.q © POSITIVE g:'.u.-..AJIO,~ PROCE:i © ~gna~ure cf R~sponsi~le Official Asency DE'Tc~HI,,ATIO t .... t,,- information t-eccr~ed on this ~AF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considerin~ hath the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably d~:rm~ne that: B. AIthcugh the project could hzve a significant effect on the inc!uced as part'of :he propose~ ?cj~cc. of Pre~arer (if dlfferen: from responsible officer) Pr~je~_t c]using ~r..~_r=~'o than 52 increase in any for~ of 15. m rr-R ...... ¢-,,,'- or __.~ .,C,L DIS,.= ..... = AS A RESULT OF THIS PRgJ~iT? .... E~mol~s that ~culd Ag~ly to CoIu~ 2 ~lasting within 1,SC3 Fa~t OF a hospital, school ~r other sensitive Facilit7. Pmjoct will ~ ..... ' noise screen. O~her impec~; 16. NO YES t .... ~ould gpOly to Column ~ P~jecs will cause e risk e~ explosion or release ~f h~zardaus substances (i.e. oil, ~sticides, chemicals, radiet~sn, etc.) in the ~vent of accident or upset conditions, ar %here will be a chronic Ic~ level discharge or emission. Project that wi]l ~sult in the burial of "hazardous w~stes" (i.e. ~oxic, %oissnous, highly reactive, r~dicacsive, irritaLing, liquid or ccn~in Szses.) S~ora~e Facilities for ¢ne mill~on or more g~ilons :f liquif!ed tM?; CT [!IP4 ]T GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR SERGE DOYEN, JR ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Southold Town Planning Board Jerry Goehringer, Chairman September 24, 1982 Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola Condominium Project at C.R. 48, Southold For your review and comments, please find enclosed copies of the Environmental Assessment in the Long Form and Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the above project. If possible, comments should be submitted to our office as lead agency prior to October 16th. Thank you for your assistance. DRAFT ENXIIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CAIOLA i~ONDOMINIUM Southold, New York PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT: pE~ITTING AGENCY: PREPARER: Arshamoque Middle Road (C.R. 27 Southold, NY 11971 Sal Caiola 77 Irving Place New York, NY c/o David E. Kapell, 443 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 Esq. Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Holzmacher, McLendon &' Murrell, P.C. 375 Fulton Street Farmingdale, NY 11735 Hugo D. Freudenthal, Ph.D. (516) 694-3410 HOLZMACHER.McLENDON and N1URRELL, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENT~STS a~ PLANNERS September, 1 9 8 2 ~ HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CAIOLA CONDOMINIUM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section iNTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS iRREVERSIBLE AND iRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES MITIGATING MEASURES APPENDIX A Page 1 4 10 15 16 17 18 Number 1 2 I II III LIST OF FIGURES Title LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACTION SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY SITE PLAN & DETAILS SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Page/Pocket 2 13 I II III I! · ~,~t HOL~MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C, INTRODUCTION Sal Caiola proposes to construct ten (10) condominium units on a 2.5 acre (108,900 square feet) parcel bounded to the north by Middle Road (C.R. 27), to the west by V.I.P. Inns Ltd., to the south by Arshamoque Pond and to the west by the Goetz, Bagley and Gasser properties (See Figure 1 and Plate I).. Construction and opera- tion of these, condominiums will include the following activities: a. removal of existing disturbed vegetation. b. excavation of upper layers of existing, disturbed soils. c. grading and filling of approximately 10,000 square feet of lands adjacent to tidal wetlands. d. Construction of ten residential units occupying approxi- mately 655 square feet of land surface each. e. Installation and operation of public water, sanitary and electric utilities. Construction of a private gravel road with landscaping. fo g. On June 26, 1982, the to Local Law No. 3 (1978), 15 parking spaces. Southold Town Board of Appeals, pursuant declared that the proposed action "may have significant adverse effects upon the environment." The specific con- cerns raised by the Board were as follows: 1. "Stormwater runoff may result from the development and improve- ment of this property; 2. Information has not been made available indicating the type and location of the proposed sewage disposal systems, and the per- centage of buildable upland area does not appear adequate thereby possibly causing adverse effects on neighboring water wells and FIGURE 63 CAIOLA PROPEl '~,~. Town ' ":.Sc of ~ * 6O 69 COUNTY ROAC ,o :, LOCATION MAP CAIOLA PROPERTY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 1982 SCALE: 1'=.2000' ~--~ HOLZMAC:HER, McLENDON ~. MURREI. L, P.(~. ME[VI~*L£.N.¥, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD. N.Y. ~'~'~ HO~ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURR~:LL, P,C, pollution into either or both surrounding waterways. 3. A large physical change to the project site, which may be designated to be a critical area ecologically or hydrologically." Therefore, the Board directed Mr. Caiola to prepare this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addressing potential environ- mental impacts resulting from the development of his property. ! i ] ~J~ HOI~MACHER, McLENOON & MURR£LL, P.C. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Natural Contmunities The Caiola property contains approximately 98,446 square feet of terrestrial habitat. The vegetation occupying this habitat is largely a combination of shrubby and arboreal species which include: black locust black cherry apple mulberry staghorn sumac blackberry honeysuckle wild indigo poison ivy Virginia creeper common reed Robina psuedoacacia Prunus serotina Malus sp. Morus sp. Rhus typhina Rubus sp. Lonicera japonica Baptisia tinctoria Rhus radicans Parthenocissus quinquefolia Phragmites communis The majority of these dominant species indicate previous, substan- rial human disturbance throughout the site. Black locust and black cherry are trees which establish themselves during early succession from field to woods. The presence of apple and mulberry are generally the result of human plantings. Finally, the extensive presence of wild indigo with bare, unvegetated areas interspersed indicate that upper organic portions of the soil have been removed from much of the property. Therefore, the majority of the square feet of terrestrial habitat on the site has pre- viously been significantly disturbed, and the site does not represent an ecologically unique or critical area. Approximately 35,000square feet of this terrestrial habitat is less than 10 feet above mean sea level, and is classified as area adjacent to tidal wetlands in accordance with New York State Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6NYCRR661). These regulations state that adjacent area (A_A) may have the following environmental values: ~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. "Adjacent areas make insignificant contributions to marine food production. Tidal wetland values for cleansing ecosystems, flood and hurricane and storm control, and absorbing silt and organic material may be served to varying degrees by these areas, but these values are not as critically served in adjacent areas as in the tidal wetland zones. The most important function of adjacent areas is to serve as buffers to protect the character, quality and values of tidal wetlands that adjoin or lie near these areas. Consequently, a wide variety of uses may be compatible with these areas, provided such uses do not adversely affect adjacent and nearby tidal wetlands (6NYCRR661.)" Of this adjacent area, a 550 square foot area on the property's eastern-central boundary was originally mapped as tidal wetlands from aerial photographs by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC, T.W. Map 716-550). Field investigation determined that this area is largely vegetated by common reed and does not contain tidal wetland indicator species. On June 30, 1982, DEC biologists agreed that this 550 square feet of the property is not tidal wetlands, concluding area as an NYCRR Part (K. that, "the Department will no longer regulate this affected intertidal marsh as afforded under the Land Use Regulations, 661. It will, however, be regulated as an adjacent area Koetzner, correspondence June 30, See Appendix A)." Tidal wetlands occupy approximately 10,454 square feet along the property's southern boundary and in its southeastern corner. These tidal wetlands are properly classified on DEC T.W. Map 716-550 as high marsh (HM) and intertidal marsh (IM). They are predominantly vegetated by groundsel bush (Baccharis halimitolia), salt meadow grass (~.artina patens), and low marsh cordgrass (S. alterniflora). I! ~L~j~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C, Environmental "Since their intertidal marshes valves associated with high marsh are as follows: (HM's) photosynthetic productivity is lower than and since flushing of the biological products of the high marsh or salt meadow to the estuary is less efficient than in coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes, salt meadows or high marshes, while critically important for marine food production, are slightly less important in this regard than coastal fresh marshes or 11 intertidal mar~hes. Because of their size and location or high marshes are as important for absorption of silt salt meadows and organic I! material and flood and hurricane and storm control as coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes. Furthermore, because they are located generally in such a way that they are the first tidal wetland area to receive run-off and other materials from the land, they have an impor- tant role in cleansing ecosystems, but their value in this respect is ] generally slightly less than in coastal fresh marshes and intertidal marshes because of the lower level of direct tidal influence in high marshes or salt meadows. Only very limited types of land use and ] 1 ] ] 1 development are compatible with the value of these areas (6NYCRR661)." Environmental values associated with intertidal marsh are as follows: "Intertidal marsh is the most biologically productive of all tidal wetland areas. Furthermore, since they receive twice-daily tidal flushing, the products ~f vegetative photosynthetic activity and decom- position in these zones are readily transported to adjacent waters for use in the estuarine food chain. Their intertidal location also makes them among the most effective wetland zones for flood and hurricane and storm protection. Both their intertidal location and their highly productive nature makes them among the most effective wetland zones for o ~'~ HOLZMACH~R, McLENDON & MURR~LL, P.C. cleansing ecosystems and for absorbing silt and organic material. Because of these high values and their sensitive location at the land- water interface, intertidal marshes must be the most stringently'pro- tected and preserved tidal wetlands zones. Even small portions of these zones are critically important resources. Consequently, only very limited types of land use and development are compatible with the values of these areas (6NYCRR661 " Natural communities on properties adjacent to the northern, eastern and western boundaries have been largely eliminated by the establishment of C.R. 48, VIP Inns, and the Gasser, Bagley and Goetz residences. On the southern property boundary, Arshamoque Pond is an environ- mentally sensitive tidal and littoral marine community. This surface water is extremely biologically productive. It supports a sub- stantial shellfish population, and acts as a nursery for the young of several marine species (e.g.,bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix). Both the fin and shellfish populations of Arshamoque Pond are harvested by co~nercial and recreational fishermen. Despite extensive shoreline development and the operation of boats on Arshamoque Pond, its water quality is generally very good. However, one water quality sampling station at the very western end of Long Creek (3,000 feet west-southwest of the Caiola property) has high coliform levels after rainfall, causing Long Creek to be uncer- tified for shellfishing (NYSDEC, April 1981). Since coliform levels in the creek are below standards during dry weather but above standards during wet weather, the source of coliform pollution is most likely storm water runoff, and not private septic systems (NYSDEC, April 1981). J~ ~.~'~ HO~Z~4ACHER, F4cLENDON & MURRELL, In conclusion, natural communities on the project site consist of approximately 98,446square feet of terrestrial habitat, which has been previously disturbed by human activities, and 10,454 square feet of relatively undisturbed tidal wetlands. Arshamoque Pond is an environ- mentally sensitive, tidal surface water on the property's southern boundary. It is biologically productive, and provides economic, recrea- tional and aesthetic values to the Southold community. 2. Groundwater The Caiola property lies in a groundwater divide between lenses of fresh water stretching from Arshamoque Pond westerly to Mattituck Creek and easterly to Dam Pond. Regional water table maps (H2M, 1970; H2M 1978) demonstrate that the site lies well below the one foot con- tour. Regional groundwater flow near the site is predominantly easterly and strongly horizontal. An investigation of surface materials on the site showed that the water table is one-half foot below mean sea level. This indicates two possibilities: That saline groundwater occurs beneath the site and the water table is subject to tidal fluctuations. This is pos- sible due to the proximity of the site to both Arshamoque Pond and Long Island Sound. The mean sea level datum used in the site survey does not exactly reflect local mean sea level (msl). Therefore, the water table is actually at or above msl and a small fresh water lense is below the site. This seems the more likely possibility because of the presence of private freshwater supply wells on the Bagley and Goetz properties. ]~ HOL~MACHER, McL£NOON & MURRELL, P,C. in addition to being a source of water supply for the Bagley and Goetz residences, the local groundwater also flows into Arshamoque Pond. Therefore, local groundwater quality partially determines the Pond's water quality. To date, no water quality problems in Arshamoque Pond resulting from contaminated groundwaters have been reported. ~. ~j~ HOL,7. MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS Mr. Caiola proposes to construct ten condominium units on the subject 2.5 acre property. Potential environmental impacts asso- ciated with this development may be separated into those related to construction, short-term impacts, and those related to occupation of the condominiums, long-term impacts. 1. Short-term Impacts The construction of the ten condominium units and their associated utilities (e.g., wastewater disposal system) will occur entirely in areas more than ten feet above msl. This construction will include the removal of existing terrestrial vegetation and upper layers of soil from approximately 74,000 square feet of the property. Since the species of vegetation occupying the site are not unique, threatened or endangered, and have for the most part been established as a result of previous human activities, this action will have no significant environmental impact. The direct exposure of soils and surface geo- logic materials to wind and rain for several months during construction does create the potential for stormwater runoff to carry suspended sedi- ments into Arshamoque Pond. However, the construction procedure will include reverse grading and immediate seeding at the edge of the con- struction clearing. This technique creates a depression at the edge of a cleared area which slows stormwater runoff sufficiently to drop its sediment load. Seeding~to a fast-growing grass prevents the reverse- graded area from eroding and losing its effectiveness. Because of these precautions, construction activities at the Caiola site will have no significant adverse environmental impact. 10. J~ HO~MACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, at the Caiola site will have no significant adverse environmental impact. A private, gravel-packed road and 15 parking spaces will be constructed on approximately 10,000 square feet of the property, which are less than ten feet above msl. Therefore, this access way will be constructed on areas adjacent to a wetland. Vegetation removed for this construction does not include any unique, threatened or endangered species, and potential storm water runoff impacts during construction will be prevented as previously discussed. Therefore, construction of the condominium access road will have no significant environmental impact. Long-term Impacts The occupation of ten condominium units represents a moderate density residential land use. negatively impact groundwater and/or surface waters storm water runoff from impermeable surfaces and as tary waste discharges. This land use has the potential to as a result of a result of sani- Significant amounts of storm water runoff will be generated from condominium rooftops and access road. Runoff from the rooftops the will be directed to dry wells, and so will be discharged to groundwater rather than running directly into Arshamoque Pond. Since the access concrete, most rainfall the road will develop This water will be road will be gravePpacked and not asphalt or will infiltrate the surface rapidly. However, some standing water during very heavy rains. prevented from running off by six inch high concrete curbs (see Plate II) until it too infiltrates the road surface. The proposed action will 11. '~.~ HOL~MACHER, McL~N~ON & M~JRRELL, P.(~ not cover any significant amount of area adjacent to tidal wetlands with impermeable (runoff producing) surfaces, and therefore will not generate runoff which would enter either tidal wetlands or Arshamoque Pond. Since the water quality problem in Long Creek (of Arshamoque Pond) is the result of storm water runoff from other sources, the proposed action will not add to it nor cause additional portions of the pond to be declared uncertified for shellfishing. Sanitary waste treatment for the condominium will be accomplished in two identical treatment systems which include nitrification and denitrification processes. The system was designed by Steve G. Tsontakis, P.E. in consultation with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. It will operate as follows (see Figure 2, Plate III): a. Raw waste will enter a septic tank. In the tank solids will settle to the bottom and be removed periodically by a sca- venger waste truck. The step will remove approximately 20 percent of total nitrogen, 30 percent of the biolo- gical oxygen demand (BOD) and most solids from the raw wastes. b. Septic tank supernatant will then flow into a sand filter where further solids will be removed and nitrification will + - convert ammonia (NH4 ) to nitrates (NO3 ). c. Nitrified wastewater will flow to a lime/sulfur chemical treatment tank. Here, denitrification will convert nitrates to nitrogen gas. d. Treated effluent will be discharged to surface geologic materials through precast concrete leaching pools. will have nitrates less than 5 mg/1, total less than 3 per 100 milliliters (virtually BOD and solids removed. Effluent and fecal coliforms zero), and most 12. RAW WATER OXIDATION NITRIFICATION DENITRIFICATION LEACHING TANK FILTER TANK POOL CAPACITIES SYSTEM~I - 2400 GPD SYSTEM"~2- 3600 GPD FLOW SCHEMATIC - PROPOSED SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM CAIOLA CONDOMINIUM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOURCE; STEVE G. TSONTAKIS. P.E. SEPTEMBER 1982 ~ ,d~ ,,~j HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. FARMINGDALE, N Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD. NY ~x/~'~TO GROUNDWATER ° ~.~j~ HO~MACHER. MCLENOON & MURRELL. P.C. Effluent from this sanitary wastewater treatment system will eventually percolate to groundwater beneath the project site. Since the system was designed to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards and New York State Department of Health standards contained in 6NYCRR Part 703, Schedule I and Schedule II, the effluent will not significantly decrease the quality of local groundwater. Therefore, the Caiola Condominiums' wastewater treatment system will not endanger the Bagley and Goetz water supply wells. Additionally, the groundwater discharged to Arshamoque Pond will not be of signifi- cantly lower quality, and so will not cause this surface water's quality to decrease substantially. In conclusion, the occupation of adversely impact either The development of the Caiola Condominiums will not local groundwaters or Arshamoque Pond. the Caiola property will have a positive economic impact on the Town of Southotd. This impact will result from the creation of construction jobs while the condominiums are being built and income received by local merchants supplying the day to day needs of the condominium residents. 14. ~,~ HOt 7MACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C. ALTERNATIVES TO TIlE PROPOSED ACTION AND IMPACTS 1. Lower Density This alternative would reduce the number of condominium units which could be constructed on the property. Mr. Caiola currently proposes to build two units less than the allowable density, and has designed his development so that it will have insignificant environmental impacts. A further reduction in the number of units constructed would not substantially reduce these already insignifi- cant impacts.' 2. Concrete or Asphalt Access Road This alternative proposes an impermeable surface on the private access road and parking spaces for the condominiums. However, this alternative would generate significant amounts of runoff, and would violate Tidal Wetland Regulations (6NYCRR661.6) which state that "not more than twenty percent of the adjacent area ...... on any lot shall be covered by ...... impervious surfaces." 3. Wastewater Treatment System Without Denitrification This alternative proposes a wastewater treatment system excluding the nitrification/denitrification steps previously described and illus- trated in Figure 2 and Plate III. This alternative would siqnificantly decrease local groundwater quality and would violate Effluent Standards (6NYCRR 703, Schedule II) which state that discharges to groundwater in Nassau and Suffolk Counties will have nitrate concentrations of less titan 10 mg/]. 4. NO Action This alternative would deprive Mr. Caiola of his right to develop the property in a manner consistent with existing land use regulations and environmental conditions. 15. ~ l,~,~w~ HOLZMACH~R, McLENDON & MURRELL, IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The construction of ten condominiums on the Caiola Property will require the irreversible and irretrievable removal of approximately 74,000 square feet of previously disturbed terrestrial habitat. 16. ~-,~-/~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. MITIGATIHG MEASURES Several aspects of the proposed development have modified resulted C o already been to mitigate environmental impacts which might have otherwise from it. These modifications include: Ail condominium units will be constructed on portions of the property ten feet or more above msl, from tidal wetlands. The private access road and parking and so, well removed spaces will be gravel-packed to prevent the excessive generation of stormwater runoff which could negatively impact both tidal wetlands on the property and Arshamoque Pond. Stormwater runoff from the condominiums will be directed to dry wells. Sanitary waste treatment will include nitrification/denitrifi- cation, thereby preventing significant impacts to local ground- water quality. 17. ~ow York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conaervatlon Ragulatory Affairs Unit Building 40, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 516-751-7900 Robert F. Flacke June 9, 1982 Mr. David E. Kapell 143 Sixth Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: 10-81-0226, Sal Caiola Dear Mr. Kapell: In accordance with your letter of May 20, 1982, I am enclosing a letter of No Jurisdiction for the construction of ten condominium.units at or above ten foot elevational contour above the mean high water mark as depicted by the "Site Plan and Details" prepared by Young and Young, dated Mary 12, i982, and referenced in Section 661.4(b)(3) of the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations. Approval is necessary however for the construction of gravel sur- face roadway, parking area and regrading operation below the ten foot elevational contour. In this regard see the Incomplete Notice which is also enclosed. Should you have any questions concerning your application, please call me at the above number. Sincerely, Dennis W. Cole Environmental Analyst DWC:ll Enc. cc: bf. Kuenner EN-CONSUL TANTS, INC. 64 NORTH MAIN STREET, SOUTHAMPTON, NI-W 'r()R~ f!968 Jnne 28, 1982 /~VIRONMENTAI. SERVICES 516-283-6360 Mr. Kenneth'Koetzner New York State Department of Environmentn] Regulatory Affairs Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Cons{,rva L ion Re: Property of Sal Caiola, Southold Dear Mr. Koetzner: This letter shall serve as confirmation of our prior telephone conversations regarding a request for map to #716-550. Following my April 2, 1982 letter, you investigated our claim that a small low-lying area separated by an earthen dike be removed from a marsh designa- tion as it does not meet tests required for that designation. Our conversation subsequent to your visit indicated your agreement with our view of the situation. Due to the small size of the area in question and the costs associated with a map change, you ~ndicated that the subject area would not be officially de-mapped, but we should co~sider it not to be wetland in our planning to develop the This arrangement is perfectly acceptable to my client and we are proceeding accordingly. We would appreciate a ]e~ter from ,/o. confirming this agreement for our files. We appreciate the cooperation you have shown durh]g this endeavor. Yonrs truly, Roy h. Ilaje Pres i dent R~l:kb C.C.: Sal Cajole Dave Ka~tl .~w York Stata Department of Environmental Conservation Building #40 - State University of New York Stony Brook, New York 11794 Robert F, Flacke Commls:~loner June 30, 1982 Roy L. Haje En-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, New York 11968 Dear Mr. Haje: I am responding to your request for a demapping of a portion of the I.M. inventoried on T.W. Map 716-550. Attached is a copy of the map you supplied with your request showing the area in question. Staff biologists concur with your contention that the area north- westerly of the berm does not Neet the criteria to be classified as a inventoried tidal wetland. Furthermore, the Department will no longer regulate this affected area as an intertidal marsh as afforded under the Land Use Regulations, N.Y.C.R.R. Part 661. It will however be regulated as an adjacent area. In order to simplify this decision, avoiding unnecessary time delays, the Department will not seek to demap the area in question but will provide testimony and/or statements at any or all Article 25 permit application: matters that the area should be considered as a adjacent area. Hoping this information will meet with your approval. KLK/dlw cc/ D. FAllon DS Cole C. Colefield .. ~ ~'~r~ HQ~ZMACHER, McL£NDON & MURRELL, P,C~ BIBLIOGRAPHY Britton, N.L. and A. Brown. United States and Canada. 1970. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern Dover Publications, Inc. New York. Vol. I. 1970. Vol. II. 1970. Vol. III. Cosulich, W.F., Associates, P.C. 1977. Removal In A Modified Residential Pilot Plant Study Nitrogen Subsurface Sewage Disposal System. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, New York. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. 1978. Section 201 - Wastewater Facility Plan of the Mainland Portion of the Town of Southold Enqineering and Environmental Data Report. Melville, NY. 1970. Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study. Suffolk County, New York. Melville, NY. Hotchkiss, N. 1972. Common Marsh, Underwater and Floating-Leaved Plants of the United States and Canada. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. New Jersey State Soil Conservation Con~ittee. 1976. Standards For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1981. Review of Coliform Data from Uncertified Portion of Hashamomuck Pond Shellfisi~ Land Number 23 February, March and April 1981 Dana. Stony Brook, New York. 1978. Groundwater Classifications Quality Standards and Effluent Standards and/or Limitations (6NYCRR 703). 1977. Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661). Smith, R.L. 1974. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper & Row, Publishers, Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality. 1979. General Habitat Types Found in Suffolk County (Draft). Tsontakis, P.E. August New York. August 1982. H2M Corporation. 1982. Caiola Waste Disposal System. Mattituck, Personal communication with M.P. Bontje at NY. E-= ~ ,n.=~ ASSESS~,LENT - PART I PROJECT I NP OPd,~T ION' ' II F,%jyt,~?y f~ ...... ;~i ~erc_~ntage of proposed project site with slopes: 8. 9. lO. <; a-10: ~ '.,; lO-1S~ %; lS~- or contiguous ~, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of H~storlc ,r~ p.~jec t Places? Yes ~'h~t is the depth to the water ~able! I~.f~e~ ~'~ Co hcntimg or ,)s,x~n: o~o~unitieS presently exis~ in the project area? Yes ~(o Does project site c~n:Mn~ny s~ecies of plant or animal life that is identified ecc2r, c~-~ - Yes ~ ~(o, acceding to - Identify each species ' 11. 12. ...13. - ~14. ~'r_- '~,.r.~ a,,¥~ uniqxe or un/Jsual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geologica' form~,a'.icne- Yes ~o. (Describe Is ~e p~ject sits.~r~sently us~ by the co~unity or neighborhood as an open spac~ aroJ - Yes ~.jo. .. , ... ~-: .:. ~ .- C~es t~e pressepc site offe~ or include scenic views or vis~s kno~ ~o be impo~an~ t~.~e c~unity~ Yes ' ~o , S .... ms within or ~mntiguous ~o p~ject area: · a. ~(~ of stream and name of river to '~hich it is tributary , '. , ' ' ~ ' ' lO. Lakes, Pon~, ~'etIand areas within or con~.$uous tm project area: -_ L slngle~am y resid~tia), R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). l. Physical dimension~ and s~le ofp~ject (fill in dimensions as ap2roprfata) a. Total contiguous acreage o'~ed by p~je~ sp~nsor ~ acres. b. Project acreage developed: ~'~r acres initially; c. Project acreage t~ remain undeveloped ~ d. Length of_project, in miles: t~:~,-' (if appmg~iate} acres ultimately. If project is em expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age ; developed acreage f. Ilu,-~er of off-str~t perking spaces existing 0 ; proposed_ I~ , ' - . ' g. ~aximum vehicular trips generated per hour ._l~'~V',~upon c~mpIetion o, p~jec.) If residential: :(~mber a~.d type of housing units: · - One 'Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial )0 Ultimate \ 0 build~ng'squa~ fcc If: Orientation NeighborhaodICi~¥-Regienal Cc,,q~.arcial Estimated Employment Industria! height OT tallest proposed structure'~'~J/ feet. ' . So ~:.., ,.u_. n~.u,_I m_._r~l (i.e. rock, earth, eta.) will be removed fre~ the e tens H:~ many acres of veSezamicn (trees, shrubs, .around coversl will be removed fra~ site -_ 0 acres. ..... '- ~ ~ (~'~ 100' ~ ~ old) or ..... r .... u .... r-_s~ ~_r -'~ locally-im:ortan~ vegetation b~ re~oved by this Will ~ny project? Yes ."~ No ~re there any plans for ..... ~ *' to replac~ that removed during construction? · Yes Re If single ~hase hr,o; .... If ~ui~i-~hased ~rGjec:: Antici .... d ~eri~d as construction months, (including demolition). a. Total e~ber cf peases anticipated ' b. Anticioated case of co,.m~.~enc~men~ phase 1 month demolitien) c. Approximate cenole~icn date final phase d. Is abase 1 financially de~endenc'en subseouen~ phases? 8. Will blasting oc.-:r during const~-Jction? Yes ~/ No 9. ,qu~sber of J=bs s.n_r~._d, du~ng cons=mJcti~n ~; after projec= is complet~'~. , u..__r of jobs eli,nlnatad 5y this projec= Il. Will "-i'~' relocaticn of any Drojesls or facili:ies~ year (including year. · .. Yes No 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liouid ~asce disscsal involved? ~Yes ~o. )If yes, indica:e ts~e o~ waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) o. I ~ sur;ace dlso~sal nJ~e of .... inca '~n~cn effluent will be disobeyed ~ill surfase ere~ of e×istine lakes, p/~ds, stre~s,'beys or other surface waterways be increased or decrease] by p~os~l? 'Yes ,~<No. ~ '' ' ¢~ in the 14. Is pro,ecs or any par:ion or P~u--~ located lO0 year. ~°°d plain? Yes No 15. a. goes p~ject involve dispesal of solid was%e7 _ Yes b. If yes, will an ~x~s~ng solid waste disposal f~cillty be used? Yes No ¢. If yes, give nome: ; location d. Uill any wast~s nec go inca a ss'~age dis;gsal system ar into a sanitary landfill? ..; Yes 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ,,yes ~<~o 17. Will project ~u~inely p~d~ce ~dors (~ ~han one hour per day)? Yes_ 18. Will project produce operating noise ~xceedlng th~ local msbiance noise levels? Yes 19. ~iil p~ject /esult in =n increase in ener~' use? ~,Yes .No. If yes, indicate type(s) _.,ac~.y gals/minute. 20. [f+~at~r supply is f~m'~ells indiczt~ pumaiag ~=~ '~' 21. Total ~-''-'-~',~ ~ater usage ~ar day ~als/day- ~. Zanies: a. Wha~ is dcminant 'zoning classlfica~isn of sit~? b. Curt .... s;ec]Ffc zoning classif!s~tion of [~ no, ind~cat~ desired a. Is any Federal ~erm.!t required? Yes ~ No b. Does ~roject involve State or Federal funding or financing? c. Local and Regional a~provals: Approval Reaoired (Yes, ~1o) (Type) _ Yes ~/ ~o (Cate) (Date) City, Tcwn, Village Board Cfty, Town, Village Planning ~oard City, T:wn, Zoning Board City, County Health Oepartmen~ O~her local agencies Other r~iona! agencies State A~encies Federal Agencies DETAILS any ~.dditicnal infor~,a:ion as n~y be needed to clarify your project. adve~e impac:s associae~the pr~posaI, plea~a~discuss such impac~.s ~nd ~he measures which can be If ihere are or may be an>, E~,J_..O~,;~~,T~L ASSESSblEi'~T PART II D~O.3=Om r~,~Dn~T$ n~O THEIR M~.GNITUDE - I ..... ~.7~.g 'n~" an effect w~ll be potentially l~rge ~c~lu~nn ~) does not moan t~a~ it is also necessaril~ sicnif~t. A~y lar? eFfec~ must be evaluated in F~RT ~ to determine sl. gnificance. ~y.identifying an ._, .r~g~=r response in coi~-~ ~ The exi~ples ~re generally applicable throughout th State ~d for =os~ ''~','~ .... ,on~.~ But, for any s~_~i';.~ --~ pr~j~~ .... or site other examples ~nd/or lower thresho~d~ - ~,-~. ..... ~;~,~.c.,' cn each ''~1._, in e~ch'loca~ity, will vary. ~ereforo, the examples have been offer~ as'~utd~ They da no: constitute an exhaustive l~st of imoact~ end thresholds to answer each question. '" b. ~,.s~.r each oF the 13q .... .... ~ion~,- in PART Z. Answer Ye~s if there will be an,/. effect. ~,~be answ~ s~outd be considered as Yes answers. , -. · t,,~ ,~ ~ ' ~~ box (celu~ 1 or 2) to indicate the potential I£ answering Yes to · euestion then chock s~ze of the impact. If impact threshold .... l~ m ~ :°~ any example provided, check colu~.q 2. If l~2acL will coeur ~ut :nreshold is lower than ':=, ' e the L,.-~act as potentially lar§e and If revie.~er ha~ dcuP; abeu[ ~e size of the ' proceed to P,qE/ 3. ' If a ;sCentiall/ largo izeact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less.t~an large m~=n~'''~, place a Yes in column 3. A Mo response indicates =hat such ~: reduction is not possible. [EPAC'T CN NO YES WiLL THERE ~S ~'~ ~?F£CT AS A 2~ULT OF A PHYSICAL CH.q~;GE TO PT, CC £CT SITE? ~xa~lc.s that t;ou]d Apply to Column 2 Any constructlcn cn slo2es of 15~ or great,r, (15 fooC rise per 1CO fc~% of length), or where the general slcfe~ in ~e project a~a exceed Ccnst~ccS~cn on Land where the depth to the wata~ table is less than 2 feet. C~nstr'.'cS~on in a ~esigna~ad floc~wal/. NO YES ®© 3. ~iLL PROd[CT ~?c~r ~..,Y ~ATER ~OOY OES~¢;~TEO AS .......... P~OTECTEO? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- cnm~ntel Csnservatien L!w, E;amsles that ;~ould A~ply to Colbert 2 ' 0red~i~g more then lO0 cubic ~erds cf material f?~m Cs~[~rscticn in a designated freshwater or tidal wetlznd. O~ger im?acZs: ~GY Gr ,..~ ............................................... Examples tha~ '~auld ~pply ~ Column ~ . ~ 15l increase or de_r._s= in the su~c~ ~rea of any body Construct!on c~ a bcdy of water that exceeds lO acres of surfac~ area. Ot,ke? i~cts: L - . ~XO YES ~iLL PROd:CT_, ,AFFECT SURFAC~. OR GROUNDWATER QU~Li~? ' 0 ~J discharge P~ject requires use of a source o, ~ter ~h~ ~ces nc~ h_ve than q5 gallons per minute pu::ing capacity. .~Ccnst~Jct!on or ocer!tion ceus~n~ any c~nt~m~n_.~on '~of i puolis .water Supply sys2~m. . , _ IPmject w(ll adversely al,eot gmundwacer. ~Licuid effluent ,~(il be conveyed off the site co - ~fa?il(~i=s which pr-sanely do hoc exlsc or have ]inedequa~e cz~aci ~y. ~Project requiring a facility that would use water in ~excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Yn. OE?ATE LARGE POOJEC'F ~ ..... Pmj~c~ is incs~z~ible wi~h existing drainage ~att~rns~ ~ YES 7. WILL ~:~,:r-AFFECT AI~ q~LiTF? .... 2...~ ......... ...... ~ 0 Ex~mo =s thJ~ Uculd ~.y!y to Colu~ ~ · ~e vehicle trips in any ~ives P~ject'~ill induce 1,.~O or ~o~ P~ject will r.~ul, in the incineration of ~o~ t~n 1 ton of ~fus~ ~er hcur. O~h.~r i~Faccs: ,..u d A?ply to Colu'~n ~ Extra!es th~c ~ ' - Reducticn cf one or ~ species listed on the ~:ew York or Fedar~! lisc, using the site. over or near site or fcu~d on tke site. Re.oval cf any ~orticn of a critical or s~gn~T~can~ ~ld- A~olieaticn oF Pestidd~ or he~ic(d~ over ~J~ then l;'F,tcT ,C;~ ':IS,U.~L RESC~.C~ THE p=CjEF. F 2FFECT VIEWS. ¥[2T~,S OR J~E V!SU.~L ,~_U/ ~.~: CHAFF. CTER OF T}!£ .,~, ...... ~O OR COD?"UNITY? ...... ®C -Txa==]-'.s .h ..... uld $o~ly ~o Col~n ~ A orcj=-ct easily v{si5le, not easily screened, that is Pt-m~]ect ~ill result in the elimination or major screcn~n? o~ scenic views cr vissas kneYm to be O....r i~:Jct:: ll. .I.._ PROJc._~ i;'?ACT ANY SIT--- OR ST~UCDJ~E 0F HISTOR[ P~ject occur(hq '.holly or sartially within or contiguous t~ a~Y f~cilitv or site listed ~n the Hational RE~Isc~r of historic plac:~. ~my i~p:ct ~o an arshaelcgical site or fossil bed located ~ithin :he projec: sit~. ' ' ~P.,l SPACE & °cr-'-~ATTO'! ILD~CT ON n c, , ........ ....... QO cx..gl_s ~at ~lauld ~pply to Colb~ 2 ~ne pe~JnenC Foreclosure of a future rec~ztion~l oppo~unity. - ' A ~jor red~cLicn of en open sp~c~ i~ortant to the c~unity. Other i~pacts: 13. I~P~CT mN - ~ ..... ~' 4I.~ ~n::.~ =~ ~N ~FT~CT TO EXISTING ,,,.~.,~=,~ ,~. S'FST~tS? ............................................... Ex3~oJ~s ~h~ 2ou!~ ~agly to Column 2 ~l ..... ~on of presens Datt~rns of - "~-o ' of ~e~p!e and/or goods. Project ~ill result in severe CrafFic ~roble~s. SI.~LL TO POTENT!AL ,OO:P~t. LARGE I~?JCT I~¢Pa. CT RE~UC~.D BY PROJECT C ~::,X C 7. ILL ~ *~ ccpulaticn cf the C~ty, Town ar Village in which the result of this p~ject. 'Jill involve soy ~ ~ ~- Facility of a non-aqricultural ~ae pmjact ~:ill re,lace or eliaina~a existisg Facilities, ...... n' ~ill induce an in~x of a pa~icular a 9m~9 ~ith special Pmjac: will Set an impa~nt pr..~d-n~ for future project;. businesses. NO ' YE'. .... tn,.-: v ,,-c~,','~ O~ -..c~ ?U~LIC C~, ~ ...... S, CO,~u ....... ~ Tale PROJECT? ...... Exay~l~,s that Would-~PW to Colu~ 2 have ex'rasped opyosicicn ar r~ect~d the project ar hive ~ C~jcctions to the project fma wihhin the community. I POTE~tT!AL LAP,~E t:,?ACT Oa 1~ FOU.C~.,:OT u,~i~,~,h,E '- '[HE MAGNITOSE OF I~i?ACT, P~CCcE9 ,0 :>ART 3. DETE?~iNATION POR-IO,,S OF F~tF COHPLt-rEO FOP. TP, IS PROJE'. PART I ~ PART Il ~ PART 3 .... C¢cn review of the infor-m,,atian mccrded on this EAF (Parts 1, and 3) and ccncider!nq ~oth the ~a~nituda and imgortance Of each i~paet, it is reasonably determined that: A. The ~r~jact will re~uI~ in no is one ~hich m~y no~ cause si§nificant da,,na~a Co the envir:nment. 8. Alchcu:h the cra?ct could have a sisnificant effect on the en,;tr:~an1, there ~i!l naa be a si~nlficEnc effect in this case ineluced as part'of ~he proposed 9rcjec:- LaPA~ ~.'1. DECL~,~TIC -© 0 ruS~,*~- DECLAPATiO:i P?,OCE .- Signature of Preparer {if different fram respons;~le :ffice-~r) Si§nature cf R~spanslble Official Agency ID.?ACT ' £HP~CT PROJECT U;LL P~DJECT ~FF~CT TEE C3;U~U:~T{E£ SOURCES OF ~L C~--~0 YE~ E,~£~SY EUDFLY? ......................................... --~(~ P,--o~ct c~us{ng greeter t~an S: increase ~n any ~o~ of ?.~a~ot resulting t~ creation or ex:ension of an energy ~ILL TFE!E ~Z O~JSCTiCY?~CLE CCG~E. XOtSE, GLIR£ VCE~qTIg~ NO YES or ---.,,.~G. DtS,~.-~,,~- AS A RESULT OF THiS PRCJ[RT2 .... 3last~ng wit~[n 1,EC3 Fe~ of a hosuital, school :r ether noisa ~cr~an, IYP~ C:~ HE;~T~ & NO YES ~x3~les that Would g~g17 to Co]~ 2 P~ct thaC will ~sult in the burial of "ha~rdsus wastes" (i.~. toxic. ~eissncus, highly reactive, radioacs!ve, irritating, SCorac~ Facilities for ~ne mill~on or ~re gallons sf lleu~f!ed natural ~as or o~er l~cuids. APPEALS BOARD MEMRERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR SERGE DOYEN, JR ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHnLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 Southold Town Planning Board Jerry Goehringer, Chairman September 30, 1982 Appeal No. 2930 Sal Caiola Condominium Project at C.R. 48, Southold Please find attached three maps which may now be included in your copy of the Draft Environmental Assessment Form: (1) Topo- graphical Survey Amended May 19, 1982; (2) Site Plan and Details Dated May 12, 1982; (3) Proposed Waste Treatment and Water Supply Systems Revised September 28, 1982 [sheets 1 & 2]. If you need additional information, please let us know. We tt~e undcrsi~;ned, object to a prol~osed lO - 2J story condominiuun development to be locatgod on ~rshamomac[ue Pond opposite the Southold '['o~¢n Beach. ' I~ is ~ too intensivo development on less than 2 aeros "~' of lend, one third of which has been declared wetlands ~ , by the N.Y. State Dopt. of En¥iromental Consol~vation, ultimatoly croatin~ pollution problems for merino lifo and w~ld lifo in ~ho sul"~oundin~ areas. Additional cesspocl~ and washin~ machines w~ll damago the already prsoal'ioue balance o£ A~shamomaquo Pond for hal~¥estin~ hoalth), shellfish. Also, ~oi~hborin~ wate~ wolls would be affected. ',ie ~hu undersii:ned, objec', to a r. rr:po~ed LO - 2½ story condominium development to be located, on ~%rsaamomaque Pond opposite tile Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive developmwnt on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N. Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conse/-vation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage tho already precarious balance of Arshamomaquo Pond for hax~vestin~ healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would ~e the tmdersi~ned, object to a proposed lO - 2½ story condominium development to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N.Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arsh&momaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would be affected. ,'e the undersigned, object to a proposed 10 23 story condominium development to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less titan 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N.Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additonal cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance o£ Arshamomaque Pond fox~ hal-vestinC healthy shellfish. A1so~ nei~hbo~in~ water wells would be affected. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2.'5 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11c371 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. NOTICE OF DECLARATION SERGE OOYEN, JR. -- ROBERT J. DOUGLASS PURSUANT TO JOSEPH H. SAWICKI N.Y.S. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Appeal No. 2930 Application of: Sal Caiola Location of Subject Property: South Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-5-2. Project Proposed: Construction of ten condominium units, gravel surface roadway, parking area(s) and regrading and swimmingpool. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.7 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ- mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, and in order to commence the processing of the SEQRA procedures, the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold at this time wishes to declare itself lead agency in this proposed project and hereby classifies same as an Unlisted Action which may have significant adverse effects upon the environment for the following reasons: 1. Stormwater runoff may result from the development and improve- ment of this property; 2. Information has not been made available indicating the type and location of the proposed sewage disposal systems, and the per- centage of buildable upland area does not appear adequate thereby possibly causing adverse effects on neighboring water wells and pollution into either or both surrounding waterways. 3. A large physical change to the project site, which may be designated to be a critical area ecologically or hydrologically. It is requested at this time that the applicant and/or his agent furnish our department with a Long Environmental Assessment Form and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Dated: June 26, 1982. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. ~OEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- June 26, 1982 Spe~ APPEALS No. 2975 and 2971. Applications of SOLWIN INDUSTRIES LTD., by William W. Esseks, Esq. as attorney, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York 11901, for permission to construct 40 windmill towers and 10 water towers exceeding the height limitation of the zoning code, and an interpretation of the zoning code to the effect that a "windmill farm" is a permitted industrial use in this C-1 Zoning District. WHEREAS, the board of appeals has visited the site in question for the proposed windmill farm; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of this board that this project may cause substantial change in the use of this land and/or its natural resourches, have possible adverse change in the existing water quality, and have possible impairment on the character and/or quality of aesthetic resources; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to adopt the following "Positive Environmental Declaration"pursuant to the rules and regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA): (continued on next page) Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- June 26, 1982 Spec. Mtg (Appeal No. 2930 Sal Caiola, continued:) NOTICE OF DECLARATION PURSUANT TO N.Y.S. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Appeal No. 2930 Application of: Sal Caiola Location of Subject Property: South Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-5-2. Project Proposed: Construction of ten condominium units, gravel surface roadway, parking area(s) and regrading and swimmingpool. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLA~LATION: Pursuant to Section 617.7 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ- mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, and in order to coimuence the processing of the SEQ~ procedures, the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southotd at this time wishes to declare itself lead agency in this proposed project and hereby classifies same as an Unlisted Action which may have significant adverse effects upon the environment for the following reasons: 1. Stormwater runoff may result from the development and improve- ment of this property; 2. Information has not been made available indicating the type and location of the proposed sewage disposal systems, and the per- centage of buildable upland area does not appear adequate thereby possibly causing adverse effects on neighboring water wells and pollution into either or both surrounding waterways. 3. A large physical change to the project site, which may be designated to be a critical area ecologically or hydrologically. It is requested at this time that the applicant and/or his agent furnish our department with a Long Environmental Assessment Form and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Dated: June 26, 1982. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. 'GOEHRINGER, CHAIR~N Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen, Fishers Island, was absent.) We the undersigned, object to a proposed 10 - 2-} story condominium development to be located on Arshamoma~ue Pond opposite the $outhold Town Beach. ~t is a too intsnsive dsvslopmsnt on less than 2 aoros of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N.Y. Stats Dspt. of Enviromental Conservation, ultim~toly creating pollution problems for me. ins lifo and wild life in the surrounding arsas, Additional cesspools and washing ~ohines will damage the alrsady prsoarious balance of Arsh~mom~que Pond for ha~vesting healthy shellfish. Also, msighboring watsr wslls would bo affected, ~ '' FILE ~O-81-O226 We the undersigned, object to a proposed 10 - 23 story condominium development to be located, on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive developmwnt on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N. Y. State Dept. of Enviromenta! Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arehamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would be affected. # z0-81-0226 We the undersigned, object to a proposed 10 - 2½ story condominium development to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the $outhold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of landt one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N,Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultim~tely creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arsh~momaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also~ neighboring water wells would be affected. ! , # 10-81-O226 We the undersigned, object to a proposed 10 - 23 story condominium development to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N. Y. State Dept. of Enviromenta]i~Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arshamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Alee, neighboring water wells would be affected. FILE~lO-81-0226 We the undersi~ned, object':o a proposed 10 - 2½ story condominium development to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold ~)own Beach. It ts a too intensive development on lees than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N,Y. State Dept. of Envtromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additonal cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arehamomaqus Pond for har~esting healthy shellfish, ilso, neighboring water wells would be affected. DAVID E. KAPELL 443 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 516-477-2223 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES Mr. Henry Raynor Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Rd. Southold, N.Y. , _~ June 8, 1982 Dear 1N ,-~ : Enclosed, herewith, please find three copies of a site plan for 10 condominium dwelling units to be constructed on property owned by my client Sal Caiola on property in the M General Mult- iple residence district. Would you please place this matter for the Board's consid- eration and approval at your earliest convenience. ~DasaV~aicerely' d E. Kapell gent for Sal Caiola We the undersigned, object to a proposed 12 -- 2½ story condominium development with full sized swimming pool, to be 1 coated on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N.Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arshamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, meighboring water wells would be affected. FILE # 10-81-0226 We the undersigned, object to a proposed 12 - 2½ story condominium development with full size swimming pool, to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive developmwnt on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N. Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arshamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would be affected. We the undersigned, object to a proposed 12 - 2½ story condominium development with full size swimming pool, to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the Southold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N.Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arsh~momaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would be affected. FI~# 10-81-0226 We the undersigned, object to a proposed 12 - 2½ story condominium development with full size swimming pool, to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the $outhold Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N. Y. State Dept. of Enviromenta]:Gonservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additional cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arshamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would be affected. FIL~ # 0-81-022~ We tile undersigned, object to a proposed 12 - 2½ story condominium development with full size swimming pool, to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite the South01d Town Beach. It is a too intensive development on less than 2 acres of land, one third of which has been declared wetlands by the N.Y. State Dept. of Enviromental Conservation, ultimately creating pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. Additonal cesspools and washing machines will damage the already precarious balance of Arshamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish. Also, neighboring water wells would be affected. POST OFFICE BOX 523 GREENPORT, LONG iSLAND, N Y 11944 January 26, 1982 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York ATTENTION: Mr. Henry Raynor Gentlemen: The members of this organization wish to go on record as strongly opposing the proposed condominium development (of twelve 2½ story buildings and a full size swimming pool) to be located on Arshamomaque Pond opposite Southold Town Beach. To build so large a development on less than two acres of land will surely create pollution problems for marine life and wild life in the surrounding areas. One third of this site has been declared wetlands by the New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation. To add cesspools and detergent sludge to the area will undoubtedly damage the delicate balance of Arshamomaque Pond for harvesting healthy shellfish and may damage water wells situated nearby. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, / ~arvis Ver~y ,-i'President HENRY E, RAYNOR. Jr,, Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI..Ir. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 February 11, 1982 Mr. Jarvis Verity, President Southold Town Baymen's Assn., P.O. Box 523 Greenport, New York 11944 Inc Dear Mr. Verity: Our board is in receipt of your letter, dated January 29, 1982 concerning the proposed condominium development opposite Southold Town Beach and its effect on Arshamomaque Pond. We are aware of the natural attributes in this area and we will consider all aspects of such a proposal to what we feel will be in the best interest for the development of Southold Town. We very much appreciate your concern and thank you for expressing your views to this board. Yours very truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGON[S, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRiNGER JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals December 1, 1981 Proposed Project of Sal Caiola (by David Kapell) Construct Twelve Condominium Units at the S/s C.R. 48, Southold to Gentlemen: Recently, David Kapell filed an application for a Special Excep- tion for Mr. Caiola for the proposed construction of twelve condominium units to be located on property adjacent to the west of Southold Beach Motel, C.R. 48, Southold. Such a use also requires site plan approval from your board. It is our understanding that Mr. Kapell has scheduled an appoint- ment to meet with you next Tuesday, December 7, 1981. We request that you keep us informed concerning any changes you might recommend in this proposal in order that we may have this Special Exception application processed accordingly. Yours very truly, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CHAIRMAN CG:lk ZO~_I:~, _CAL~ULA 110~ S SITE P L A ~ / / / / RECEIVED BY )rlnts to no t c deslg g p, p C ~¢ .r lob number ~10~ scale ~ drawing . I ~ ~ number drown by__dote ~'f~ wa lte r Past design by: g'~ipa landscapinj~. ma FlOn ~. SA L Planting Proposal for'. Cat IOLA CONDOMINIUMS C.R. 48 SOUTHOLD, JAN. N.Y. 4, 1983 RECEIVED BY., T~POGRAPHICAt SURVE/ PREPARED FOR % z/ MIP OF LINK ~t. ON~ A WIND SHORES "- CONDOMINIUM REALTY SUBDIVISICW l~T IF~$HI~MOMOQUE TQ~N OF SOUTHQI D SUFFOLK COUNTY, N, Y, PLAT INFORMATION FROM A SURVEY BY R. VAN TUYL, DATED 8/19/82: SITE LAYOUT FROM A PLAN BY ADO ASSOCIATES DATED 5/12/82, ALL INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDAMCE WITH SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH & N.Y.S. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- SERVATION REQUIREMENTS, ALL SEPTIC TANKS & LEACHING POOLS' SHALL BE PRECAST UNITS. LOCATION OF ADJOINING PROPERTY APPURTENANCES ARE 'BASED ON FORMATION BY OTHERS & NOT DIRECT OBSERVATION, MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF IO0 FEET FROM ANY BODY OF WATER TQ ANY LEACHING DEVICE. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM ~ SEVEN FEET BETWEEN WATER LINES & CESSPOOLS. ALL WATER LINES SHALL BE INSTALLF3 A MINIMUM OF 4-6' BELOW GRAPE , AS MEASURED TO THE TOP OF THE PIPE, INSTALL TRACER WITH ANY NON-METALIC PIPE. ALL WATER LINES SHALl BE 160 PSI TEST PVC TUBING &~ CLASS 15D DRIB PIPE. ' WATER SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY THE GREENPORT WATER CO. VIA THE EXIST- IN6 WATER MAIN LOCATION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CR 48. PIPE UN[IER ROAD SHALL BE BY THE OWNER - TAP BY THE GREE~PORT WATER CO. AiL WATER LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOR PLASTIC PIPE INSTALLATION, HYDRANT LOCATION SHALL BE AND AS REQUIRED BY THE WATER AWWA STANDAB,11S :, CO~ANYi %,, BE FABPICAIiED BY THE CONSTRDCTION NOTES 1,.C\ALL SEAMS IN THE VINYL LINER SHALL B'E SEALED- USING AN 'APPROVED TAPE OR ADHESIVE, :L: SLOTTED PIPE MAY BE PURCHASED FROM HOLBROOK PLASTIC PiPE SIIPPLYj INC,, HOLBROOK, N,Y, OR MAY INSTALLER, "':, LALL GRA'VEL MUST BE. CLEAN, ' 4 ALL ELEVATIONS MUST BE SI]CH THATA POSITIVE HEAD OF"TiIo EFET SHALL RESULT, " " PI.A N · ,4tI q'~it4< / / ; I Jale N () T l,; Ox,. qO ,/ RECEIVED BY DATE drawing htle drawn by ~ date prnleCl drawing number A.1 waiter east design by: g'aipa landscaping, ma rion , n. y. SAL Planting Proposal for: C.d IOLA CONDOMINIUMS C.R. 48 SO UTHOLD, N.Y. JAN. 4, 1983 RECEIVED O0 9 ,$ ~TP OF "EAST WIND SHORES"- CONDOMINIUM REALTY SUBDIVISION IT A£SHAMOMOQUE ?OI4//V OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNT~, ~. ~ TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVE~ PREPARED FOR DAT~', MAR. IS, 1982 SCALE .' I" $0' S,~L CAIO£A AT ARSHAMOMAQUE TOWN OF SOUTHO£D SUF~ CO, , N.Y. o w "" CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1, X\ALL SEAMS IN THE VINYL LINER SHALL BE ,SEALE'P APPROVED TAPE OR ADHESIVE, ,2,: SLOTTEI] PIPE MAY BE PURCHASED FPOM ,,~'c ~[IPPLY.~ INC,, NOLBROOK. N,Y, OR ~A¥ INSTALLER, ~.3~ALL GRAVEL MUST ~E CLEAN, ~,ALL ELEVATIONS MUST BE SHALL RESULT, USING 'AN HQLBROQK PLASTIC BE FABRICATE~ BY THIE SUCH THAT A POSITIVE NEAll. OF TWO ,F~EET "I